Baptism and Reception of People into the Orthodox Church Pts 1 and 2

Baptism and Reception of People into the Orthodox Church - Part 1

 Should Protestants be re-baptised when they join the Orthodox Church?

 Is the Australian Antiochian Orthodox practise of chrismation of Protestants the correct
Orthodox tradition?

1. The Antochian Orthodox practice

On the Reception of Converts: Father Matthew Thurman (USA) writes:

”Often the whole question of how one is received into the Orthodox Faith in the Antiochian
Archdiocese is handled gets kicked around. Apparently, there is still confusion-both in the minds of
some laity and clergy alike-as to when it is appropriate to baptise a convert into the faith and when it
is appropriate to receive a convert by Chrismation only. To clarify what our Archdiocese's policy is, I
am reproducing the relevant text "Policy on Baptism of Converts" from our official Archdiocese
service book The Service for the Chrismation of Converts into the Orthodox Faith:

The Archdiocese policy is that of the long-standing policy of the Antiochian Patriarchate. That is, a
person seeking entry into the Holy Orthodox Church who:

1. has been previously baptized with water,

2. in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
3. in a religious body which professes Trinitarian doctrine, and
4. who can provide an authentic, official, and verifiable certificate of
said baptism,

is to be received, after a proper period of catechesis, confession of sins and a formal profession of
the Orthodox faith, by the Mystery of Chrismation. In cases of doubt, the priest must refer to the
Metropolitan.

Source: http://homepage.mac.com/gthurman/iblog/C735571802/E20060316223159/index.html
2. But is this just an Antiochian view? What about the Greek Orthodox view?

"Reception of Converts: Converts to our Faith, coming to us from the Roman Catholic Church and the
Protestant churches that baptize with a Trinitarian formula are received into our Church through the
Sacrament of Chrismation. They are not received through the Sacrament of Baptism. Any one that
receives such a convert through Baptism and not Chrismation will be immediately suspended and
brought to a Spiritual Court hearing. This is not a new policy or directive. No one has the authority or
right to arbitrarily
change this practice of our Church."

Excerpt from a May 19, 1997 "Memorandum" by Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh (Greek
Archdiocese) to his diocesan clergy.

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx

Also, the official Greek Orthodox website for North America says:

”After the period of instruction, there is a Service of Reception into the

Church. If you are converting from a non-Christian religion, you will make a
profession of Faith, be baptized and chrismated. If you are being received
from a Church which has a similarity of beliefs with Orthodoxy and you have
been properly baptized and confirmed, you will participate in a brief
Service of Anointing (Chrismation) which signifies reconciliation with the
Orthodox Church. The reception of Holy Communion is always seen as the
consummation of union with the Church.”

Source: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7073.asp

3. What about the Russian Church?

Fr. Alexander writes:

The most recent legislation prohibiting the re-baptism of those Protestants whose baptism is
performed by triple immersion in the name of the Holy Trinity was the decree of the Spiritual Council
of 1718.
Other decrees and directions later promulgated by Church authorities were based on the above two
decrees. These can systematically be given as follows:

The blessing [permission] of the diocesan hierarch is not required for each instance of uniting of
Roman Catholics, Armenians, Nestorians, Lutherans and Calvinists to the Orthodox Church. Only in
special situations and in the event of a mass conversion must the hierarch be notified in order to
obtain his blessing and instructions.

Joining the Orthodox Church is preceded by instruction and affirmation of the teachings of the
Orthodox Church, with the learning of certain prayers. Then the actual appropriate rite follows by
which the non-Orthodox person is received into the Church. Although the following is repetitious, we
feel that it is appropriate to reiterate the legislation of the Russian Church on this subject.

Non-Orthodox persons are received by one of three rites:

The third rite - repentance of previous errors, repudiation of those errors and a confession of the
Orthodox Faith. To be used for persons converting from the Roman Catholic faith and Armenians,
provided that the former have received confirmation from their bishop, and that the latter were
chrismated by their clergy. If they have not been confirmed or if there is any doubt as to whether
they were confirmed, they should be anointed with the Holy Chrism.

The second rite - repentance, repudiation of heresies, confession of the Orthodox Faith and
chrismation. To be used for the reception of Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans (Episcopalians).
Lutherans and Calvinists, because they do not have the sacrament of chrismation and do not have a
clergy with apostolic succession. Anglicans, because the apostolic succession of their clergy is
questionable, as was noted by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.

The first rite - baptism and chrismation. To be used for the reception of pagans, Jews, Muslims and
those sectarians that do not believe in the Holy Trinity nor perform a baptism by triple immersion in
the name of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

So, to return to the subject at hand, we repeat that the Patriarchate of Constantinople and its
Exarchates in America and in Europe have adopted that practice for the reception of non-Orthodox
to Orthodoxy, which the Greeks call "Russian," and effectively rejected the decision of the 1756
Council of Constantinople (which was motivated by intolerance) and the explanation in the Pedalion.

Thus, in the "Guide for the Orthodox in Connection with Contacts with the Non-Orthodox Churches,"
published in 1966 by the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America,
recommended for guidance by the clergy of our Orthodox Churches, the following rule is given:

"Upon the reception into the Orthodox Church of one who converts of his own will from non-
Orthodoxy, the priest receives the candidate by means of one of three rites, prescribed by the
Quinisext Ecumenical Council: by means of Baptism, Chrismation or the confession of faith,
depending on the case."

In the "Instructions for the Relations with Non-Orthodox Churches," published by the same
Conference in 1972, we read the same rule concerning the reception of the non-Orthodox into the
Orthodox Church, i.e., "Those non-Orthodox converting to Orthodoxy who were baptized in their
churches can be received without a repetition of baptism if such could be accepted by the Orthodox,
i.e., by means of chrismation or the confession of the Orthodox
Faith, according to the rite appropriate for the given situation."

This rite is found in the "Guidelines" of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America, pp. 53-55.

Source: http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

4. What about the historic traditions of the Church?

Archimandrite Ambrosius writes:

In contemporary times there are two distinct understandings of how to receive non-
Orthodox into the Orthodox Church.

The first method, which Greeks refer to as "Russian" consists of dividing non-Orthodox into three
categories for the purposes of conversion. In the first category, those who convert are baptized. In
the second, they are chrismated. In the third, they are received by the rite of repentance, a
repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. As has been demonstrated above, this
practice is based on the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, on the direct authority of St. Mark of
Ephesus, the Constantinople Council of 1484, the decisions of the Moscow Councils of 1655 and
especially of 1667, the decisions of the Holy Council of 1718 as well as later decisions and directives
of the Holy Ruling Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is true that there was a time in the
Russian Church when Roman Catholics (and Protestants) were received into Orthodoxy by means of
baptism, but throughout the thousand year history of the Russian Church this was only in effect for
45 to 47 years after which that practice of receiving all non-Orthodox without distinction was
condemned and repealed once and for all. As a result, three forms or rites were developed for
receiving non-Orthodox into the bosom of the Orthodox Church.

In the second method, any and all non-Orthodox are received by baptism followed by
chrismation. This was adopted by the Greeks at the Council of Constantinople in
1756 and is described in the Pedalion.

Not a single non-Greek Orthodox Church adopted this practice. Instead, the non-
Greek Orthodox Churches firmly adhering to that practice which is designated as
"Russian."
In recent times, the Patriarchate of Constantinople rescinded the use of the second
method and now receives non-Orthodox by means of the "Russian" rite.

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

5. Conclusion

The clearest conclusion is that the traditional Orthodox practice is to chrismate

Protestants rather than baptise them. This is the current practice of the Ecumenical
Patriachate and almost all Orthodox jurisdictions across the whole world. It is historic
traditional practice of the Orthodox Church. The minority of Orthodox who argue for
re-baptism are in fact innovating away from the tradition.

Metropolitan Paul’s statement is possibly the most fitting conclusion:

The acceptance of the converts unto our Antiochian Orthodoxy is the long-standing policy of the
Antiochian Patriarchate:

1. If he/she had previously been baptized with water

2. If the baptism was conducted in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
3. In a religious body which professes Trinitarian doctrine and
4. To provide an authentic, official and verifiable certificate of baptism.

is to be received, after a proper period of catechesis, confession of sins and a formal profession of
the Orthodox faith, by the Mystery of Chrismation. In cases of doubt, the priest must refer to the
Metropolitan.

