Book Review: On the Reception of the Heterodox Into the Orthodox Church

Concerning Reception into the Orthodox Church: The Traditionalist Orthodox Effort to Find a Patristic Consensus

By Paul Rosenboom

By the grace of God, recent years have seen a flood of converts into the Orthodox Churches in the United States. As Roman Catholicism and traditional Protestant faiths descend ever further into liturgical chaos and spiritual confusion, and as western society increasingly resembles a decadent cultural Babylon, truth-seeking souls who hunger for the genuine faith of the historic apostolic tradition have found their way into various Orthodox Christian jurisdictions in America.  During my visits to churches and monasteries around the country, I am struck by the number of young convert families I meet.  On a recent visit to the oasis that is St. Anthony’s Monastery in the desert of Arizona, I was deeply moved by the many young families of converts that had come to the monastery to share in the liturgical cycle and receive from the elders words of life.  Some of the most flourishing and vibrant parishes around the country consist of  a vital blend of devout cradle Orthodox and these fervent converts, both young and old. However, it must be said, their inspiring return to the Orthodox Church has occurred in spite of us.  Honest self-examination compels us to admit that we, as Orthodox, often are not the light to the world we are called to be.

And yet, by God’s abundant Grace, thousands are discovering the Bride of Christ, the repository of the fullness of God’s Grace and Truth.  In a world indifferent to truth, or rather, convinced that every individual has his or her own truth, such hunger and committed search for authentic faith on the part of these converts is an inspiration.  Their heartfelt search is not for an abstract philosophical concept but a living, Divine, and transfiguring reality.  It is a hunger finding fulfillment in the incarnate Truth that is Christ and His Church. 

Given this inspired entrance of so many into the Orthodox Church, the question of the manner of reception has become of the utmost importance.  While the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), the most traditional-minded jurisdiction, has since 1971 affirmed baptism as the correct and appropriate rite of reception for all converts, including those from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, with the provision that the bishops may exercise economia (pastoral discretion), the other jurisdictions, including the Antiochian Archdiocese, OCA, and Greek Archdiocese have over the past decades settled on Chrismation and more rarely Confession of Faith as the rite of reception.  Moreover, recent decades have seen an evolving understanding of Chrismation among academic theologians and clergy from a rite of initiation based on the Church’s use of economia to one based on the recognition of ecclesial grace in the heterodox baptisms.  As a consequence, these jurisdictions actively prohibit baptism of converts from heterodox Christian faiths that baptize in the name of the Trinity.  In their view, it isn’t even a matter of economia but simply a recognition of grace in the heterodox baptism.  In opposition to this more recent practice, a significant number of clergy and laity have continued to advocate for the reaffirmation of the strictness-economy model and a smaller but fervent group argue for the return to baptism as the standard rite of reception for all converts.  The current practice of recognizing grace in the heterodox baptisms, these latter groups both argue, is an innovation motivated by a false ecumenism which in turn undermines the witness of the Church and the Church’s understanding of itself as the unique repository of the Grace-filled Mysteries. They raise a series of pertinent and compelling questions:  

Does the more recent practice of recognizing heterodox baptism as having ecclesial grace logically mean that the Orthodox Church is not the unique repository of salvific grace?  If Catholic baptism is the same as Orthodox baptism, then aren’t we saying the Latin Church must have priests who are able to celebrate baptism and by extension the rest of the mysteries as well?  Is baptism somehow no longer a priestly rite?  Does it imply that we also have one and the same Eucharist, one and the same priesthood?  By receiving baptism in a heretical church, doesn’t one unite oneself to THAT CHURCH?  Can a priest or a pastor who himself does not belong to the Church bring someone to Her?  Can baptism be Orthodox independent of the faith community celebrating it?  Wouldn’t this contradict the Apostle’s affirmation:  “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5)?   These traditionalists point to documents such as the notorious Balamand Agreement of 1993 and the misguided Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation of 1999, to argue that these un-Orthodox statements do indeed reflect the ecclesiological understanding of influential ecumenically-minded academic theologians and clergy.  

