On the reception

into the Orthodox Church

Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pagodin)

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).

Content: Historical Note. The reception of converts in the Ancient Church. The

reception of converts in the Russian Church. The Constantinople Council of
1756. Reception of converts in the United States. Appendices.

Historical Note

This essay attempts to review the problem of how persons coming from other
Christian confessions are to be received into the bosom of the Orthodox Church. Can
the baptism of the heterodox, performed upon them by their churches, be accepted if it
was done in the same spirit and understanding as in the Orthodox Church (i.e., by
triple immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)? Can such persons be
received into the Orthodox Church by the renunciation of all heresies, confession of
the Orthodox faith, and chrismation in order to complete that which was lacking prior
to acceptance of the Orthodox Faith? Or, in other cases, should persons be received on
the basis of renunciation of heresy, repentance and confession of the Orthodox Faith?
Or, should the effectiveness of the baptismal mystery performed in all heterodox
churches be rejected as lacking in grace? In that case, should such persons be received
into the Orthodox Church exclusively by baptizing and chrismating them?
This issue was always a significant problem in the history of the Church. It was
considered by the ancient Church[1], the Holy Fathers, canons of ancient Local
Councils and the Ecumenical Councils, later decisions of individual Local Church
Councils, and, in certain cases, by rulings of Orthodox sovereigns. For us, who live
abroad among the heterodox, this problem is not as academic as it is practical,
parochial and pastoral. In our parishes we constantly encounter, in small or large
measure, an influx of heterodox, some of which later join the Orthodox Church both
as clerics and laity. Mixed marriages are a common occurrence in our parishes and
offer an opportunity for attracting new converts to the Orthodox Church.

In modern times, this question is still an issue. Rules promulgated by the Church must
wisely guide and assist the parish priest in this missionary situation. It is essential that
these rules, when they appear under new forms in conjunction with current
circumstances and conditions in the world, reflect both the stability and the tradition
of the Orthodox Faith along with the wisdom and love of Mother Church. In the
distant past of the eighth century, St. John of Damascus wrote that the Church's
legislation must breathe with a spirit of love and condescension.[2] This should be all
the more expected today in these difficult times for the Orthodox Church and all
Christianity; times when ". . . the mystery of lawlessness is already at work"[3] as
evidenced by godlessness, falling away from the Church, indifference, and all other
spiritual evils. The Orthodox Church, while avoiding any type of compromise, must
primarily show herself to be a loving mother with respect to those heterodox who,
with faith and love, come to her from other Christian confessions.

If kept in this perspective, the Church's rules will be vital and conducive to the work
of spreading Orthodoxy in the world. History is a wonderful teacher for life. We will
present the history of how the problem of the reception of the heterodox into
Orthodoxy was resolved: 1) in the Universal Church, 2) in the Russian Church, 3) in
the Greek Church of the 18th century, and finally, 4) how this question is seen by the
Orthodox Churches at the present time.[4]

___________________________

Footnotes

[1] Apostolic Canons 46, 47, 49, and 50.

[2] St. John Damascene, On the Holy Fasts, ch. 3 P.G. 95, col. 64-76..

[3] 2 Thess. 2:7.

[4] It is without question that the Sacred Canons are promulgated by the episcopate
and priests are obliged to carry them out, but it is presumed that in this case it would
be beneficial if in our times the episcopate, before promulgating one or another set of
rules which have a direct relationship to parish life, would solicit the views of parish
clergy. In ancient times bishops were also pastors of parishes which explains why
there were so many bishops and chor-bishops in relatively small territories, which at
times would number hundreds of bishops within its boundaries and who, as a result,
would have been cognizant with the needs of parish life.

Among the Eastern Fathers we do not find such a sharply defined concept of episcopal
authority within the Church. St John Chrysostom said that in the ancient Church the
terms "bishop" and "presbyter" signified an identical service and in his writing he had
high praise for the service of presbyters in the Church. The Eastern Church¹s canons
prescribe total obedience by the clergy towards their bishops, but they also provide an
opportunity for the offended cleric to complain about his bishop to the territorial
metropolitan, and the metropolitan is required to look diligently into the complaints of
offended clerics at the regular sessions of the Synod of Bishops. A cleric offended by
his bishop had the right to appeal directly to the patriarch of the territory.

A sharply defined concept of episcopal authority in the Church is more likely to be

found in the West and belongs primarily to St. Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century)
whose writings reflect the following axioms about episcopal authority in the Church:
the bishops are established by God; the Church is based upon the bishops; Christ has
entrusted his Bride the Church, to the bishops; they are successors of the Apostles; the
bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop; those who are not with their
bishop are not with the Church; without the bishop there is no Church. At the same
time, the same St. Cyprian writes that from the beginning of his episcopal service he
determined not to decide anything without consultation with the clergy and the people
(P.L. 4, col. 240. Epistola V). Calling bishops "sacerdotes" he uses the same term for
the presbyters (P.L. 4, col. 333-334) and says that those of them who were most
worthy were in session with him in correcting Church matters. St. Ambrose writes
that there were worthy priests around the bishop to help him and were ready for
immediate appointment to widowed cathedras. He writes that bishops and presbyters
were of the same order, both being "God¹s priests," but nonetheless, the bishops were
in the first place: because he is the bishop who is first among the presbyters (P.L. 16,
col. 496).

The Blessed Augustine wrote that it is fitting for the clergy and laity to receive
directives from their bishops because the bishops are the custodians and pastors, but
themselves were under Christ the Chief Custodian and Pastor. In another place he
writes that bishops are servants of the Church; in his letters addressed to presbyters he
signs himself as "co-presbyter," in his letters to deacons he signs as "co-deacon."

In the Church the authority and the significance of the episcopate is unique and
sacred. But the Church can also benefit from the blessed experience of parish priests.

Membership in the [Russian] Sacred Ruling Synod consisted not only of prominent
bishops but of prominent presbyters as well.

The reception of converts

in the Ancient Church

Inasmuch as we will be making references to Church canons, i.e., to her laws and
decisions, it behooves to note that every canonist, upon perusing any canon, must take
into account: when and under what circumstances was the canon written and to whom
does it refer. Then: does the particular canon express a fundamental position as the
very principle of the Church, or does it merely reflect a particular time and has it been
amended by later legislation of the Church,[5] and how does the decisive legislation
of the Church consider that, which was promulgated during the later Ecumenical
Councils. The canons changed because the very circumstances of the Church's life
changed. The Church's dogmatic teaching became more precise; old heresies fell by
the wayside and new ones took their place. Even the external structure of the Church's
government changed and new conditions arose in the life of the Church. The Church's
canons are reflections of the Church's living organism, and, therefore, in considering
this or that canon, one must thoroughly investigate its spirit, taking into account those
circumstances which we listed above.