6. Further details

Archimandrite Ambrosius and Fr. Alexander above mentioned a few points in the historic
development of views of baptism of Protestants and other non-Orthodox. There is a lot of complex
historical material which leads to the same conclusions as above. Even the most “pro-rebaptism”
authors concede that receiving genuine Christians by chrismation is the historical tradition. Most of
the debate is over the issue of validity of non-Orthodox baptism. See my Part 2 paper for further
details. Also for many more articles see: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_baptism.aspx

See Part 2 below…

Fr. John D’Alton

Baptism and Reception of People into the Orthodox Church Part 2

 (More historic and theological material flowing on from Part 1)
As Father Matthew Thurman (USA) writes “Often the whole question of how
one is received into the Orthodox Faith in the Antiochian Archdiocese is
handled gets kicked around. Apparently, there is still confusion-both in the
minds of some laity and clergy alike-as to when it is appropriate to baptise
a convert into the faith and when it is appropriate to receive a convert by
Chrismation only.”
This document contains a series of articles and links coming from the more strict end
of the Orthodox Church. I have chosen these articles because they even though they
are more “strict” they still point to the conclusions in Part 1. For those small minority
of Orthodox who would reject the Part 1 conclusions as too “liberal”, this document
should provide evidence that even very strict Orthodox still allow for “chrismation-
only” of Protestants.

Many other Orthodox leaders have a more “liberal” view, which still agrees with the
Part 1 conclusions. In reality this “liberal” view is the traditional view and also is the
mainstream view held by the numerically overwhelmingly largest part of the church.
For example see:

 http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm
 http://orthodoxwiki.org/Chrismation
 http://www.goarch.org/en/news/releases/articles/release9004.asp
 http://aggreen.net/guidelines/guide03.html
 http://www.scoba.us/resources/sac-economy.asp

Or, see Rev John H Erickson "The Reception of Non-Orthodox into the Orthodox
Church: Contemporary Practice," St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 41 (1997), 1-
17.
Or, see Ware, Timothy (Kallistos). The Orthodox Church. New York: Penguin, 1997.

Articles

1. The Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception of Converts (p2).
2. On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox
Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches (p9).
3. Bishop Tikhon’s instructions: Orthodox Church in America (p15).
4. Baptism and Grace by Fr. Gregory Telepneff, ThD (p21).
5. The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the
Church: An Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism by Patrick Barnes (p24).
1. The Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception of
Converts
by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

The canons which deal with the relation of bishops, and in general of all the
children of the Church, to those outside her, are the following: Apostolic, Nos. 10,
12, 45, 46 and 65; Conciliar, 1st Ecumenical, Nos. 8 and 19; 2nd Ecumenical, No.
7; 6th Ecumenical, No. 95; Laodicea, Nos. 7, 8 and 33; Carthage, Nos. 68 and 79;
and the Canonical Rules of St. Basil the Great, Nos. 1 and 47.

Among these some canons directly indicate by what rite which heretics and
schismatics should be received into the Church if they desire it and request it,
after renouncing their errors and confessing the Orthodox faith and their
acknowledgment of the true Church.

Naturally, these canons do not lessen the necessity of baptism by water for every
man, although it must not be forgotten that very ancient instances in the Church
give us examples of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the yet unbaptized, so
that the subsequent baptism had a supplementary and chiefly disciplinary
significance, as uniting them to the earthly Church of Christ.

"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard
the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many
as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of
the Holy Spirit; for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then
answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to
be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:44-48).

Of this same event the Apostle Peter recalls further: "And as I began to speak, the
Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us in the beginning. Then I remembered the word of
the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Spirit. For as much then as God gave them the like gift as
He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could
withstand God?" (Acts 11 :15-17).

Without dwelling further on the explanation of these utterances, we must, of

course, also notice that the descent of the Holy Spirit, referred to in the words of
the Acts which have been quoted, did not release the believers from the obligation
of baptism by water, and this obligation many who converted from heresy had to
fulfill in accordance with the 46th canon of the Holy Apostles, although they
already had heretical baptism.

Later Councils, however, clearly distinguish which heretics should he "cleansed by

true baptism" (95th canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council and 1st rule of Basil the
Great), and which should be received by the second mystery, and which by the
third mystery and be left in their existing orders. All this is set forth in detail in the
7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council; in the 95th canon of the 6th Ecumenical
Council; in the 1st rule of Basil the Great, and others.
However, they all issue from the same idea which lies behind the 68th canon of
the Carthagenian Council, namely, that heretics and schismatics are without
grace, which is only received by them on being united to the Church: there can be
no half-grace, in spite of the Latin opinion. If we compare this thesis with other
canons of the Councils, we shall see that it entirely agrees with them.

For this we need note the following characteristics of conciliar legislation on this
subject:

1. These canons were changed a) according to time, and b) according to

locality.

2. Their strictness or relaxation depended not so much on the character of

the heresy or schism, as on the varying relationship of the heretics or
schismatics to the Church; and they varied in one direction or the other,
according to changes in this relationship of the schismatics to the Church.

3. Sometimes the Ecumenical authorities declared their decisions not to be

final, and sometimes even deferred their decisions while awaiting new
Church Councils.

Let us turn first to the second point.

The Carthagenian Council, in its 79th canon, decided: "To send letters to our
brethren and fellow bishops, and especially to the apostolic throne in which our
revered brother and fellow-minister Anastasius presides, to the effect that by
reason of the great need in Africa, which is known to him, for the sake of peace
and for the good of the Church, even Donatist clergy should be received in their
sacerdotal orders if they correct their disposition and desire to come to universal
unity, in accord with the judgment and will of each bishop ruling the Church in that
place, if this will prove beneficial to the peace of Christians. It is well known that in
former times also this schism was so treated witness to which fact may be found
in instances from many Churches and from almost all the African Churches in
which this error arose."

So we see here an instance of the application of the principle that has already
been pointed out. The manner of admitting the various apostates depends not so
much on the quality of the heresy, as on the spiritual disposition of the candidate,
and on the expected benefit to the holy Church.

In this connection it is especially important to master the significance of the 1st

canonical rule of St. Basil the Great.

"The Cathari are of the number of the schismatics. Nevertheless, those of old,
such as Cyprian and our own Firmilian, were pleased to include them all under
one and the same regulation: Cathari, Enkratites, Hydroparastatites and
Apotactites.

"For although the beginning of the apostasy arose through schism, yet those who
fell away from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit. For the
power of imparting grace disappeared because the lawful succession was cut off.
For those who first fell away had received consecration from the fathers, and
through the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gift. But when they fell away,
becoming laymen, they had power neither to baptize, nor to lay on hands, and
could not confer on others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they
themselves had fallen away. Therefore, those who came from them to the Church,
being considered to have received baptism from laymen, were of old commanded
to be cleansed anew by true ecclesiastical baptism."

It is clear that by this regulation the Church does not recognize in heretics and
schismatics either the priesthood or the other mysteries, and considers them
subject to ecclesiastical baptism in the nature of things. However, in this rule of St.
Basil, she admits the possibility of yet another manner of receiving them. This is
what we read further:

"But inasmuch as some in Asia have been resolutely desirous, for the sake of the
edification of many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted." St. Basil writes
further: "The baptism of the Enkratites should be rejected and such, coming to the
Church, should be baptized, but if this should be detrimental to the general well-
being, then the usual custom should be adhered to, and the example of the
fathers, who-judiciously arranged our affairs, should be followed. For I fear lest in
desiring to keep them from hasty baptism we should hinder those seeking
salvation, by the severity of postponement."

Now let us attempt to generalize all these indications given at various times and
reconcile them with apparent exceptions and relaxations.

Every mystery has two sides—the visible and the invisible. The second is
administered only within the true Church by faith and sincere prayer, according to
the words of the Apostle Peter: "The like figure whereunto even baptism cloth also
now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 3:21).
And the same thought is found also in the teaching of St. John Damascene. For
those who are baptized without faith "the water remains water" only. Heretics and
schismatics, having the visible side of baptism, chrismation and holy orders, are
entirely devoid of those gifts of grace which are bound up with these mysteries for
believers within the true Church. Therefore, certain of them, for the alleviation of
the rupture in their spiritual life and for "the edification of many," are permitted to
enter the Church without the visible side of the mysteries of baptism or holy orders
(that is, by the second or third rite), but through the operation of another
sacramental act in which they receive the grace of baptism, chrismation and holy
orders. (For example, for Roman Catholics, Nestorians and Donatists.)