Transparency behooves me to disclose that as a former Catholic I was received into the Orthodox Church through baptism and have long advocated for baptism as the proper means of reception, consistent with the reasoning of Metropolitan Philaret and the Synod of ROCOR in 1971.  But what is the genuine position of the Church on this matter?  Is there a consensus to be found among the saints of the Church that reveals the Mind of the Church?  The steady influx of converts demands that we approach the question with an open mind and a commitment to the truth.   

It is into this confusion that Fr. Peter Heers’ Uncut Mountain Press has entered with its newest publication, On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church, to challenge the recent and questionable theological opinion around Chrismation with a 420 page book offering a close analysis of the historical circumstances and ecclesiological understanding underlying the varying methods of reception over the centuries. It aims to open up discussion, bring clarity to the issue and reveal the Mind of the Church as represented in the consensus of the Fathers and Saints of Orthodoxy.

Central to the discussion around the strictness-economia model is St. Basil’s much abused first canon that was later adopted by the Ecumenical Synods.  In this canon, the great Church Father distinguishes between three kinds of separation from the Church: heresy, schism and unlawful assembly.  According to the saint, by heresies the Fathers meant those who had broken off and estranged themselves from the faith itself; by schism, those who separated over ecclesiastical issues and matters capable of solution; and by unlawful assemblies,  gatherings under disorderly priests or bishops.  It is often interpreted that St. Basil refers to the Fathers as rejecting the baptism of heretics completely, but accepting that of schismatics, on the ground that the latter were still of the Church.  The key phrase in this canon - ek tis ecclesias - is routinely translated as “of the Church” suggesting schismatics are not broken off from the Church.  UMP challenges this common translation from a contextual and syntactic point of view.  A more acceptable translation, it is argued, would render the relevant passage “with the understanding that they formerly belonged to the Church,” as opposed to the more common “because they [the schismatics] still belong to the Church” [or “are still of the Church”].  So, the precise translation of the entire passage would be:  “So it seemed good to the ancient [Fathers] to reject the baptism of heretics altogether but to accept [baptism] of those who have gone into schism with the understanding that they formerly belonged to the Church.”   (86-87)  While substantively different in meaning from the more common translation, this version, UMP argues, is more consistent with the line of reasoning that follows within the same Canon and is also consistent with Basil’s 47th Canon.  

As examples of heretics who should be received by baptism on the grounds that their understanding of God is foreign to that of the Church, St. Basil cites the Manichaeans, the Valentinians, the Marcionites and the Montanists.   However, he also argues that the Novationists (Cathari or Puritans), the extreme rigorists who denied that lapsed Christians could be received back into the Church, although schismatics like the Encratites rather than heretics, should also be received by baptism.  He argues that the Cathari who initially separated from the Church had valid Orders, but lost the Grace of the Holy Spirit and became mere laymen on account of the seriousness of their error and the enduring separation.  It follows that some schismatics, according to St. Basil, like heretics, are deprived of the Grace of the Holy Mysteries.  Acknowledging that certain bishops in Asia Minor accepted the baptism of such schismatics, St. Basil contends that this is solely out of economia, so as not to deter their followers from returning to the Church. In this light, St.Basil’s ecclesiology is in agreement with SS Cyprian and Firmillian, that there are no true mysteries outside of the one true Church.  St. Basil, it seems, would himself require both heretics and schismatics (at least the ones mentioned) to be received by Baptism;  schism, in his view, it would seem, inevitably leads to a complete separation or breaking off from the Church.  In the end, given a corrected translation and a more consistent reading, St. Basil’s canon argues against rather than for the acceptance of contemporary Catholic and Protestant baptisms, especially in light of the centuries of separation and the ever-increasing number of essential dogmatic errors characterizing those bodies. 

The implications, says UMP,  are that ecumenically-minded academic theologians who argue that the strictness-economia model is a later 18th century invention of St. Nicodemus have consistently misread the canon or are reading into it a meaning that is simply not there.  It is easy for such a contentious issue to cause both parties to simply become entrenched and reactive but intellectual honesty and a spirit of loving dialogue committed to the truth should instead rule the day in the Orthodox Church.  It is incumbent upon us as brothers in Christ and members of the Church, seeking the truth in a Spirit of Truth, to approach this question with a humble heart and open mind and try to discern the consensus among the Fathers. The new convert to the Church surely deserves that.  