Baptism is the Christian Church's fundamental sacrament. It was commanded by our

Lord Jesus Christ and was performed by the holy apostles,[6] the bishops and
presbyters whom they appointed and by their successors. The ancient holy fathers and
the Church's canons speak about the sacrament of baptism.[7] The holy Church
administered this baptism as its basic sacrament. Thus apostle Paul writes, " . . . One
Lord, one faith, one baptism."[8] In view of the exceptional significance of this
sacrament, the holy Church undertook every effort to make sure that none of her
members, for whatever reason, was left without baptism, and, on the other hand, to
make sure that no one would be baptized more than once, inasmuch as this sacrament,
- by analogy with natural birth, as a person's real birth in Christ for eternal life, -
cannot be repeated, as it was impressed in the ancient symbols of faith and as found in
our own Creed. These two elements: concern to make certain that no Church member
remain without true baptism and the non-repetition of valid baptism, can be found
expressed in later Church legislation as well.[9] We first see this in the Apostolic
Canons 46 and 47:the first one strictly forbids the bishop or presbyter to recognize
heretical baptism as valid;[10] in the second one, the bishop or presbyter is strictly
forbidden to repeat a baptism over one who already had a valid baptism.[11]

Thus, Apostolic Canon 46 speaks about the inadmissibility of heretical baptism.

Immediately following the text of that canon there is an explanation in the [Russian]
Most-holy Governing Synod's edition as follows:

"This Apostolic Canon refers to heretics in the times of the apostles, who
offended against the chief dogmas about God the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit and about the incarnation of the Son of God. The following canons
are directed against further kinds of heresies: 1 E.C. 19, Laodicea 7 and
8, and 6 E.C. 95, and Basil Gr. 47."[12]

Thus, this Apostolic Canon refers to the following heretics: whose heresies not only
distorted the teachings of the Holy Church, but which could hardly be called
"Christian." They consisted of a fantastic mixture either of Judaism and Christianity or
of a pagan philosophy with a superficial coloration of Christianity, resembling Eastern
mysteries mixed with fantasy. Prof. Posnov in describing these heresies concludes:
"The Judeo- and Pagano-Christian distortions were not Christian heresies in a real
sense."[13] Concerning the heresies that appeared at the end of the second and the
third centuries on the Christian soil, they consisted of a complete absurd in the
dogmatic sense. The "Circular Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs" of 1848 rightfully
calls these heresies "monstrosities" and "pathetic imaginations and brainstorms of sad
people."[14] Even such a heresy as Montanism, more closer in structure of the holy
Church, was far removed from the authentic teaching of the Church, introducing a
new revelation which supposedly was given to Montanus on the basis of which the
sect's world-view was built.[15] Although their baptism was performed in the name of
the Holy Trinity, the addition of the formula "and in the name of the spirit of
Montanus" invalidated all baptisms.

Thus, the Apostolic Canons have in view specific heretics and refer to those ancient
times.[16] It is clear that the Church could not have accepted such heretics as
Christians in any case. However, all these heresies had their own sacred ablution or
"baptism." "Baptism" in one form or another is common to all religions. The so-called
"Dead Sea Scrolls" show us that the Essenes in addition to, and ranking with
circumcision, practiced a baptism.[17] These sacred ablutions or "baptisms" of the
2nd century heretics had nothing in common with the baptism performed in the
Church. Church baptism consisted of two elements: a sensible teaching about the
Holy Trinity and about the Incarnation of the Son of God. Heretical baptism had
neither, and therefore, it could not be accepted as equivalent to the baptism performed
in the holy Church. Canon 46 of the Apostolic Canons was written to dispel any
misunderstanding. These people needed to be baptized in the Church since they, in the
Church's judgement, were not baptized. But, as we pointed out, the following canon,
47th, forbade the repetition of that baptism that was validly performed.

Christianity saw no small number of heresies during the 3rd and 4th centuries, and the
originators of the heresies were bishops or prominent presbyters. How to treat those
who came to Orthodoxy from those heresies? By what method should they be
received? There was an immediate difference of views about this problem within the
Orthodox Church. Some insisted that they be received only through baptism, i.e., not
to recognize their previous baptism as valid even though it was correct in form (i.e.,
corresponding to the baptism performed in the Orthodox Church). Others maintained
a more tolerant view, accepting as valid that baptism, which was performed by some
heretics, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, and did not require
that those coming into Orthodoxy from heresy be re-baptized. A stricter line was
taken by Tertullian (himself a Montanist), St. Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of
Caesarea, and Elanus of Tarsus. St. Cyprian, a proponent of the strict line, convoked
two councils in this matter (255-256) and insisted that heretics be received by no other
way than baptism. St. Stephen, Pope of Rome (253-257) could be considered to hold a
more tolerant view, and his position, according to the famous Hefele, was supported
by Eastern bishops. At the same time as St. Cyprian along with a council of 71
bishops insisted that heretics lack any grace and for this reason their sacred acts are
invalid, Pope St. Stephen received penitent heretics with the laying of a bishop's hand
on their heads. He did this in accord with the tolerant practice, which was held by
other Western bishops. We read an ancient decree of the Council in Arles (Canon 8):

"If anyone shall come from heresy to the Church, they shall ask him to
say the Creed; and if they shall perceive that he was baptized into the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost [in Patre et Filio et Spiritu
Sancto esse baptizatum] he shall have hands laid upon him only so that
he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if he was not baptized in the name
of the Holy Trinity, let him be baptized."[18]

Having learned about the decrees of the Council in Carthage under St. Cyprian's
chairmanship, which demanded the re-baptism of heretics coming into the Church, at
first Pope St. Stephen demanded a repeal of these decrees, threatening
excommunication and, since the repeals did not take place, he later excommunicated
St. Cyprian.[19]
It is interesting to note that Eastern canonists treat the decisions of the Carthage
councils critically. Thus, Zonaras commenting on Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical
Council, which calls for the reception of certain kinds of heretics without re-baptism,
notes the decree of St. Cyprian, about which he says:

"Thus, the opinions of the Fathers gathered at the council with the great
Cyprian do not refer to all heretics and all schismatics. Because the
Second Ecumenical Council, as we just pointed out, makes an exception
for certain heretics and grants its sanction for their reception without
repeating the baptism, demanding only their anointing with the Holy
Chrism provided that they renounced their own heresies and all other
heresies."