Many are troubled by this question: Is it then possible to replace one mystery with
another? But we, that is, not we, but the canons quoted above, are evidently
founded on the words of the Gospel: "God giveth not the Spirit by measure" (Jn.
3:34). Or, in other words, those among heretics, whether clerical or lay, baptized
and anointed (with chrism) by heretics, had only the empty sign (or outward form)
of the mystery, and it receives the complement of grace only through that mystery
which unites them with the holy Church (chrismation or penance). Moreover, in
confirmation of this principle, should be added the custom, established in the
Church, that the reception of heretics and schismatics, "in their existing orders,"
may be performed only by a bishop; if a priest receive them, then they enter the
Church as simple laymen. This means that a schismatic priest united to the
Church receives true priesthood only through episcopal reception; but a priest
cannot bestow this grace on the one received. It is only on such a conception of
the mysteries of the Church that her regulations as to the applicability to heretics
and schismatics of one or the other rite of reception can be accepted; only on
such a conception can the decisions of the holy apostles about the baptism of
heretics and schismatics be reconciled with the further canons of the Councils
about not baptizing them, and about their reception by the second, or even by the
third rite. And therefore it is futile for Roman Catholic theologians to blame the
Orthodox for such diversity in practice.

As a condition of their reception in their existing orders, the existence among

schismatics, before their conversion to the Church, of hierarchical succession, is
usually insisted upon; but from the canonical rule of Basil the Great already
quoted, we see that no schismatics have any succession and cannot have any; a
hierarchy falling away from the Church "become laymen and cannot confer the
grace of the Holy Spirit, of which they are themselves devoid." Therefore, in
judging of one or the other rite of reception, the question of schismatical
succession is in any case secondary if not quite irrelevant.

Besides the canons of the Councils already quoted, and those of the holy Fathers,
we may refer to the words (also already quoted) of St. Basil the Great, that each
Church should keep the customs established by her, and be guided by
considerations of benefit to the Church, and the changing disposition of heretics
(for the better or the worse). Thus special consideration was shown to the
Nestorians, although their heresy was recognized as one of the worst, for it
divided the One Mediator (I Tim.2:5) into two persons and refused to entitle the
most holy Virgin, Mother of God. But by the time of the promulgation of the canon
they had forsaken their fanaticism and sought reunion with the true Church. That
is why local Churches now increased and now relaxed strictness in the manner of
reception.

Thus under the Patriarch Philaret, in 1620, the Latins were reunited though
baptism by water, like the heathen, because then, that is at the time of the
introduction of the Unia, a very seductive propaganda was carried on by them, but
when the Russian Tsar annexed Little Russia (1653) and the next year carried out
a victorious expedition into Lithuania, and many Uniates began to ask to return to
Orthodoxy, the Council of 1667, in spite of all its severity towards deserters from
the Church, decreed the reception of Roman Catholics by the third rite. Under the
Turkish yoke the holy Church was in a different position. There heresy and schism
were stronger, just at the time when among Russians they were weaker, and
therefore the practice of the Eastern Churches took a different direction from that
of the Russian Church: when our forefathers baptized the Latins, the Greeks only
anointed them with chrism, and when we were already keeping the regulation of
1667 and admitting them by the third rite, the Greeks in the Council of 1754, in
which all the four Eastern Patriarchs took part, were decreeing the rebaptism of
Latins and Protestants. (They have only of late revoked this decree, and that
without a new conciliar decision, thereby yielding to the principle of opportunism.)
Another opinion is held by the estimable Russian Old Believers, whom I have
always regarded with special respect and sympathy, although they consider us
Orthodox "heretics of the second rite," and receive those entering their community
by chrismation, even bishops. (The last such case took place in Russia in 1925,
and the first in Rumania in 1846, when they received Arsenius, the first Greek
bishop to join their community.)

Apparently the Old Believers are imbued with Latin views on this question. For
though the warmest opponents of the Latin heresy, of which they, as well as our
other forefathers as far back as the seventeenth century, wrote: "of all the
heresies the Latin is the most terrible," yet, by a misunderstanding they
assimilated the doctrine of the mysteries according to the Greater and Lesser
Catechisms of the seventeenth century, which only by a misapprehension are
called Orthodox, and which set forth (in the section on the mysteries and on the
Atonement) purely Latin doctrine. However, as books in "the ancient printing,"
they are held by the Old Believers to be infallible. In reality these books, like the
majority of the Greek and Slavonic books of that and the preceding epochs, were
paraphrased from Latin books, only with the exclusion of such Latin errors as
were exposed by the Patriarch Photius in his Encyclical Epistle of the ninth
century. This is why, like the Latins, our Old Believers have declared that the
Nikonites (that is we) are "heretics of the second rite," and anoint with oil (they
have no holy chrism), not only the laity who come to them, but also bishops and
priests; at the same time receiving them in their orders—a matter for tears and
laughter. Like them the Latin theologians also—those dull scholastics—make it an
accusation against the Orthodox that they have changed the rite of the reception
of schismatics and heretics at various times and places, which indeed is fully
agreeable with the meaning of the canons and with ancient ecclesiastical practice.
A mystery is not simply an opus operatum, but a pouring out of the grace of God
preserved in the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.

Does this practice agree with our teaching about the Church and about grace, or
with the Latin teaching and its understanding of sacraments, opere operato, as
giving great grace to the faithful and a certain half-grace to heretics and
schismatics? The latter is denied by the 68th canon of the Carthagenian Council,
which declares that in the true Church alone are the mysteries administered, for
she "is the dove, the one mother of Christians, in which all mysteries, eternal and
life-giving, are received to salvation; but by those remaining in heresy are
received to great condemnation and punishment. That which in the truth would
enlighten and assist them towards eternal life, in error becomes to them the more
blinding and the greater condemnation."

From this canon it is seen that heretics and schismatics have no grace whatever;
it does not exist outside the one Church of Christ. And if in the same canon,
immediately before the words quoted, it is said that those heretics, on
anathematizing their former errors, "are received into the Church by the laying on
of hands," then it is clear that they obtain freedom from the ancestral sin, that is,
from the taint of sin, precisely through this laying on of hands. That is to say, in
this second mystery, the first is given to them also, namely, the grace of baptism.
Mechanical or purely formal understanding of the mysteries and the Church leads
even educated people into the most foolish beliefs, superstitions and actions.
Thus, devotion to the faith, though worthy of all respect, under the slavery of
Western scholasticism was the cause of the following amusing episode:

In the eighties of the last century a Greek bishop, a speculative person (probably
Bishop Lycurgus, but perhaps I am mistaken in the name), visited England.
Certain English priests, doubting the validity of their orders (that means also of
their Church?) asked him to reordain them, and this the traveler performed, of
course for filthy lucre's sake (Titus 1:1 1). But withal, remembering the canonical
rule that bishops may not officiate in a strange diocese without the consent of the
local ecclesiastical authority, they set forth with the said bishop to the open sea,
and there on the vessel received "ordination" from him, still remaining afterwards
clergymen of the Church of England. In this way, while straining at a gnat, they
swallowed a camel, for it is clear that if the Greek Church is the one true Church,
then after entering it it is impossible to remain Anglican; and while remaining
Anglican it is impossible to receive ordination from a bishop of the Greek Church,
which is as yet alien from Anglicanism.

Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined along the following

lines:

There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to which the person to be

received has belonged; 2) baptism by a regular rite (that is by threefold immersion
in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).

When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not repeated. And if his
community had that mystery which we call chrismation (or myrrh anointing), the
candidate for union with Orthodoxy is received into the Church by the third rite,
that is by the mystery of penance only. We proceed thus with Latins, Armenians
and Nestorians; this is in accordance with Canon g5 of the 6th Ecumenical
Council and others. Such reception is called "the third rite," and "in existing
orders," that is, if the candidate be a cleric, then he remains such in Orthodoxy
after his reception. Does it follow from this that the Church recognizes as means
of grace and valid mysteries the baptism, chrismation and orders which the
candidate received while yet outside the Church?

Contemporary practice, inherited from Latin teaching on the sacraments and

practiced by them long before their secession from the Church (as is seen, for
example, by reference to 47th rule of St. Basil the Great), is evidently founded on
the view that heretics and schismatics have something like grace, some kind of
half-grace.

Not without some foundation the Old Believers put to me, while I was still in
Russia, this problem. If you consider all heretics and schismatics to be as devoid
of grace as the heathen, why cannot you receive in his existing rank a baptized
Jewish rabbi, or even a Lutheran pastor?

I answered thus: first, they themselves do not desire it; and secondly and chiefly,
they had not even the visible side of those mysteries which goes with the
bestowal of invisible grace in the Church—at least in the interest of Church
discipline, and perhaps also for other reasons.

The conditional nature of this aspect of the matter is so great that the holy
Fathers, the canonists, left some questions (of a liturgical character) in an
undecided state for a time. Thus St. Basil the Great leaves many details regarding
the manner of receiving schismatics and heretics into the Church, without definite
decision, and, while fully recognizing the lawfulness of various attitudes towards
them in different Churches, leaves open certain questions to be decided by new
Councils and more definite opinions of ecclesiastical authorities (Rule 1).