The chapter covering the third century dispute between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen describes the Pope’s acceptance of heterodox baptism as an innovation to which the Holy Fathers of the time and immediately thereafter responded. Extensive attention is given to the responses provided by SS Firmilian and Dionysios of Alexandria.  UMP, interestingly, suggests that Pope Stephen’s aggressive stance may have been an overreaction to the actions of Pope Callistus I of Rome who baptized a second time those who were already baptized in the Church but who had fallen into grievous sins. The authors point out that Pope Stephen is indeed venerated as a saint on account of his martyrdom, but they also argue that the Church did not adopt his teaching concerning baptism and the reception of the heterodox.  St. Cyprian, they affirm, was also glorified as a martyr but he is also honored in the hymnography of the Church precisely for his ecclesiology.  UMP further argues that the third Synod in Carthage was held to reject the decree of Pope Stephen and affirm the old custom of baptism. This local synod, they suggest, was purposely ratified by the Fifth-Sixth Ecumenical Synod as a statement of Orthodox and Apostolic ecclesiology. 

St. Augustine understandably receives extended treatment as he wrote more than any other Latin Father on the subject of baptism and ecclesiology.  UMP is in no way irreverent toward the great Latin Father but characterizes him as contradicting the Apostolic Canons and drawing incorrect analogies in his reasoning.  According to UMP, St. Augustine mistakenly reasons that if sinful priests within the Church serve genuine Mysteries, then heretics outside of the Church must have genuine Mysteries.  “By stating that the Mysteries belong to Christ and not to the Church, St. Augustine seems to separate the head (Christ) from his body (the Church).”  St. Nektarios and St. Hilarion Troitsky - who is featured prominently throughout the book -  are contrasted with St. Augustine in affirming that the “grace of the Holy Mysteries belongs only to the Church and to those priests and bishops who have received the authority from the Church to serve the Mysteries.”  St. Hilarion is quoted extensively with specific reference to St. Augustine. Interestingly, St. Augustine in other writings states clearly that the Holy Spirit does not work through the mysteries of those outside of the unity of the one Church.  He is quoted from Homily 21 as stating that there is no Holy Spirit and no remission of sins outside of the unity of the Church.  St. Augustine’s reasoning is presented by UMP as not only flawed but self-contradictory.  This section of the book might be especially relevant for Orthodox readers, as many are familiar with the oft cited article by Fr. Georges Florovsky on “The Limits of the Church,” in which the eminent theologian sides - tentatively, at least -  with the 5th century Latin Father.  Here, UMP draws upon the blessed Serbian Bishop Athanasios Jevtich’s critique of this early article by Father Georges.

Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo is also a standard reference for considering how the heterodox are to be received into the Church, and it is typically cited as providing three ways to be received into the Church:  Baptism, Chrismation and Confession of Faith.  Among those chrismated are the Arians, Macedonians and Apollinarians;  Chrismation does not seem to be prescribed for Nestorians and Monophysites (non-Chalcedonians); instead they are to submit written statements of faith and anathematize their errors.  With regard to this canon, UMP makes three distinct but related arguments:    

The first is syntactic. The common interpretation of the text is that Nestorians and Non-Chalcedonians are to be received only by confession of faith.  UMP suggests the text may be alternately read to mean that the names of Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus and Severus are to be added to the preceding list of heretics to be received by baptism.  This interpretation, argues UMP, is more consistent with the interpretation by the twelfth century canonist Theodore Balsamon and with Canon 7 of the 2nd Ecumnenical Synod. This syntactic argument made by UMP, in and of itself, may be less than convincing but the interpretation does seem to be supported by the 15th Canon of the Georgian Council of Ruissi-Urbnissi, convened in 1103 which states: … “for them [Armenians] we decree to be baptized in full, like pagans, for this is the way Great Churches, such as the Antiochian Patriarchate and other Eastern Churches accept them.”  Despite UMP’s suggestion, Canon 95 of Trullo nevertheless does seem to allow for the reception by economia - even Confession of Faith - of those baptized outside the Church. The Georgian Synod may instead simply illustrate changing practices over time as opposed to a specific connection to the Canon. 