Balsamon calls the decrees of the Council at Carthage "not mandatory and as such
ineffective."[20]

Given this evidence, our analysis shows that in the third and the first part of the fourth
centuries there were two different practices for the reception of heretics and
schismatics into the Orthodox Church: one through re-baptism and the other through
repentance. However, the Orthodox Church, being always merciful, tended to lean
towards the more lenient view.

Even though the First Ecumenical Council made no final ruling on this question, its
three canons: 8th, 11th and 19th, breathe with mercy towards those who have fallen
during the time of persecution or those who stepped away from Orthodoxy during the
Novatian schism[21] or into Paul of Samosata's heresy[22]. Novatian's followers, who
called themselves "pure and better," were to be received through repentance.
Paulianists were to be received by Baptism since their dogmatic teaching was a
distortion of Orthodox teaching, after which their clerics could be received [by
ordination, trans.] into the clergy of the Orthodox Church.

We find a number of major Christological heresies in the 4th century such as

Arianism, Apollinarianism and their offshoots, as well as heresies touching upon the
dogma of the Holy Trinity and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit (Macedonians). As to
the reception of these and other heretics and schismatics into the Orthodox Church,
we can see the holy Church has not as yet formulated decisive decrees and there were
the two parallel practices noted above governing their reception. However, as we
noted above, the Church followed the path of mercy and condescension. St. Basil is a
witness to this in his 1st canon. He says that the Orthodox Church can accept only that
baptism which in no way differs from that baptism which is performed in the
Orthodox Church. A heresy is defined as "a clear difference in the very faith in God."
Wherefore, those heretics who belong to heresies that completely distort Christian
teaching should be looked upon as lacking that baptism which is performed in the
Church, and they should be baptized upon coming into the Church. As for
schismatics, i.e., those who split off from the Church on the basis of "ecclesiastical
disputes," they can be received by way of repentance. Further St. Basil complains that
sometimes Montanists were received into Orthodoxy without re-baptism, i.e., their
baptism was accepted as valid. Since such a baptism is performed "in the Father and
Son and Montanus or Priscilla," it does not correspond to the baptism performed in
the name of the Trinity by the Orthodox. Further St. Basil advances St. Cyprian of
Carthage's point of view according to which all heretics and all schismatics must be
re-baptized when coming into the Orthodox Church since the heretics and schismatics
are completely lacking in Grace. As a result of all this he says, "But, as some in Asia
have otherwise determined, for the edification of many, let their baptism be
allowed." In this way St. Basil expressed his authority not in the direction of a
rigorous resolution of the problem but in the direction of a merciful and
condescending resolution, serving for the benefit of the Church.

The following interpretation of the words of St. Basil the Great was given by the
Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, at its session on 15/28 September
1971:

"Thus, St. Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council in
confirming the principle that there is no genuine baptism outside the
Holy Orthodox Church, allows, out of pastoral condescension, which is
called economy, the acceptance of certain heretics and schismatics
without a new baptism."

In the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils there was a Local
Council in Laodicea (c. 363) that decreed, by its 7th Canon: "Persons converted from
heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans: . . . shall be
received by way of renouncing the heresy and through chrismation." Thus, we see
here as well that the more tolerant view prevailed over the more rigid. However, St.
Basil the Great's canons or the Laodicean canons, as authoritative as they may have
been, were not as yet laws for the whole universal Church. A decision of an
Ecumenical Council[23] was needed. Later, the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed (in
Canon 2) to accept the canons of St. Basil the Great and the canons of Laodicea as
laws for the whole Church. This took place more than three centuries later.[24]

It should be acknowledged that with the words of St. Basil the Great and of the
Fathers of the Laodicean Council the Church determined a path for further ecumenical
legislation, namely - that the decrees (or canons) of the Church be motivated by the
spirit of toleration and with a view towards the common benefit of the Orthodox
Church. But, in the noted decree of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and prior to that in
the canons of St. Basil the Great and the local council in Laodicea) the following is
also evident: that the holy Church accepted as genuine that baptism which was done in
the name of the Holy Trinity even though the baptism took place outside of the
Orthodox Church, but in all respects corresponded to that baptism which was
performed by the Orthodox. In such a case it is accepted as genuine and effective
upon the reception of the convert into the Orthodox Church by way of repentance and
chrismation. Then the words of St. Basil the Great become quite clear when he says:
"The older authorities had judged that baptism acceptable which disregarded no point
of the faith." [St. Basil, Canon 1] In the book of Church rites for the reception of the
heterodox into Orthodoxy we read the following description in one of the rites:[25]
"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, however, rejected other mysteries and customs and who held views contrary to
those of the Orthodox Church."[26] Had the holy Orthodox Church doubted the
genuineness of such a baptism then there is no question that it would ever subject that
person, who comes to her for the sake of the salvation of his soul, to the danger of
remaining without baptism, the greatest of sacraments, being motivated by pastoral
condescension towards heretics and schismatics, on the basis of economy (i.e., for the
general welfare of the Church), i.e., undertaking a compromise at the price of the
salvation of that person's soul who entrusts the Church with the salvation of his soul!
Baptism is the fundamental sacrament of the Church without which one cannot be
saved. If one were to take note of later times and justifiably say that Protestant
ministers lack apostolic succession and upon coming into the Orthodox Church are
received as laymen, then we will counter this by noting that in the Orthodox Church
baptism can be performed even by a layman if such is demanded by exigency.

But let us turn to the lengthy history of the problem of receiving the heterodox into the
Orthodox Church.

The decisive legislation on this matter was promulgated at the Second Ecumenical
Council (A.D. 381) in its 7th Canon:

"Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those
who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom:
we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves 'pure
and better,' Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as
Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in
writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same
beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they
should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the
 forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the
seal, we say, 'seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.' As for Eunomians,
however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are
called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are
the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those
belonging to] any other heresies - for there are many of them here,
especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, -
all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as
Greeks [i.e., pagans]. Accordingly, on the first day we make them
Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we
exorcise them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their
ears; and thus we do catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in
the church and listen the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."[27]

In this way the Holy Church made the rules: by what order to receive those who come
into Orthodoxy from heresy. Those who have a correct baptism are received without
re-baptism. Those who do not have baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity - are
received by way of Baptism. It must be noted that the Arians and Macedonians held to
a wrong teaching about the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but the actual faith in the
Holy Trinity, in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was there, and this was sufficient, in
the opinion of the holy Church for recognizing the validity (sufficiency) of their
baptism.