We have already seen that the 79th canon of the Carthagenian Council decrees
the reception of Donatist bishops in their existing orders, "according to the
judgment and will of each bishop ruling the Church in that place; if this should
prove to further the peace of Christians."

Therefore, reception into the Orthodox Church, 1) is dependent on the pastoral

discretion of the local bishop, and 2) this discretion is conditioned by the general
good of the Church.

We may now add that the same canon establishes our manner of reception in
comparison with that of the Church of Rome and others. The same 79 th canon
says further: "This is done, not in violation of the decisions of the Council held on
this subject in lands beyond the sea, but for the good of those who desire to enter
the Catholic Church on these terms, and in order that no barriers might be set up
against their union with the Church."

Such decisions of the Church would be quite impossible if the mode of reception
were conditioned by the same dogmatic point of view from which each mystery is
regarded by the Latins and contemporary Russian theologians, namely, that strict
differentiation of the grace of the mysteries which is rooted in our own theological
schools.

Even Basil the Great, dogmatic as he is in defense of ecclesiastical authority in

the same classical first rule regarding the manner of receiving the Cathari,
expresses himself quite conditionally and hypothetically, and admits both
practices. About the Enkratites he expresses himself thus: "In as much as nothing
has been clearly declared about them, it were seemly for us to repudiate their
baptism, if this not be detrimental to the general well-being."

Continuing, St. Basil still further mitigates his pronouncement, and after decreeing
their reception by chrismation he adds, "I am aware, moreover, that the brethren
Zoin and Satorin, who belonged to their community, were received as bishops
(that is by the third rite). And therefore those who belong to their community
cannot now be estranged from the Church by severity of judgment after we have
established a certain manner of reception in admitting their bishops."

From the point of view we have presented, all this is reasonable and consistent,
but from the Latin scholastic point of view quite impossible. Thus the adoption of
one or the other mode of reception for those of other confessions who enter the
 Church (that is, heretics or schismatics) depends on ecclesiastical economy, on
the judgment of the local bishops and the Councils, and on the existence of the
outward form of the mysteries of baptism, chrismation and orders in the
communities from which the applicants come.

Reprinted with permission from Orthodox Life, vol. 30, no. 4, July-August 1980, pp. 27-35. The following note appeared at the
end: "The above article appeared originally in the journal The Christian East (Vol. VIII, 1927, pp. 60-69) under the title "Why
Anglican Clergy could be Received in their Orders" and is presented here in a slightly abridged form."

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/khrap_econ.aspx?print=ok

2. On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the

Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches
By Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)
Originally published in Russian in Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya
(Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement)
Paris-New York-Moscow, Nos. 173 (I-1996) and 174 (II-1996/I-1997).

Translated with permission of the author by Alvian N. Smirensky

Translation Copyright © 2000 Alvian N. Smirensky. All Rights Reserved. Publication Copyright © 2000. All Rights Reserved .

How the question of receiving non-Orthodox is resolved by the Orthodox Churches in

the United States and Canada.

Decisions on this question and some conclusions.

In contemporary times there are two distinct understandings of how to receive non-
Orthodox into the Orthodox Church.

The first method, which Greeks refer to as "Russian" consists of dividing non-Orthodox into three
categories for the purposes of conversion. In the first category, those who convert are baptized. In
the second, they are chrismated. In the third, they are received by the rite of repentance, a
repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. As has been demonstrated above, this
practice is based on the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, on the direct authority of St. Mark of
Ephesus, the Constantinople Council of 1484, the decisions of the Moscow Councils of 1655 and
especially of 1667, the decisions of the Holy Council of 1718 as well as later decisions and directives
of the Holy Ruling Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is true that there was a time in the
Russian Church when Roman Catholics (and Protestants) were received into Orthodoxy by means of
baptism, but throughout the thousand year history of the Russian Church this was only in effect for
45 to 47 years after which that practice of receiving all non-Orthodox without distinction was
condemned and repealed once and for all. As a result, three forms or rites were developed for
receiving non-Orthodox into the bosom of the Orthodox Church.
In the second method, any and all non-Orthodox are received by baptism followed by
chrismation. This was adopted by the Greeks at the Council of Constantinople in
1756 and is described in the Pedalion.

Not a single non-Greek Orthodox Church adopted this practice. Instead, the non-
Greek Orthodox Churches firmly adhering to that practice, which is designated as
"Russian."

In recent times, the Patriarchate of Constantinople rescinded the use of the second
method and now receives non-Orthodox by means of the "Russian" rite.

All of the Greek Old Calendarist jursidictions (of which there are at least seven), both
in the United States and in Greece, adhere to the "Greek" rite for the reception of
non-Orthodox into Orthodoxy, i.e., exclusively by means of baptism as this was
decreed by the 1756 Council in Constantinople. This "Greek" practice, with certain
modifications, and the turning away from the "Russian" practice, recently became the
rule for the Russian Church Abroad, according to the decision of the Council of
Bishops on September 15/28 1971. The complete text of that decision will be given
at the end of this chapter.

The Orthodox Church in America (the former "American Metropolia"), founded by

Russian missionaries and later forming a diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church
with its center first in San Francisco and then in New York, and which for a time had
as her diocesan bishop the future [Saint] Patriarch Tikhon, inherited the traditions of
the Russian Church with respect to the rite for the reception of the non-Orthodox
converting to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church in America receives non-
Orthodox by three rites:

1. Those converting from Judaism, paganism, and Islam, as well as those who distort or do not
accept the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or where the baptism is performed by a single
immersion, by means of baptism.
2. Those whose baptism was valid but who either do not have sacrament of chrismation or who
lack a hierarchy with apostolic succession (or if it is questionable), by means of chrismation.
This group includes Lutherans, Calvinists and Episcopalians (Anglicans).

3. Those whose hierarchy has apostolic succession and whose baptism and chrismation (or
confirmation) was performed in their church, by means of repentance and repudiation of
heresy, following instruction in Orthodoxy. This group includes persons of the Roman Catholic
and Armenian confessions. If it happens that they were not chrismated or confirmed in their
churches or if there is any question about this, they are anointed with the Holy Chrism.

Exactly the same rules are found in all the non-Greek Orthodox Churches in America
and Canada.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople itself has radically moved away from the spirit
which motivated the decisions of the 1756 Council in Constantinople. In its "Circular
Epistle to all Christian Churches" in 1920 the Synod of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople appealed to all Christian Churches with a proposal to do everything
to set aside the mutual mistrust between the churches. Instead, the feelings of love
must be regenerated and it must be intensified so the churches would not look upon
each other as strangers or even as enemies, but would see in each other their own
kin and friends in Christ. The epistle proposes that there would be mutual respect for
the customs and practices which are particular to each of the churches which are
graced by Christ’s holy name, no longer forgetting and not ignoring His "new
commandment", that great commandment of mutual love.[96]

During the last session of the Second Vatican Council at the end of December 1965
there was an announcement by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Roman
Pope and the Second Vatican Council about the mutual lifting of the anathemas
which were "exchanged" between the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church
during that tragic year of 1054, the year of the great division of Churches.[97]

In the chapter "On Ecumenism" in the collected documents and decrees of the
Second Vatican Council, the Orthodox Church is spoken of with exceptional warmth.
As one who was present at the Second Vatican Council in the capacity of an official
observer from the Russian Church Abroad, I can be a witness to the exceptionally
cordial and attentive relations towards all of the observers from the Orthodox
Churches on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. To be sure, how firm those
relations were, remains under question.

Following the Second Vatican Council an agreement was worked out between the
Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Church that, in the case of extreme need
and in the complete absence of their clergy, members of the Roman Church could
receive the Holy Mysteries in Russian Churches and likewise, the Orthodox in
Roman Catholic Churches.[98] We have no knowledge whether this agreement was
realized in practice or whether it only remains on paper. Not a single Orthodox
Church, with the exception of the Russian Church Abroad, reproached the Patriarch
of Moscow for this decision which was called forth by the terrible times and
persecutions of Christians under godless regimes.[99] Nonetheless this decision has
not been rescinded even now, and the recently printed catechism of the Roman
Church published with the blessing of Pope John Paul II speaks of the full
recognition of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church. However, there is no doubt
that as the result of the proselytism among the traditionally Orthodox population —
by Roman Catholics and by Protestants — to which the Orthodox Church reacts with
great distress, as well as on the repression against the Orthodox in Western Ukraine
and even in Poland — there is no longer that warmth and cordiality towards the
Orthodox as there was during the Second Vatican Council and for some time
afterwards. However, the incisive question today is this: Has there been any change
in the practice of the Roman Catholic or Lutheran Churches with respect to their
sacrament of baptism? And the answer is this: Nothing has changed. Thus, our
Churches (with the exception of the Russian Church Abroad), recognize the
sacrament of baptism performed by Roman Catholics and Lutherans as valid.