Second, and this is a vital theme running through the book, UMP argues that nowhere is it explicitly argued or implied in the canons or synodal rulings that any of the sects have grace in their mysteries or “degrees of ecclesiality” as some contemporary theologians have maintained, even though they may be accepted only by Confession of Faith. That the Church regarded these groups as heretical is clear as the Canon calls both groups, Nestorians and Non-Chakcedomians, heretics and requires that they submit written statements of faith and anathematize their errors in order to be restored to Orthodoxy.  UMP emphasizes that when the Church receives someone through economia, the seal of the Holy Spirit endows the empty form of baptism with sanctifying Grace.  

Third, UMP argues that economy is not without limits;  heretics who are not baptized in the Apostolic manner (three immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity) are to be received by Baptism while those who practice triple immersion may be eligible by economia for Chrismation.  For example, Eunomans and Montanists were to be received by baptism since they did not maintain the outward form of baptism, whereas Arians, Macedonians and Novations were accepted by Chrismation. UMP again and again points out the many saints over the centuries who place great importance on the correct form of baptism.  However, St. Basil in his Canon 47 makes clear that even the proper form of baptism - triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity - alone is not sufficient should the understanding of God be essentially heretical.  

The Georgian Synod notwithstanding, UMP’s alternate reading of this Canon of Trullo seems something of a stretch.  Might Confession of Faith indeed be the intended rite as the Canon is so near to the time of the separation of the non-Chalcedonians from the Church.  Or perhaps it is the intended rite considering the preservation on their part of other aspects of Orthodox faith and liturgical customs and practices?  No other attempt is made to explain the use of Confession of Faith instead of Chrismation. In a footnote, UMP acknowledges that there were some ancient readings of Canon 95 that understood the Canon to only require documents of faith, such as Gregory the Great in a letter  to Bishop Quiricus.  UMP suggests that if this is indeed the case, this can be reconciled with Canon 1 of St. Basil the Great in that Nestorians and Non-Chalcedomians both baptize and anoint in the same way as the Orthodox Church and so neither form need repeating on reception.  However, UMP insists, this is not to say that they are still in any way “of the Church.”  

Current advocates for the contemporary use of Chrismation along with a prohibition on baptism often cite St.Mark of Ephesus’ encyclical to the faithful in 1444.  Here, the great defender of Orthodoxy calls for the Latins to be received by Chrismation.  Does this imply that the Catholics are still “of the Church”?  Should this be taken to mean that St. Mark viewed the Latin baptism as efficacious or grace-filled?  A closer study of the text  reveals that St. Mark in no way may be interpreted to mean as much.  He clearly affirms that the Latins are indeed heretics:  “We have cut them off and cast them out from the common Body of the Church…We have abandoned them as heretics and thus separated ourselves from them.”   He affirms that Chrismation is required because the Latins indeed are heretics. If St. Mark regarded the Latins as heretics in the 15th century, how much more justified is the rite of baptism for their reception today given the profound changes and innovations in the life of the Roman Church.  And nowhere does St. Mark argue against the prior practice of baptizing Latins. It is also noteworthy that the Latins had not at this time universally abandoned the practice of triple immersion and so the canonical presupposition for economy remained intact.  Moreover, this was a time wherein formerly Orthodox Latinizers likely were returning to the Church.  The subsequent Synod of 1484, although drawing upon St. Mark and calling for Chrismation of the Latins, clearly regards them as heretics since they are required to renounce their errors and be Chrismated.  

Much attention has also been given to the Moscow Synod of 1667 wherein Chrismation became the official means of reception with regard to the Latins.  However, UMP points out that the Synod in fact reversed what had been the normative practice of the Russian Church to receive Latins by baptism.  UMP gives extended attention to the intrigue and politicized atmosphere in the Russian Church during a time of western captivity which led to this deviation from the prior policy of baptism.  UMP argues that the decision to forbid the reception of Latins by baptism was due to the infiltration of Latin Scholasticism into Russian theology.  This chapter constitutes an illuminating analysis of this Western influence and is crucial in contextualizing the influence of this Synod.