With this canon the Second Ecumenical Council gave the direction of how to act in
the future. Hefele notes that the Holy Fathers and the teachers of the Church, while
accepting as valid the baptism of certain heretics, nonetheless felt it necessary to give
them the gift of the Holy Spirit, inherent in the holy Orthodox Church, through
chrismation.[28]

We have already shown the comparison of Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical

Council with the canons passed by the council at Carthage under St. Cyprian, along
with the opinion about this matter by Zonaras and Balsamon.

The Church in Carthage, in the 3rd century under St. Cyprian, maintained such a strict
view that it decreed that all heretics and schismatics who came into Orthodoxy be re-
baptized without any exceptions. But it changed its views by the 4th and the
beginning of the 5th centuries and decreed to accept schismatics without re-baptism
but by way of repentance and the repudiation of heresy. Former schismatic clerics
were received without re-ordination.[29] With respect to such heretics as Arians,
Macedonians and others, this issue was not raised at the council (more correctly - a
number of councils) in Carthage.
According to the general direction of Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council we
see that there developed three orders in the Church for the reception of heretics (and
schismatics) into Orthodoxy. The Kormchaya Kniga [Rudder] contains the letter of
Timothy, presbyter of Constantinople who lived in the 5th century wherein he writes
the following:

"There are three rites for accepting those coming to the Holy Divine,
Catholic and Apostolic Church: the first rite demands holy baptism, the
second one - we do not baptize but anoint with the Holy Chrism and the
third - we neither baptize nor anoint but demand the renunciation of their
own and all other heresy."[30]

Thus, those who are to be baptized are heretics in the extreme sense, of which we
noted above. Those who are to be anointed with the holy chrism (without performing
a second baptism over them) are Arians, Macedonians and those similar to them.
Those who are to be received by way of repentance and a repudiation of error, are
schismatics as well as certain heretics.

The last word in the legislation of the Universal Church with respect to the reception
into Orthodoxy of those coming from heresy or schism is Canon 95 of the 6th
Ecumenical Council. Its first part is a verbatim repetition of Canon 7 of the Second
Ecumenical Council and merely adds a note about the need to re-baptize the followers
of Paul of Samosata (in this case referring to Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical
Council). The second part lists the heresies that arose after the Second Ecumenical
Council: Manicheans, Marcionites, and other similar ones, in which almost nothing
remained that could be called Christian, and they were to be received through
baptism. Nestorians and Monophysites (followers of Eutychus, Dioscoros and
Severus) were to be received through repentance and repudiation of their heresies,
after which they were to be admitted to Holy Communion.

This final legislation of the Universal Church should have sufficed for all future years
of existence of the Orthodox Church. Without a doubt many heresies have died out
but new ones appeared. There was no Roman Catholic Church as such because this
was still that blessed time when the Eastern and Western churches constituted One
Church. Protestantism with its branches was something in the far future. New and
barbaric distortions of the healthy and salvific teaching have not risen as yet.
However, Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council spells out the norms for the
Church's future relationship with emerging schisms and heresies, as well as by which
rite to receive those who would desire to become members of the Orthodox Church.
We will reiterate this.
Those who have the least degree of dogmatic error are to be received by way of
repentance and a repudiation of heresy, under the condition that their church structure
preserved apostolic succession. Others, whose dogmatic teaching has undergone a
greater distortion or who have not preserved apostolic succession although they were
baptized as in the Orthodox Church in the name of the Holy Trinity by triple
immersion, are to be received by the second rite, namely, by way of a repudiation of
heretical distortions and anointing with the holy Chrism. The third group, whose
baptism is not performed in the name of the Holy Trinity with triple immersion, is to
be received by way of baptism, which also applies to Jews, Muslims and pagans. The
teachings of this group of heretics usually consist of a complete innovation or an
admixture of Judaism or paganism with the basic principles of Christianity. But in no
way is there any kind of a church structure or apostolic succession, as we understand
it.

The ninth century witnessed the sorrowful division between the Eastern and Western
Churches. The Great Schism of 1054 created a fissure between the Churches, which
over a period of time became even deeper. The Western Church moved not only
towards schism with the Orthodox Church but with time it adopted heretical views.
The legislation of the Orthodox Church was required to formulate rules about how to
treat the Roman Catholic Church - as schismatics or heretics, and to decide along with
this, by what rite to receive those Latins who wanted to come to the Orthodox Church.
There was no decision on this matter for the longest time. Only in the 15th century, in
connection with the Florentine Council (1459) was there any legislation considered.

Prior to the Florentine Council the Greeks considered the Latins to be schismatics.
The Latins likewise viewed and called the Greeks "schismatics." Under this
understanding Latins coming to Orthodoxy were received by the third rite, i.e., by
repudiation of their errors and repentance. St. Mark of Ephesus, that great confessor
and pillar of the Orthodox Church, when speaking at the Florentine Council, called
the Roman church "holy,"[31] addressing Pope Eugenius with the words "most holy
Father,"[32] "blessed Father,"[33] "first among the servants of God,"[34] and he
referred to Cardinal Cesarini as "eminent father."[35] He speaks with sadness about
the split that took place between the churches and calls upon the Pope and his co-
workers to do everything for the union of the Churches. Later, when he saw the total
uncompromising position of the Latins with respect to the "Filioque" and became
convinced that they are adhering to an error of a dogmatical character, specifically
with respect to the procession of the Holy Spirit, he begins to speak about them as
heretics. Here is the view of St. Mark of Ephesus that he expressed at an internal
meeting of the Greeks in Florence on March 30, 1439:
 "The Latins are not only schismatics but are heretics. However, our
Church was silent about this because [the Latins] are so numerous; but
was this not the reason why the Orthodox Church moved away from
them, because they were heretics? We simply cannot unite with them
unless they agree to remove the addition (made by them) into the
Symbol [Creed], and confess the Symbol just as we confess it."[36]

The Unia that was signed between the Greeks and the Latins in Florence was a terrible
humiliation for the Orthodox Church. The Greeks disavowed their traditions in the
face of all the demands insisted upon by the Vatican. Upon his return from Florence
St. Mark - the defender and leader in the struggle for Orthodoxy - appealed to all
Orthodox people with an epistle, in which he called attention of the faithful to the
betrayal of Orthodoxy in Florence. And now he refers to the Latins as heretics who, in
the event that some of them would come into Orthodoxy, are to be chrismated. He
writes as follows:

"The Latins, having no cause to condemn us for our dogmatic teachings,

call us "schismatics" because we declined to humble ourselves before
them, which they imagine is their due. But let this be scrutinized: would
it be just for us to grant them that courtesy and not accuse them of
anything with respect to the Faith? They initiated the cause for the split.
They openly made an addition (Filioque to the Symbol of Faith), which
before they were pronouncing secretly. We were the first to break away
from them, but it is better to say that we separated them and cut them off
from the common Body of the Church. Why? Do tell me! Because they
have the right faith and made the right addition (to the Symbol of Faith)?
Who would say such a thing unless his head became damaged! But (we
broke away from them) because they demonstrate an impious and
wrong-headed view and hurriedly and thoughtlessly made the addition.
Thus, we turned away from them as from heretics and for this reason
disassociate ourselves from them. The venerable canons say thus: 'He is
a heretic and is subject to the laws against heretics if he - even only in a
little way - turns from the Orthodox faith.'[37] If the Latins in no way
deviate from the Orthodox Faith then, it seems, we cut them off in error.
But if they completely deviated, and this in their theology about the Holy
Spirit - sinning against which is the greatest of dangers - then it is clear
that they are heretics, and we cut them off as heretics. Why do we anoint
them who come to us? - Is not this clear - as heretics? The 7th canon of
the Second Ecumenical Council speaks thus: 'Those heretics who come
over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive
according to the prescribed rite and custom: Arians, Macedonians,
 Novatianists, who call themselves 'pure and better,' Quatrodecimans or
Tetradites as well as Appolinarians. We receive them on condition that
they present a written document and that they anathematize every
heresy, which is not in accord with the thinking of the holy, catholic and
apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal,
that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and
ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say seal of the gift of the
Holy Spirit.'

Do you not see how we designate those who come from the Latins? If all
those (named in the Canon) are heretics, then it is clear that they (i.e., the
Latins) are heretics. What did the learned Antiochian Patriarch Theodore
Balsamon write in reply to Mark, the holy Patriarch of Alexandria?

'The Latin captives and others come into our catholic churches, asking to
receive the Divine Mysteries. We would like to know: is this permitted?
(Response) "He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not
gather with Me scatters" (Mt. 12:30; Lk. 11:23) Inasmuch as many years
ago the prominent part of the Western Church, namely Rome, was
separated from communion with the other four Most Holy Patriarchs,
because they made changes in their customs and dogmas, foreign to the
Catholic Church and Orthodoxy - for this reason the Pope became
unworthy of the common lifting up of names with the Patriarchs during
Divine and Sacred Services - it is not proper to sanctify the Latin tribe
through the Divine and Most Pure Gifts (given) from the hands of the
priest, unless they (the Latins) first decide to abandon the Latin dogmas
and customs and be catechized and admitted (by way of the prescribed
rite) to Orthodoxy.'[38]

Have you not heard that they adopted not only customs but also dogmas which are
strange to Orthodoxy (and that which is strange to Orthodoxy is most certainly a
heretical teaching) and that according to the canons they must be catechized and
united to Orthodoxy? If it is necessary to catechize then it is clear that they must be
chrismated."[39]

St. Mark of Ephesus wrote these things at a time when the Orthodox Church was
subject to massive aggression from the Roman Catholics -- at a time when her very
existence, in human terms, was questionable. This was one of the most critical epochs
if not the critical epoch in the history of the Orthodox Church. But despite all this, we
do not hear St. Mark saying that there was a practice, or that such a practice should be
introduced which called to re-baptize Latins desiring to come into the Orthodox
Church. St. Mark speaks about anointing them with the Holy Chrism, and no more
than that. The views and witness of St. Mark of Ephesus were very important for the
future legislation of the Orthodox Church concerning the rite with which those Latins
coming into the Orthodox Church would be received. His opinion was upheld by the
Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs meeting in Constantinople in 1484 that decreed
that Latins that come into Orthodoxy were not to be re-baptized. This view of St.
Mark of Ephesus that Latins coming into Orthodoxy should not be re-baptized, was
also upheld by the Great Moscow Council in 1667. This will be discussed in detail in
the next chapter of our essay.

The 1484 Council in Constantinople is also credited with formulating the rite about
how to receive Latins into Orthodoxy. Notwithstanding the two forced Unias - Lyons
and Florence, notwithstanding the evil acts of the Latins in Constantinople as well as
in the Holy Mountain of Athos (to which the Athos Paterikon is a witness[40]), the
holy Orthodox Church, through the words of St. Mark of Ephesus and the Fathers of
the 1484 Council in Constantinople, along with previous prominent canonists,
acknowledged that to bring Latins (Roman Catholics) into the Orthodox Church, it is
sufficient for them to renounce their heretical views, to confess the Orthodox Faith
and to promise loyalty to her until the end of their lives. Their actual reception into
Orthodoxy is performed through the rite of chrismation.

We have demonstrated that the Universal Orthodox Church instituted canons which
were infused with tolerance towards those who, seeking the salvation of their souls,
came into Orthodoxy, leaving behind and rejecting their error. The Holy Church
received them. Where possible, the Church accepted their baptism and recognized it
as valid, even though it was performed in environs outside the Orthodox Church. The
Church taught the need to follow the rules that were built upon the wisdom and
strength of Orthodoxy as expressed through the words of the fourth century Fathers
(St. Basil the Great and the Fathers of the Laodicean Council)[41] and consistently
through the end of the fifteenth century through the words of St. Mark of Ephesus and
the four Eastern Patriarchs gathered at a Council in Constantinople in 1484, as well as
the authority of the Second and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils.[42]

___________________________

Footnotes

[5] As an example we can point to the Apostolic Canon 5 which forbids the bishop to
terminate his marriage with his wife. On the other hand Canon 6 of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council forbids the bishop to have a wife. Apostolic Canon 37 prescribes
that bishops¹ councils take place twice a year. Later canons prescribe different
schedules. Apostolic Canon 85 lists the canonical books of the Holy Scripture. Later
canons decrease the number and others add the Revelation of St. John the Theologian.
Canon 15 of Neocesarea prescribes that there shall be seven deacons in any city
regardless of size and makes reference to the Acts of the Apostles (Ch. 6). Canon 16
of the Sixth Ecumenical Council repeals this canon which was decreed by the Fathers
in Neocesarea. A number of canons in the ancient Church prescribe the age for
candidates for the order of presbyter and deacon. Later Church legislation does not
require this and adheres to its own understanding.

[6] Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38ff; Acts 8:12, 38; Acts 19:1-7ff. According to ancient
tradition preserved by St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Apostles, as
commanded by the Savior, baptized each other and Apostles Peter and John baptized
the Theotokos. P.G. n. 78/3 col. 3372.

[7] Apostolic Canons 24, 47, 49, and 50.

[8] Ephesians 4:5.