So, to return to the subject at hand, we repeat that the Patriarchate of

Constantinople and its Exarchates in America and in Europe have adopted that
practice for the reception of non-Orthodox to Orthodoxy, which the Greeks call
"Russian," and effectively rejected the decision of the 1756 Council of
Constantinople (which was motivated by intolerance) and the explanation in the
Pedalion.
Thus, in the "Guide for the Orthodox in Connection with Contacts with the Non-
Orthodox Churches," published in 1966 by the Standing Conference of Canonical
Orthodox Bishops in America, recommended for guidance by the clergy of our
Orthodox Churches, the following rule is given:

"Upon the reception into the Orthodox Church of one who converts of
his own will from non-Orthodoxy, the priest receives the candidate by
means of one of three rites, prescribed by the Quinisext Ecumenical
Council: by means of Baptism, Chrismation or the confession of faith,
depending on the case."[100]

In the "Instructions for the Relations with Non-Orthodox Churches," published by the
same Conference in 1972, we read the same rule concerning the reception of the
non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church, i.e., "Those non-Orthodox converting to
Orthodoxy who were baptized in their churches can be received without a repetition
of baptism if such could be accepted by the Orthodox, i.e., by means of chrismation
or the confession of the Orthodox Faith, according to the rite appropriate for the
given situation."[101]

This rite is found in the "Guidelines" of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America,
pp. 53-55. Or one can use that rite, which was printed in Russia and is found in the
Book of Needs: "The Office for Receiving into the Orthodox Faith such persons as
have not previously been Orthodox, but have been reared from infancy outside the
Orthodox Church, yet have received valid baptism in the name of the Father, and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This rite has been translated into English and can be
found in the book published with the blessing of the [Saint] Most Holy Patriarch
Tikhon: Isabel Florence Hapgood, "Orthodox Service Book," 1954 ed., p. 454ff.

We see from Church history that it was the lot of the dissident sects such as
Novatians, Montanists and Donatists to re-baptize those converting to them.
Considering themselves "pure" and "better" and seeing themselves as the only ones
who will be saved, they abhorred everyone else. They could have earned respect
because of their high moral demands, but pride did them in. They cut themselves
from the main body of the Church where life and grace did abide, and thus
completely died out within a short period of time. "The Lord resists the proud, but He
gives grace to the humble" (Prov. 3:34 LXX). Even in Russia, certain dissidents,
especially the Priestless Old Ritualists, likewise performed re-baptism on the
Orthodox if they converted to them. The humble, kind, compassionate, benevolent
and condescending Orthodox Church possessed and possesses and will continue to
possess Grace and along with it, the vitality and the strength to be magnanimous.
That re-baptism, which the heretics and the dissidents performed upon the Orthodox,
harbored within it their inner weakness. The strong and righteous is not afraid to be
magnanimous, but the weak and unrighteous cannot permit this for himself. As we
have seen, in ancient times (particularly in the Third century) and within the Orthodox
Church there have been tendencies to re-baptize dissidents who convert to the
Orthodox Church. But the Church decisively opposed this, forbidding, with her
canons, the re-baptism of those who were validly baptized in the name of the Holy
Trinity. The Ecumenical Councils, the Second and especially the Sixth, directed by
their decisions, who should be received into Orthodoxy by means of baptism, who —
by means of chrismation and who — by means of repentance, the repudiation of
heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. By this it piously maintained the rule
about the non-repetition of a valid baptism even if it was performed outside the
Orthodox Church. In Russia, as we have later seen, for a short time it was decreed
to receive all non-Orthodox by means of baptism. But this "re-baptism" called for by
the horrors of those times was as something erroneous quickly rescinded once and
for all by the councils and decrees of the Holy Russian Church. Finally, as we have
seen the patriarchate of Constantinople factually rejected that radical decree about
the re-baptism all non-Orthodox converting to Orthodoxy, pronounced by the 1756
Council in Constantinople.

Each of the Orthodox Church’s mysteries has a dogmatic side. Forms may change
and the canons may be amended, but their dogmatic aspects remains immutable,
For example, the forms of the Divine Liturgy changed during the course of centuries,
but the dogmatic essence of the Divine Liturgy remained and remains without
change namely, that under the appearance of bread and wine we receive the True
Body and Blood of Christ, which change takes place through the sacred action of the
bishop or the priest. Thus, in the mystery of baptism its dogmatic foundation, its
substance is that it is performed by triple immersion (or by its equivalent)[102]
pronouncing each of the Persons of the Divine Trinity, individually, and then — in the
non-repetition of this mystery, since it was the spiritual birth of the Christian into
eternal life in Christ. Just as our birth in the flesh occurs only once, so does our
spiritual birth occurs only once in the mystery of baptism. This non-repetition of valid
baptism, as a dogma, is sealed for all times in the Symbol of Faith: "I believe . . . in
one Baptism." Even if the baptism was performed in a non-Orthodox church, but in
the same form as it is performed among the Orthodox, it is accepted, according to
the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.[103] The Blessed Augustine wrote that the
sacrament of baptism was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and even the
perversion (perversitas) of the heretics does not deprive that sacrament of its
veracity and validity. Thus it follows that re-baptism violates the dogmatic principle of
the non-repetition of baptism.[104]

In September 1971, the Russian Church Abroad, rejecting the "Russian" practice for
the reception of non-Orthodox, adopted the "Greek" practice, i.e., the practice
followed by the Greek Old Calendarists, based on the decisions of the 1765 Council
in Constantinople, decreeing that all non-Orthodox Christians converting to the
Orthodox Faith must be received exclusively by means of baptism permitting only
"for reasons of necessity" their reception by another rite, but only with permission
from the diocesan hierarch.

This decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad of 15/28
September 1971 reads:[105]

"On the question of the baptism of heretics who accept Orthodoxy, the
following decree was adopted: The Holy Church has believed from time
immemorial that there can be only one true baptism, namely that which
is performed in her bosom: ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ (Eph.
4:5) In the Symbol of Faith there is also confessed ‘one baptism,’ and
the 46th Canon of the Holy Apostles directs: ‘A bishop or a presbyter
who has accepted (i.e., acknowledges) the baptism or the sacrifice of
heretics, we command to be deposed.’
"However when the zeal of some heretics in their struggle against the
Church diminished and when the question arose about a massive
conversion to Orthodoxy, the Church, to facilitate their conversion,
received them into her bosom by another rite. St Basil the Great in his
First Canon, which was included in the canons of the Sixth Ecumenical
Council, points to the existence of different practices for receiving
heretics in different lands. He explains that any separation from the
Church deprives one of grace and writes about the dissidents: ‘Even
though the departure began through schism, however, those departing
from the Church already lacked the grace of the Holy Spirit. The
granting of grace has ceased because the lawful succession has been
cut. Those who left first were consecrated by the Fathers and through
the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gifts. But, they became
laymen and had no power to baptize nor to ordain and could not
transmit to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they
themselves fell away. Therefore, the ancients ruled regarding those
that were coming from schismatics to the Church as having been
baptized by laymen, to be cleansed by the true baptism of the Church.’
However, ‘for the edification of many’ St. Basil does not object to other
rites for receiving the dissident Cathars in Asia. About the Encratites he
writes, that ‘this could be a hindrance to the general good order’ and a
different rite could be used, explaining this: ‘But I am afraid of putting
an impediment to the saved, while I would raise fears in them
concerning their baptism.’

"Thus, St Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council,
while establishing the principle that outside the Holy Orthodox Church
there is no valid baptism, allows through pastoral condescension,
called economy, the reception of some heretics and dissidents without
a new baptism. On the basis of this principle the Ecumenical Councils
allowed the reception of heretics by different rites, in response to the
weakening of their hostility against the Orthodox Church.

"The Kormchaya Kniga gives an explanation for this by Timothy of

Alexandria. On the question ‘Why do we not baptize heretics
converting to the Catholic Church?’ his response is: ‘If this were so, a
person would not quickly turn from heresy, not wanting to be shamed
by receiving baptism (i.e., second baptism). However, the Holy Spirit
would come through the laying on of hands and the prayer of the
presbyter, as is witnessed in the Acts of the Apostles.’