Noteworthy also, according to UMP, is the Pan Orthodox nature of the 1755 decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to baptize all Latin converts which was co-signed by the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Jeruslaem and agreed to though not signed by the Antiochian Patriarchate who could not be present.  UMP also affirms that this Synod of 1755 was the first after the Ecumenical Synods to fully address the widespread departure of the Latins and Protestants from the Apostolic form of triple immersion baptism - a criterion for Chrismation according to UMP - after the 16th century Council of Trent.  

An essential argument made throughout the book, and one that must be squarely faced by those who recognize some degree of ecclesial grace in the heterodox baptism, is the witness of the Fathers regarding the boundaries of the Church and exclusivity of the mysteries of the Orthodox Church.   UMP has compiled an impressive list of quotes from the Fathers that present the reader with a compelling case for a consensus and consequently a witness to the Mind of the Church. There is an array of Fathers and saints, both early and modern, who express with clarity that the Holy Spirit is received in the One Holy Church, that those who depart from the unity of the Church do not have the Holy Spirit and cannot bestow the Holy Spirit on others through baptism, ordination nor the other mysteries.  Most impressive are the excerpts from works by more recent saints as they offer a contemporary witness that contrasts sharply with academic theologians of our day.  These saints include such giants as St. John of Kronstadt, St.Hilarion Troitsky,  St. John the Wonderworker of San Francisco, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Cleopa,  St. Nektarios, St. Porphyrios of Kafsokalyvia, and St. Paissios the Athonite.  To this list may be added the numerous learned elders of recent decades such as Fr. George Kapsanis of Gregoriou,  Fr. Athanasios Mitilinaios, Bishop Athanasius Jevtich of Serbia, and Fr. Seraphim Rose.  All of these have argued for the identification of the canonical with the charismatic boundaries of the Church.  Can the work of contemporary academic theologians, many of whom admittedly have served the Church with devotion and sacrifice, who have impressive worldly credentials and are versed in modern methodologies, can they override the witness of the saints whose theology was the fruit of their experience of communion with God, who progressed by means of ascetic struggle and often great suffering and persecution through the stages of purification, illumination and sanctification?  To whom should we look for an authentic witness to the Mind of the Church?

It is refreshing to see this compilation of the Fathers, specifically on the questions of the unity and mysteries of the Church, much of which is left out in the modern seminary, one would suspect, to further an ecumenical agenda.  My own experience at a prominent Orthodox seminary, while largely positive and beneficial, also revealed a great deal of confusion and misrepresentation around the issue of Orthodoxy’s relationship with the heterodox.  Among other troublesome points, prominent theologians teaching at this seminary viewed the Roman Catholics as still belonging to the Church. One well known theologian stated in a dogmatics class that different Christian churches have degrees of grace proportional to the degree of truth they preserved.  A seminarian vigorously argued for any baptism in the name of the Trinity, even celebrated by a non-Orthodox layman, as a baptism of the Church, to which no seminarian objected. Another professor suggested that the well known martyrdom of the monks at Zographou during the time of the Patriarch Bekkos probably never really occurred.  Prominent staff members supported the ecclesiology of the Balamand Agreement that espoused the theory of two lungs of the one body. The same professor suggested that Chrismation applied in the reception of converts might be liturgically different from Chrismation associated with Baptism. 

What saint or Father of the Church ever spoke like this?  Is it surprising that so many priests today, having been educated at these seminaries, find  UMP’s new book “extreme” or “fanatical” or “fundamentalist.”  Such descriptions do nothing to further the conversation.  UMP simply published a book posing a challenge to what it deems to be a threat to the ecclesiology of the Church and invited a broader conversation.  Why is there such fear and overreaction to the publication? The difference appears to be a matter not of nuanced theology but rather competing ecclesiologies. Nevertheless, let the conversation proceed in a Spirit of love for the Truth and Christ’s Church. Talk of censorship has no place in such a context.   