[9] Ap. Canons 46, 47, 68; Laod. 8; Basil Gr. I; 2 E.C. 7; 6 E.C. 95; Carth. 59.

[10] The text reads: "We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the
baptism or sacrifice of heretics be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial,
or what part hath a believer with an infidel?"

[11] The text reads: "Let a bishop or presbyter who shall baptize again one who has
rightly received baptism, or who shall not baptize one who has been polluted by the
ungodly be deposed, as despising the cross and death of the Lord, and not making a
distinction between the true priests and the false."

[12] We refer to the 1901 Moscow Synodal edition, pg. 26. [There is a more detailed
note in Milash who also refers to the Synodal text. Trans.].

[13] M .E. Posnov, History of the Christian Church [Istoriya Khristianskoy

Tserkvi], Brussels, 1964, p. 146. See his description of these heresies on pp. 142-149.
See also Manual for a Descriptive Study of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and
Protestantism.

[14] Circular Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848, §§ 2 and 3. Cited in the Manual

for Descriptive Study.. . . , p. 729.

[15] Posnov, Op. Cit., pp. 147-148.

[16] Canonists agree that the "Apostolic Canons" were compiled at the end of the 2nd
and the beginning of the 3rd centuries. Some of the canons have even a later origin.
See the discussion on this point in Posnov, op. cit., pp. 317-318.

[17] See the word "Baptism" in the Encyclopedia Britannica as well as in Hastings in

his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. See the word "Bapteme" in the Dictionaire
de Theologie Catholique.

[18] The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Henry Percival, Oxford, 1900, p. 40.Back to

referring section.

[19] See details in Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome.

[20] Noted in Percival's reference to the Councils at Carthage.Back to referring

section.

[21] This is how the followers of Novatian were described in the Book of

Canons published by the Sacred Ruling Synod which we cited: "They who called
themselves 'Puritans' were followers of Novatus, a presbyter of the Roman Church,
who taught that those who fell during persecution were not to be received through
repentance nor were bigamists ever to be received in communion with the Church and
who claimed purity for his society on the basis of pride and total lack of love for
others" (p. 41) It should be noted here that the "Cathars" ("Puritans") as well as
Montanists re-baptized those Orthodox who came into their schism.

[22] Paul of Samosata's (260 A.D). heresy had a Jewish character: it introduced

circumcision, did not recognize the Trinity, did not recognize Christ's divinity in His
essence but rather as a some kind of an elevation in rank. The heresy was condemned
twice at the Antiochian local Council in 264 A.D. and in 269 A.D. See for more detail
in J.H. Blunt's Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, etc., 1874, p. 515ff.

[23] Council in Trullo.

[24] The Council in Trullo took place in 691-692 A.D. St. Basil the Great died in 379
A.D. The local council in Laodicea took place in 363 A.D.

[25] This is found in the Great Trebnik, Kiev-Caves Lavra edition, 1895, p. 408.

[26] See the special book published by direction of the Sacred Ruling Synod in 1895.
We find the same designation in Part Three of the Trebnik published in Jordanville in
1960.
[27] This canon can be found online as part of the Early Church Fathers collection.
Reference: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-
61.htm#P4014_722138.

[28] H. Percival, op. cit., pp. 405-406.

[29] Canons 59 and 68.

[30] Not having access to the Kormchaya Kniga, which today is a bibliographic rarity,

I am citing the text from Bishop Nicodemus Milash's Orthodox Church Law,
Belgrade, 1926, p. 590.

[31] See Archimandrite Ambrosius, St Mark of Ephesus and the Florentine Unia,

Jordanville, 1963, p. 313.

[32] Ibid, pp. 40 and 41.

[33] Ibid, p. 41.

[34] Ibid, p. 40.

[35] Ibid, p. 171.

[36] Ibid, p. 214.

[37] Nomocanonis, tit. XII c. 2; Pitra, Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum, t. II, p. 600.

[38] Theodori Balsamones, Responsa ad Interrogationes Marci, P.G. 138, col. 968.

[39] Cited in Archimandrite Ambrosius, St Mark of Ephesus and the Florentine Unia,

pp. 333-334. Circular Epistle of St. Mark of Ephesus § 4. Greek text Patrologia
Orientalis T. XVII, p. 460-464 and in Migne, P.G. t. 160.

[40] Paterikon of Athos, v. II, pp. 230-250 and pp. 282-283.

[41] The Blessed Augustine notes that baptism is a mystery, established by our Lord
Jesus Christ Himself and thus this mystery cannot lose its validity through the
depravity or perversity (perversitas) of the heretics. De Baptismo, lib. V, cc. 2-3-4.
P.L. 43.

[42] The spirit of tolerance was always inherent in the Orthodox Church. As one of
many examples we can point to the service of the first week of Great Lent, where it
relates how the Great Martyr St. Theodore of Tyro came before the Bishop of
Constantinople and warned him that the produce, set out in the marketplace on that
day, were profaned by blood offered to idols by order of the emperor Julian the
Apostate who wanted, by this act, to cause mischief to Christians (see
the Synaxarion for the first Saturday in Great Lent). Throughout this service the local
bishop is referred to as "hierarch," "chief pastor" who prays throughout the night for
his flock, and "patriarch." However, at the time all this was taking place, the bishop of
Constantinople was Eudoxius, a prominent Arian. Constantinople did not have an
Orthodox bishop at that time.

The reception of converts

in the Russian Church

Toleration towards non-Russians has always been a characteristic of the Russian

state system and this contributed towards the strengthening of the great Russian
empire, which was made up of many nationalities all living on equal principles. This
same tolerance was likewise a characteristic of the Russian Orthodox Church with
respect to the non-Orthodox, as was rightly pointed out by Russian historians.
Professor A. V. Kartashev writes: "The relative toleration of Russians with respect to
other religions and Christian confessions was a distinguishing trait of the pre-Mongol
period."[43] Professor N. Talberg correctly notes: "The Russian Church distinguished
itself for toleration of non-Orthodox."[44] Latin churches serviced by Latin clergy
were found in Kiev, Novgorod, Ladoga, Polotsk, Smolensk, Pereyaslavl and in other
places. In his "Outlines of Russian Church History" Prof. Kartashev provides
interesting evidence about Russian interrelation with the West.[45] There were vital
commercial and political contacts between the Russian and Western people. Foreign
representatives and merchants from all parts of Europe could be found in Russian
cities. Russia received Christianity before the great division of the Churches,
therefore, the West, in the ecclesiastical sense, was not seen as a hostile world. Prior
to the baptism of Rus' and throughout the long history of Russia we see that the
Vatican had great hopes of including the Russian Church as one of its own. Russian
princes, beginning with St. Vladimir, were respectful and polite in their responses to
the Popes, but strongly held on to Greek Orthodoxy. For a long period the Russian
Church was headed by Greek metropolitans who, after the division of the Churches,
maintained a hostile line towards the Latins. Prof. Kartashev writes:

"The Russians, under the influence of the Greek metropolitans who

looked upon everything Roman in a dark light, and in part motivated by
 the rivalry over the control over Rus', needed time to gradually adopt the
extreme Greek point of view."[46]

It is interesting to note that a number of polemical works against the Latins have been
attributed to those metropolitans, but all of them, as pointed out by Prof. Talberg,
were written in a calm and well-meaning tone with respect to them.[47] However, in
their instructions to the Russians they advocated an extreme intolerance towards the
Latins, forbidding marriages with them, any social intercourse, sharing a meal with
them and even feeding them from one's dishes. Any dish from which a Latin partook
of food was to be washed in a special way, accompanied by a prayer. Professor
Kartashev writes:

"However, the theory did not immediately overcome the inertia of the
living practice and in this case the established attitude of peaceful and
well-meaning relations of the Russians towards the non-Orthodox and
Western European people was evident throughout the whole pre-Mongol
period."[48]

Russian princes continued to join in marriage with all Latin courts, and daughters of
Russian princes when marrying would adopt the Western rite, and at times even the
daughters of foreign sovereigns would continue to maintain their own Latin services
while in Russia.[49] Under the influence of the friendly ties with Italy, the feast of
the Translation of Relics of St. Nicholas to Bari was instituted in Russia, celebrated on
May 9. The churches of Vladimir and Suzdal' reflected the influence of the
Romanesque style since they were built by Italian architects. The "Korsun Gate" in
Novgorod's St. Sophia Cathedral was of German origin. Prof. Kartashev notes:

"In Novgorod people lived so closely with foreigners that simple women
would not hesitate to approach Latin priests for certain services,
apparently without fear of their heresy and not finding them too different
in their external appearance from their own clergy."[50]

Prince Iziaslav Yaroslavich did not hesitate to approach Pope Gregory VII for
assistance, even after the division of the Churches, to get rid of an usurper. Although
the request was fruitless, the prince was not questioned nor criticized.

The Metropolitan of Kiev Kirik (Cyricus, or, according to some sources, Cyril), in
response to St. Niphon (†1156), Bishop of Novgorod's query about how to receive
Latins that come to Orthodoxy gave him the following directive:

"If a Latin wishes to come under Russian law, let him attend our Church
for seven days. He is to be given a new name. Each day four prayers are
 devoutly read in his presence. Then let him bathe in the bathhouse. He
will refrain from meat and dairy products for seven days, and on the
eighth day, having bathed, let him come to Church. Four prayers must be
read over him. He is dressed in clean clothes. A crown or a wreath is
placed on his head. He is anointed with Chrism and a wax candle is
placed in his hand. He receives Communion during the Liturgy and
henceforth is considered a new Christian."

With such close relations between the Russians and Western people during the pre-
Mongol period, it is unlikely that the Russians re-baptized those Latins who expressed
a desire to accept the Orthodox faith. Such re-baptism would be the equivalent of not
recognizing them as Christians. In large Russian cities that were characterized as
commercial and political centers one could find both a Russian Orthodox culture as
well as a Latin, Western one. The contacts between them were beneficial to both.
Later, this situation had to change.

The Greek Church did not practice re-baptism of Latins that came into the Orthodox
Church. Greek metropolitans stood at the head of the ancient Russian Church, and it is
hardly likely that they would have promoted something, which was foreign to the
Greek Church itself. In the above-cited directive of the Kievan Metropolitan Kirik
(Cyricus, or Cyril) to Niphon of Novgorod we see that there is no mention of any re-
baptism of Latins converting to the Orthodox faith. As for the Russians, we saw that
their relations with the Latins were cordial, which was what the Greek metropolitans
who headed the Russian Church at that time taught them.

Among the Russian saints we find some foreigners whom God led to Russia where
they worked for the salvation of Russian souls, serving and saving themselves in the
lands of the Russian Orthodox Church, where God glorified them as Russian saints.

I will name some of these. St. Anthony the Roman, born and educated in Rome at a
time when the Western Church already separated from the Eastern Orthodox Church.
His parents secretly preserved their piety and passed this on to their son. In 1106 St.
Anthony the Roman miraculously was carried by waves to Novgorod. Here the Saint
lived the rest of his life, and in many fruitful ways enriched ancient Russia's monastic
tradition. It should be noted that St. Nicetas of Novgorod received St. Anthony with
great honor and love as someone sent from God. A question could formally be raised:
is St. Anthony considered Orthodox? He was born and baptized in Rome at a time
when there were no Orthodox clerics in Rome. At that time Rome was the Pope's
citadel, the Pope was not only its bishop but also its secular ruler to whom the
territory belonged.[51] History knows nothing of any kind of a "catacomb Orthodox
Church" in Rome. Papal Rome was always and in all respects loyal to everything
Latin. St. Anthony could not have received baptism and other sacraments in any place
except in the Latin churches of Rome, which is understandable. There were Orthodox
territories in Italy's South, which were subject to Byzantium, and Greeks lived there.
St. Anthony was not a Greek but an Italian and lived in the territory belonging to the
Roman throne. His native tongue was Latin as is evidenced by his Latin Bible with
which he was buried in Novgorod. St. Nicetas of Novgorod could have legitimately
raised the question about a public reception into Orthodoxy of a monk coming from
Latin lands, born and baptized in Rome. But as we can see from the Life of St.
Anthony the Roman, St. Nicetas received the Roman monk without the slightest
hesitation, as someone sent to him by God's will. The Saint's decision could have been
prompted not only by St. Anthony's miraculous arrival, but by that general attitude of
cordiality towards the non-Orthodox that, as we have seen, was so much in evidence
in the environs of Great Novgorod, one of the most important centers of European
trade. Such other centers of trade, notwithstanding the prevalence of a particular
religion, were also religiously tolerant, as we see in the examples of Venice and
Hamburg.