"With regard to Roman Catholics and those Protestants who claim to

have preserved baptism as a sacrament (for example, the Lutherans).
In Russia since the time of Peter I the practice was introduced of
receiving them without baptism, through a renunciation of heresy and
the chrismation of Protestants and unconfirmed Catholics. Before
Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece, the practice has
also varied, but after almost 300 years after a certain interruption, the
practice of baptizing converts from Catholicism and Protestantism was
reintroduced. Those received by any other way have (sometimes) not
 been recognized in Greece as Orthodox. In many cases such children
of our Russian Church were not even admitted to Holy Communion.

"Having in view this circumstance and also the current growth of the
ecumenist heresy, which attempts to completely erase any difference
between Orthodoxy and any heresy — so that the Moscow
Patriarchate, notwithstanding the holy canons, has even issued a
decree permitting Roman Catholics to receive communion (in certain
cases) — the Sobor of Bishops acknowledges the need to introduce a
stricter practice, i.e., to baptize all heretics who come to the Church,
and only because of special necessity and with permission of the
bishop it is allowed, under the application of economy or pastoral
condescension, to use a different method with respect to certain
persons, i.e., the reception of Roman Catholics, and Protestants who
perform baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity, by means of
repudiation of heresy and Chrismation." ("Church Life," July-December
1971, pp. 52-54)

As one who does not belong to the clergy of the Russian Church Abroad, I do not
consider myself to have the right to comment on this decision.

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

For a fuller treatment on this topic see:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm
3. Bishop Tikhon’s Instructions

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

Thursday, March 13, 1997

Clean Thursday

The Orthodox Church in America

The Bishop of San Francisco and the West

650 Micheltorena Street, Los Angeles, CA 90026-3629

Telephone: (213) 913-3615; Facsimile (213) 913-0316

Letter of Instructions #10:

THE RECEPTION OF HERETIC LAITY AND CLERGY INTO THE
ORTHODOX CHURCH
[by Bishop Tikhon]

Very Reverend and Reverend

Archimandrites, Hegumens, Hieromonks,
Archpriests and Priests
Diocese of the West

Dear and most esteemed Very Reverend and Reverend Fathers:

The Lord's blessing be upon you!

Recently, I've become aware of a lot of discussion and controversy in Orthodox

circles here in America on the topic of the proper way to receive, for example,
Roman Catholics and Lutherans, into the Orthodox Church, and how Roman
Catholic and Lutheran clergy become Orthodox clergy. While it is on the one hand
inspiring to observe our clergy and people engaged in thought, discussion, even
debate on holy topics, it is also disturbing to me when some of those engaged in
these discussions and debates seem to minimize or give only a passing, slight nod in
the direction of the practices that have been passed on to us, and seem to feel that
any theological conclusions they may reach on these topics must be reflected in
practice. It is most perplexing, too, that the labels of conservative and liberal, so
inappropriate to Christian, as opposed to political, thought, are applied to one or
other position on the topic, frequently in a way completely contradictory to the
meaning of those political labels.

The practice of our Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and that of the Russian
Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America ("The Metropolia"), as likewise
that of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese and Archdiocese that preceded
them, in the matter of the reception of heretics is very clear: it is the practice that
obtains and has obtained in the Russian Church for centuries, at least since the time
of Peter the Great. It may be found and studied in the Service Books of the Church
of Russia [in both its "native" conformation (The Church of Russia) and "foreign"
(Abroad) conformation]. According, for example, to the Book of Needs published at
Vladimirova between the wars by the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia,
that differs in no respects from previous and subsequent Books of Needs published
by The Church of Russia, Roman Catholics are received, after undergoing the Office
for the Reception Converts printed in the same book, immediately into Communion
and are imparted the Holy Mysteries at the ensuing Liturgy without further ado,
unless they have not been Chrismated (i.e., are coming from the Latin Rite of the
Roman communion and not from the Uniates), in which case they would be
chrismated. No provision at all is provided in the Service Books to receive Roman
Catholics in the manner of receiving Jews and Mohammedans, i.e., to baptize them.

The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active
use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy
in the life of the Church. When candidates for the Laying-on-of-Hands to the
honorable Priesthood promise to observe the liturgical order of the Church, they are
promising (failing a contrary directive from their Bishop) to follow the prescribed rites
printed in the Service Books. And the overturning of the prescribed practice without a
preceding directive from a Synod or council would be an example of innovation.
Oddly enough, some that would advocate this consider themselves to be
"conservative."

My own predecessors in the see of San Francisco followed these Service Books.
They are the Service Books of the Church of Saint Innocent and of Saint Tikhon.
They are the Service Books of the Church of such luminaries as the ever-memorable
Metropolitans Antony (Khrapovitsky) and Anastassy (Gribanovski). I know of no oral
or written guidance given by any of the foregoing luminaries altering the received
practice in this matter.

Saint Elisabeth (Elizaveta Fyodorovna), recently added to the calendar of Saints of

the Russian Church, was received into the Orthodox Church (as was likewise her
sister, the sainted Empress Alexandra Fyodorovna) from the state German Lutheran
Church where she had been baptized as a child, through the Rite of the Reception of
Heretics with ensuing Chrismation--without a new Baptism.

Recently a book touching heavily on the topic of the baptism of converts by a

Professor of the state Church of Greece, Professor Metallinos, has enjoyed a wide
readership in American Orthodox circles. Whatever may be one's opinions and
convictions vis-ý-vis the conclusions of Professor Metallinos on the question, one
must realize that these conclusions have significance only insofar as they might
appear inter alia on the agenda of a Synod of Bishops or a Church Council that
would decide to re-examine the received practice of our Church. One need not read
Professor Metallinos's book to find support for the peculiar position of the Greek
Church(es) on the topic: in fact, one would expect to find the practices of the state
Church of Greece being well-defended by all Her Faithful children. I have appended,
as "Attachment One" to this letter, an excerpt from the collection of the Canons of the
Orthodox Church with commentaries by a noted, authoritative canonist outside the
boundaries of the state Church of Greece, Bishop Nikodim of the Serbian Church.
This is an authoritative statement on what is, in fact, our received practice by a
Hierarch at least as widely respected on the topic of Church canons as Professor
Metallinos. I don't present this attachment as justification or defense for a practice
that I uphold because I believe it to be my duty as a Bishop. I'm presenting it in the
interests of clarity, and I want to add to the ongoing discussion and debate a
document that should assure everyone that any Priest or Bishop of the Orthodox
Church in America that receives Roman Catholic heretics by Chrismation or
Lutheran or Anglican heretics by Chrismation is not some kind of "loose-shotgun
Liberal" motivated by ecumenism or the heretical "branch theory" of ecclesiology, but
is someone that is following a practice totally obedient to the received practice of
our Church.

I also feel it incumbent on me to comment on the reception of Roman Catholic clergy

and their becoming Orthodox clergy. I've attached my own translation of the
prescribed "Office of Receiving a Priest of the Roman Church into Communion with
the Orthodox Catholic Church", that is the venerable and centuries old practice of the
Church of Russia, of the Russian Mission and Missionary Diocese in America and its
successors, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America ("The
Metropolia") and the Orthodox Church in America.

As I commented on the reception of two sainted German princesses into the

Orthodox Church when discussing the reception of Laity, I would like to point to the
reception of St. Alexis Toth (Tovt) of Minneapolis and Wilkes-Barre. St. Alexis was
received according to the rite outlined in the attached document, i.e., by Confession
of Faith, Penance, and vesting in the Altar after the Cherubicon. How could it be
otherwise? Can one imagine Bishop Vladimir or Bishop Nicholas, the two Russian
hierarchs of the day, contravening the established practice of the Russian Church
and insisting the St. Alexis be ordained according to the formula for ordaining Laity?
(And I may remark that St. Alexis came to the Russian Orthodox bishop in San
Francisco in the first place because a Roman Catholic hierarch did not recognize his
Priesthood! One may only imagine how history might now differ if the Russian
Orthodox Bishop in San Francisco had also refused to recognize his Priesthood and
that of many subsequent Clergy of the Church!)

Recently a Hierarch of our Orthodox Church In America received a Priest from the
Roman church exactly as our Tradition requires, yet this action was, scandalously,
publicly decried by a few clergy and laity of the Orthodox Church in America, and at
least one temporarily lost soul went so far as to adopt the custom of the heretical
Amish and shunned the Priest that had been received into the community of
Orthodox clergy in the prescribed fashion! Dearly beloved and esteemed brother
Priests and Shepherds! Let's always be governed in our conduct by the Tradition of
our Church and not by the temporary passions of the day that may splash like waves
of the sea of life against the hull of the holy Ship of our salvation, Christ's One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let's preserve what has been handed on to us!
Neither I nor His Beatitude, nor any of the Hierarchs of the Orthodox Church in
America are reckless opponents of Church Order or Discipline. We do not "take our
cues" from anything but what we have received. The Orthodox practice of receiving
Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans as described by the Serbian Bishop
Nikodim and the Orthodox reception of Roman Catholic priests as outlined in
Nikol'sky are not any sort of indications that our Hierarchy is hostage to ecumenism,
branch theory, relativism, positivism, scholasticism, liberalism, indifferentism or any
other "ism" conflicting in any way with the Holy Tradition, but a sign of their
obedience.