Of course, the controversy around the book is inextricably linked to one of the authors, the controversial Fr. Peter Heers, a leading voice in online Orthodoxy.  Countless Orthodox, young and old, have expressed their appreciation of his lectures and homilies and his effort  to discern the Mind of the Church in the writings and teachings of the saints.  As someone who views Fr. Peter on a more or less regular basis, I can’t help but think that so much of the criticism leveled against him is largely due to misconceptions, exaggerations and outright lies.  In my experience, Fr. Peter, as a rule, has been gracious and discerning in his response to participants’ questions.  He often warns of the dangers of both too liberal and too rigid an approach to ecclesiological and pastoral issues. I would urge those interested in this controversy, to  view his videos for themselves, especially his question and answer sessions.  Ultimately, we will have to give account for every word we use, especially those directed against priests and bishops, so it is incumbent upon us to avoid merely parroting things we've heard and participating in gossip or slander against priests.  We should approach the Fr.Peter Heers debate with the requisite sobriety and fear of God.  

This is not to say that there aren’t real substantive issues around Fr. Peter's online ministry.  He finds himself in the unusual predicament of a priest who, while  never having been disciplined or accused of any wrongdoing as a priest, is without a bishop and jurisdiction.  Whether this is simply the product of interjurisdictional bureaucratic entanglements or a widening view of Fr. Peter as “too hot to handle,” it is a problem that requires resolution as soon as possible.  He has stated numerous times that he is waiting for this to be sorted out and earnestly seeks a solution to the problem. At this point, he says, it is no longer in his hands.  The specific details of his current position may be found in a post by Craig Truglia who provides the chain of evidence that traces the events leading to Fr. Peter’s current status. See “The Ecclesiastical Standing of Father Peter Heers” at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com.

Recent comments and official statements by hierarchs, including two from ROCOR, have criticized Fr. Heers’ support in online interviews for “corrective baptism," an issue unaddressed in the book.  The term refers to the actions of those converts who, after they were received by Chrismation, decide they still want to be Baptized, sometimes many years later. This very controversy had already arisen years earlier within ROCOR and in connection with Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston (which later became schismatic). To raise questions in the minds of so many converts, however unintentional, as to whether they are fully Orthodox, and might need to be baptized after already being Orthodox for years, can indeed be problematic.  The blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose of ROCOR and Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas of the OCA were opponents of such efforts to correctively baptize  converts who had earlier been received by Chrismation. The tragedy here is that ROCOR essentially agrees with Fr. Peter on the question of Baptism as the proper way for converts to enter the Church.  This book may rightly be considered an extended analysis in support of ROCOR’s synodal ruling under the blessed Metropolitan Philaret, providing for it a solid historical, canonical and Patristic foundation.

This is not to say, in my view, that corrective baptism is in and of itself necessarily wrong. It does, after all, have Scriptural precedent in the Book of Acts with regard to Cornelius.  Rather, it should be left to the conscience of the individual convert and his or her bishop. Moreover, Fr. Peter’s public argument for corrective baptism provided his critics with a pretext for obscuring and dismissing the larger sound and thorough argument presented in the book for baptism as the standard for reception.  

Despite these issues, which are essentially unrelated to the book, On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria is an important and valuable contribution to a debate worthy of the Church’s attention.  Moreover, this discussion goes to the very heart of Orthodox Ecclesiology. Regrettably, the current broader social atmosphere of name calling and censorship, as well as the ugliness that typifies social media at large, seems to have intruded upon what should be a serious and open-minded discussion in the Church around this important topic.  The intransigent ecumenist may indeed be unreachable. Nevertheless, throughout my many interactions with different Orthodox from around the country, I’ve witnessed a growing desire to see this question resolved in a manner consistent with the Fathers of the Church and the Church’s ecclesiology.  May the Spirit of Truth illuminate our hearts and minds to engage in this conversation in a manner worthy of the name Christian. I pray this latest UMP publication will gain a wide audience.