During the time when Archbishop Dmitri of Dallas and the South was serving the
Church as Bishop of Berkeley, a letter was sent out to all the parishes in the then
Diocese of San Francisco that directed that "across the board" Roman Catholics as
well as Anglicans and Lutheran and Calvinists previously baptized with water and in
the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, would be received by Chrismation. That
policy remains in effect.

At our next meeting of the venerable clergy, I want the manner that we receive
converts to be on the agenda. Right now, the practice may vary too widely from
parish to parish to characterize it. Further, some questions I have been given lead
me to believe that there is some confusion on what our practice is and should be.
Therefore, in the interim, I ask all the Rectors to receive heretics according to the
format in the Service Book translated by Hapgood. That means a life's confession, a
definite, specific and public and renunciation of specific wrong teachings formerly
held, Absolution according to the formula printed in that Office, and ensuing
Chrismation of the Convert on all the places prescribed and then Communion of the
Holy Mysteries.

Assuring you of my constancy in prayer and sending a blessing,

With love in Christ,

[signed]

+TIKHON

DISTRIBUTION: His Beatitude and Members of the Holy Synod

Encls.

1. Excerpt from Bp. Nikodim's "Pravila."

2. Excerpt from Nikol'sky's "Ustav."

EXCERPT FROM (IN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE)

RULES (Canons) OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH with Explanations.

Nikodim, Bishop of Dalmatia and Istria.
Volume I.
Translated from the Serbian.
Saint Petersburg. The Saint Petersburg Theological Academy.
1911

Page 282-3
[Webmaster's Note: Quotations from the Russian, included by His Grace for clarity,
have been transliterated for online distribution by the editor.]

(Preceding the following is a discussion of the differences of opinion of East and

West)

Therefore, being governed, on the question of Baptism done by a non-Orthodox

community (obschestvo), by the general injunctions (predpisaniyami) of the councils
and Fathers, one may thus delineate the principle of the Orthodox Church: Baptism
as something instituted by Jesus Christ may be accomplished only in His Church
and consequently only in the Church may it be correct and salvific; however, if other
Christian communities located outside the Orthodox Church hold the conscious
intention of bringing the newly-baptized into Christ's Church, i.e., have the intention
to communicate to him Divine Grace through Baptism in order that he would become
through the power of the Holy Spirit a true member of the Body of Christ and a
reborn child of God, then this Baptism also may be considered effective insofar as it
is done on the foundation of faith in the Holy Trinity, in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for where such a Baptism is given and received, there
it must operate with Grace (deistvovat¼ blagodatno) and Christ's support cannot fail
to be there. Every community that perverts the teaching about God and does not
recognize the Trinity of holy Persons in the Godhead cannot perform a correct
baptism, and a baptism done in it is not Baptism because such a community lies
outside Christianity. By virtue of this, the Orthodox Church recognizes as effective
and saving the Baptism of every Christian community located outside Her
boundaries, whether it be heretical or schismatic, truly (istinno) done in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Bishop Nikodim adds a footnote: "According to the practice of the Greek Church,
Roman Catholics converting to the Orthodox Church must be baptized again. We are
not in a position to express our judgment relative to this practice, since we don't
know how it is that the Greek Church applies the first rule of Saint Basil to Roman
Catholics. We will only remark that this is exclusively the practice (isklyuchitel'no
praktika) of the Greek Church and also that both in Russia and Serbia Roman
Catholics are received into the Church without a new Baptism...¾

From
AN AID
TO THE STUDY OF

THE TYPIKON OF SERVICES

Of the Orthodox Church
By Konstantin Nikol'sky
Archpriest of the Church of the Dormition of the Theotokos on Sennaya
Sixth Edition
Saint Petersburg. 1900
pp. 685-686
 THE OFFICE OF RECEIVING A PRIEST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH INTO
COMMUNION WITH THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH [1]
1. Such cases of uniting to the Orthodox Church are done according to the general office as
outlined here.
2. The sponsor that is customary in this is chosen from among the Clergy.

3. There is no female sponsor.

4. Recognition of the person thus conjoined in the office of Priest requires a decision of the
Holy Synod.

5. Before his admittance to service as a Priest, his conscience must be examined before a
spiritual father, as in the case of one preparing for Ordination.

6. If examination reveals there is no canonical impediment for a blessing to serve, then, when
the Hierarch arrives at the Church to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, the candidate comes with
the rest of the clergy dressed according to the custom of Orthodox clergy and receives with
them the Hierarch's blessing, after which he goes to the Diaconicon and stays there, not
vested, until the Cherubicon.

7. After the Cherubicon and the placing of the holy gifts on the Holy Table, he is led by
Subdeacons, but not through the Holy Doors, rather within the Altar to the Holy Throne
(Altar Table) and to the Hierarch, and he reverences him in the manner of one being brought
to Ordination. And the Priestly vestments are brought and put on the one being received into
the community of the Priesthood. The Hierarch blesses each piece of the vestments, and the
one being vested kisses the Hierarch's hand. And the Deacon says the verses for Priestly
vestments, not as exclamations, but so that the one being vested can hear him. After this the
one received into the community of the Priesthood receives the kiss of peace from the
Hierarch and the rest, in the manner of one just ordained, and he stands with the rest of the
Priests and takes part in the Liturgy and in the Communion of the Holy Mysteries. And from
thence he has the same power to liturgize as an Orthodox Priest. [2] (Collection of the
Opinions and Judgments of Metropolitan Philaret, volume V, pp. 952-953.)

--------------------------------------------

1 This office was formulated by Metropolitan Philaret because of the case of the
reputed incorrect bringing into Orthodox Communion of the Abbot Maundreli. See
"Letters of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow to A.P.M. 1832-1867.

2 In the periodical "Readings of the Imperial Society of History and Antiquities"

(1892, book 4) the basis for this is set out that clergy coming from among the
heretics being united to the Orthodox Church, about whom there is no doubt of their
having been baptized and ordained, must be received by only presenting a written
confession of faith and condemnation of their heresy as was practiced by the
Seventh Ecumenical Council with regard to the conversion of the Iconoclastic
bishops and other clergy, etc., and they must be received, each in his priestly rank,
according to the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council, i.e., vested.

Source: http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html
4. Baptism and Grace
by Fr. Gregory Telepneff, ThD

The late Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, of blessed memory, was

more than once in his lifetime quoted to the effect that the Grace of God was not
totally absent from non-Orthodox Christians; yet, when pressed to accept inter-
Communion with Anglicans or Catholics, he declared this to be impossible.
Evidently, the issue is more complicated than it seems to be at first glance, and
the Metropolitan felt that there were quite serious differences separating
Orthodoxy from the Western confessions, nonetheless. In this century, however,
much has been made of the apparent discrepancies between the consistent
Russian practice of avoiding re-baptism, in contrast to the fairly consistent Greek
propensity for re-baptism. Some twenty years ago, Bishop Kallistos (Ware), in a
chapter from his book Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church Under Turkish
Rule, apparently quite logically explained that the variation in Russian and Greek
practice was not based upon any theological differences, but, rather, merely upon
different uses of oikonomia. Still, many Orthodox today are not satisfied with this
position, and refer to the statements of recognized holy men, such as Metropolitan
Philaret, in support of their contention that non-Orthodox Christians do indeed
"have some grace." Moreover, one may say that the testimony of a holy man,
though perhaps not always infallible, is formidable nonetheless. One may indeed
contend that many times such holy men poetically sense certain matters of faith
that defy totally "logical" verbal explanations [1]. Still, it does not seem to me that
there is necessarily any theological difference between Greek and Russian
thought with regard to grace and non-Orthodox baptisms. By reference to a few
pertinent Patristic quotations, I hope to explain this.

Let us begin with a recent article by Mr. John Erickson [2], in which he writes
several things of interest concerning this matter. I should like to make reference to
two of his points in particular. First, it seems he misses one rather essential point
in St. Basil when he endeavors to offer this Father as an example of a more
"moderate" Orthodox Patristic voice. Erickson claims that St. Basil "accepts" the
baptisms of certain Novationists (cf pp. 120-22). Now, St. Basil certainly
understands in his statements that to baptize twice—that is, a second time
"validly," as it were—is considered a sin in Orthodoxy. And yet St. Basil writes
further, concerning Encratites (a dualistic gnostic group):

I deem therefore that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as

regards them [Encratites] it was fitting that we should set their
baptism aside and if any of them appears to have left, he shall be
baptised upon entering the Church. If however this is to become an
obstacle in the general economy of the Church, we must again
follow the others who economically regulated thc Church [i.e., and
not re-baptize]. (Canon 1)

Also, in his forty-seventh canon, St. Basil states that Encratites and Novationists
(the latter being those, according to Mr. Erickson, whose baptism is "accepted")
come "under the same rule"—so the parallel in these two cases is obvious. Would
the Great Basil so lightly, as it seems, treat the possiblity of committing a grave sin
in repeating this Holy Mystery, if he meant by the word "accept" that such
baptisms were valid? Obviously not. He does not say that such baptisms are
"valid"; in "accepting" them, he simply acknowledges their Orthodox form. And
here is the mistake that Mr. Erickson makes—one which should not be made.

Yet elsewhere in his article, Erickson states that we Orthodox cannot totally deny
the charismatic significance of non-Orthodox baptism—looking at it as if it were no
different from a pagan act (except, of course, in the case of an extreme heretical
sect). One might, in support of this, cite the words of Metropolitan Philaret.
Although his interpretation of St. Basil's foregoing reference was certainly off the
mark, and while one may say that not all of the conclusions that Erickson draws in
his article are fully Orthodox, this latter statement of his does make sense and is
compelling. We are, then, back to the issue of the Russian and Greek practices
and the ostensible disparity between what makes sense to us, as supported by
Metropolitan Philaret, and St. Basil's understanding that, while we may accept the
"form" of some baptisms, this does not mean that we, as Orthodox, recognize
them as valid. Mr. Erickson's approach does not solve this dilemma for us.

In order to reconcile these seemingly discordant views of non-Orthodox baptism,

let us define what Orthodox baptism is and does. Then let us define what grace is
and what it does. We shall cite here St. Diadochus of Photiki:

Before holy Baptism, grace encourages the soul from the outside,
while Satan lurks in its depths, trying to block all the noetic faculty's
ways of approaching the Divine. But from the moment that we are
reborn through Baptism, the demon is outside, grace is within. Thus
whereas before Baptism error ruled the soul, after Baptism truth
rules it. Nevertheless, even after Baptism Satan (can) still act upon
the soul....

If my reading of the Holy Fathers is correct, what the saving acts of Christ make
possible is the appropriation of grace by man himself—making "grace his own,"
which in turn totally renews and transforms the entire person. That is to say, a real
metaphysical, ontological change can now take place in the baptized person, if—
as St. Gregory Nyssa tells us in his Catechetical Oration—he lives virtuously and
makes his baptism effective in Faith and the spiritual life.

In saying what we have about grace and baptism, we have not said that non-
Orthodox are totally without grace, indistinguishable from pagans. No indeed. If I
understand St. Maximos correctly, Christ (and hence grace) can be found in virtue
itself. A virtuous man takes on grace by virtue of virtue, since virtue proceeds from
spiritual reality. Of course, without the radical ontological transformation that takes
place in the Mysteries (Sacraments) of the Church, such grace cannot be
appropriated and cannot be made "one's own." Nevertheless, as we see in the
words of St. Diadochus, grace is still present—though acting from without, rather
than from within. And so, it is this internal-external distinction which separates
Orthodox baptism from non-Orthodox baptism: the Orthodox baptism does what
Christ, the Apostles, and the Church always intended it to do—it transforms man
from within, totally renewing the true human nature and opening the way for
potential communion with the divine.
Thus, Metropolitan Philaret was not wholly mistaken in his desire to attribute some
"charismatic" significance to non-Orthodox baptism. If, in the theological climate of
Latin influence on the Russian Orthodox Church at the time, his words are a bit
overstated, what he could not express with perfect theological precision he
nonetheless knew intuitively and poetically. While he knew that a non-Orthodox
baptism itself was not efficacious (since he would not allow intercommunion with
the heterodox), he knew fully well that the virtuous act of faith in Christ which we
see in non-Orthodox baptisms was something in the eyes of God. What that
something is, he perhaps was too quick to say. It is not the renewing,
metaphysically-transforming thing that Orthodox baptism is, but it is powerful
enough that even Roman actors, mocking the Christian Mysteries, were often
converted to Christ by simply enacting the ritual of baptism.

It is Orthodox baptism—and Orthodox baptism alone—which begins to fulfill the

saving work of our Lord in the human person in the fullest sense. Whereas a
believer can be led to repentance (even St. John the Forerunner baptized a
baptism of repentance), only in the baptized Orthodox Christian can there be
restoration to the true self and recovery from a state of corruption and stain—only
an Orthodox baptism can restore the ontological integrity of man (cf St.
Athanasios On the Incarnation).

We may note that several of the great Fathers of the Church (including Sts. Basil,
Augustine, and Gregory the Theologian) have implied that the "charismatic," as
distinct from the "sacramental," boundaries of the Church may not completely
coincide with the canonical ones. There may be aspects and dimensions of the
Church which have not been revealed to us by God. Indeed, we see a parallel
between these implications and our Christian understanding that the Church in
"embryo" existed among God's chosen people, the Israelites. One may also cite,
as part of these "shady" areas, St. Basil's contention that some schismatics are
not to be considered wholly outside the Church (Canon 1). And the late Father
Georges Florovsky notes that the Church has categories of people, such as
catechumens and penitents,[3] who are perhaps not full members of the Church,
and yet certainly are not regarded as heathens. We are not simply being polite
when we insist that non-Orthodox Christians be called Christians.

When the Russians receive non-Orthodox by Chrisimation, then, they are doing
so with a keen eye toward the charismatic grace outside Orthodoxy, but not with a
view of accepting "sacramental" grace in the non-Orthodox. Greeks, when they
practice baptism, are not denying this charismatic grace, but are emphasizing that
it is not the grace of the Mysteries. In essence, we see oikonomia differently
exercised in these instances. There is no discrepancy in these two traditions. The
only discrepancy arises when we mistakenly try to attribute to the Fathers—St.
Basil, for example— views which they do not have (the Fathers cannot really be
understood as "moderate" or "extreme" with regard to matters such as baptism),
or when we try to make the difficult question of where grace, of whatever kind, is
or is not a simple one.

We are not, in the end, preserving the purity of the Holy Faith when we attempt to
prove that the fullness of grace and true baptism exist outside the Orthodox
Church. That this is being done increasingly by converts to Orthodoxy should
 prompt us to think about whether we are conveying to those who come to
Orthodoxy the fullness of the Church's teaching. Creating of Orthodoxy an
ecumenical religion that it is not is ultimately the most harmful thing for converts.
They are building their own stones from the crumbs that they are offered in these
hard days. On the other hand, we do disservice to the Providence of God when
we do not understand the depth and subtle nature of Orthodox Patristic thought.
The Fathers have a deep and profound unity to their witness, but it must be
studied and understood with care and charity. It does not compromise our stand
for the uniqueness and primacy of Orthodoxy to admit that there are many non-
Orthodox confessors of Christ who shame us. The Royal Path demands that we
have great zeal for the Faith, yet not limit the workings of Divine Providence.

For those who find in our views the proverbial "closet ecumenism," we would only
stress that ecumenism, as we have pointed out, is a total distortion of Orthodox
teaching. For those who would claim that we believe that salvation is relative, we
would cite the words of the Fathers above and our own belief that the fullness of
life in Christ can only be found in Orthodoxy—and that fullness is the very nature
of Christianity. And to those who would wish that the Orthodox Church were not
what she must always be —the very criterion of Truth and the Church of the
Apostles, the only Church of Christ—, we would only say that they have yet a long
way to go before they are truly Orthodox.

Endnotes

1. When Greek and Russian holy men seem to disagree on matters, we must
seek beyond the inadequacies of language and see the noetic unity of their
thoughts. Only then do we see the profundity of theological truths at a higher
level, in which discrepancies and opposites become the same.

2. St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, No. 2, 1985.

3. It is interesting to note, too, that Sts. Chyrsostomos and Gregory the

Theologian both tell us that the unbaptized infants are saved, but that they are not
on the same level as those who have striven and suffered for the Faith.

From Orthodox Tradition, III, 1986

Source: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/baptism.aspx

5. The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church:

Chapter V. An Evaluation of Heterodox Baptism. by Patrick Barnes

This is a very useful chapter that needs to be downloaded to be read.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/non-orthodox_ch5.pdf
Another useful article is at: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/strictness.aspx

For an alternative even more conservative view that doesn’t seem to take into
account all the evidence above, see:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/recptcon.pdf

Fr. John D’Alton