The Blessed Isidore, Fool-for-Christ, Wonderworker of Rostov, living in the 15th

century, was German by birth and a Latin, as is seen from his Life. Deeply loving
Russian Orthodoxy, he dedicated his life here to spiritual feats, saving himself in the
environs of Russia and working for the salvation of Russian souls. God glorified him
as a Russian saint. One can find nothing in his extensive Life about him being re-
baptized upon accepting Orthodoxy.[52]

Another Rostov saint, St. John the Hairy (†1591), judging by his Latin Psalter which
was found after his death and which he used, was also a foreigner who loved
Orthodoxy and attached himself to Russia where God glorified his saintliness.
Although his Life is little known, there is nothing about him, which indicates that he
was re-baptized upon coming into Orthodoxy.[53]

St. Procopius of Ustiug was the only foreign Russian saint of whom the Prolog says
that in accepting Orthodoxy in Great Novgorod, he "was baptized." There are a
number of unclear things in his Life: the contemporary edition of his Life states that
"he received Orthodoxy," without indicating by which rite he was received into the
Orthodox Church.[54]

___________________________

There is no basis for assuming that the Russian Church re-baptized Latins coming into
Orthodoxy during the pre-Mongol period. The Greek metropolitans that headed the
Russian Church belonged to the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate, which, in its turn,
did not re-baptize Latins when receiving them into Orthodoxy. Only extraordinary
events could bring about the situation whereby the Russian and the Constantinopolitan
Churches would change this ancient practice and changed over to the re-baptism of
Latins and those Protestants whose baptism was performed in the name of the Holy
Trinity. The practice of re-baptizing the non-Orthodox was late in coming in the
history of the Russian Church. It was brought about as a result of a number of events,
which will be briefly described below.

The Russian Church unexpectedly found herself in great danger from the Latins who
came to impose Latinism in Russian territories, acting with fire and sword. The
Russian people, led by their valiant princes such as St. Alexander Nevsky (†1263) and
St. Dovmont-Timothy of Pskov (†1299), were forced to defend their faith and their
fatherland with their blood from the invading Latins. All this could not but bring
about a radical change in the attitude of Russians towards the non-Orthodox. Earlier
cordiality towards them was replaced by a feeling of indignity and detestation. The
humble Russian monastics could no longer view armed monastic orders, sheathed in
iron and carrying death and desolation with them, as their brothers in Christ. Just as in
another time the Crusaders engendered an irreparable unprecedented fissure in the
relations between the Roman Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, so did the
Teutonic sword-bearing monks engender irreparable harm in the relations between the
Roman Church and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Later events resulted in further deterioration in these relationships.

Pope Eugene IV attempted to subjugate the Russian Orthodox Church through the
Kievan Metropolitan Isidore. With the expulsion of Metropolitan Isidore, pointed
polemical literature began in Russia to be directed against the Latins. In this way both
in practice and in theory the Russian people saw the Latins as mortal enemies of
Orthodoxy and Russia. The severe persecutions against the Orthodox in the
neighboring territories of Southwestern Russia, about which Moscow knew and
lamented, engendered hatred against the Latins.

A later attempt by the Latins, working with the assistance of Catholic Poland and
through the False Dimitri and Marina Mnishek [a pretender to the Russian throne and
his Polish wife, †1614], to completely destroy Russian Orthodoxy in the State of
Moscow itself and in the sacred Kremlin overflowed the Russian peoples' cup of
wrath. The peoples' bitterness was such that after the False Dimitri was killed (17 May
1606) the mob broke into the Kremlin and killed three cardinals, 4 Latin priests and
26 "foreign teachers." It is interesting to note that during the reign of the False Dimitri
a question arose about the official acceptance of Orthodoxy by Marina Mnishek as a
Russian Czarina. The Greek metropolitan of Moscow, Ignatius, received her into
Orthodoxy not through baptism but through chrismation, for which his successor
Patriarch Philaret, held him blameworthy. Professor Kartashev notes:
 "The strict and uniform Russian practice of re-baptism was established
later, in 1620, by Patriarch Philaret. But even then a part of the Russian
episcopate spoke against this."[55]

_____________________________

The Russian Church decided to re-baptize non-Orthodox, in this case Latins, coming
to the Orthodox Church at the Moscow Council of 1620. These decisions were the
result of Patriarch Philaret's insistence. We will examine what they called for and how
they were carried out.

The sufferings experienced by the Russian Church and personally by the Metropolitan
of Rostov Philaret, the future Patriarch of All Russia, which during the Time of
Troubles were brought about by the Latins who by means fair and foul, were
determined to subjugate the Russian Church and win it over to a Unia with Rome,
with a total disregard of everything Orthodox and everything Russian, only
exacerbated the Russian antipathy towards the Latins who, during those alarming
times, were looked upon as spiritually mortal enemies. Notwithstanding all this, a
number of Russian bishops maintained the position that upon receiving Catholics into
the Orthodox Church it was sufficient to anoint them with Holy Chrism and not to re-
baptize them. It is only as the result of what can be described as crude personal
pressure on the part of Patriarch Philaret, the Moscow Council of 1620 decreed that
Latins be re-baptized upon converting to Orthodoxy.

Patriarch Philaret expressed himself about Patriarch (or Metropolitan) Ignatius, who
was deposed without any juridical process:

"Patriarch Ignatius, currying favor with heretics of the Latin faith,

accepted Marinka [Marina Mnishek], of the heretical popish faith, in the
cathedral church of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos, without performing
a holy baptism according to the Christian law, but only anointed her with
the Holy Chrism and then crowned [married] her with that unfrocked
reprobate and then gave the Body and Sacred Blood of Christ to both of
those enemies of God - to the reprobate and Marinka. For this fault he,
Ignatius, was deposed from his throne and ministry by the holy hierarchs
of the great and holy Russian Church according to the holy canons, as
having violated the canons of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers."[56]

After this, Patriarch Philaret placed blame on the locum tenens of the patriarchal
throne, Metropolitan Jonah, for not re-baptizing Latins. Professor Kartashev writes:
"An accusation from two Moscow clerics came to Patriarch Philaret that
Metropolitan Jonah did not permit a re-baptism of two Poles, Jan
Slobodski and Matfei Sventitski, who came into Orthodoxy, but only
that they be chrismated and admitted to communion. Reference was
made by Jonah upon the ancient practice according to "Niphon's
Questions to Kirik.'[57] The patriarch summoned Metropolitan Jonah for
an explanation and reproached Jonah for introducing a novelty by not
ordering the re-baptism of Latins. In order to put Jonah down with his
authority, the patriarch included this matter on the agenda for the next
plenary session of the Council on October 16, 1620. Philaret himself
appeared with an accusatory speech proving that heretical baptism is not
a baptism but 'nothing more than defilement.' This is why Patriarch
Ignatius was deposed, for failing to baptize Marinka . . . . All heretics
lack valid baptism. All of Patriarch Philaret's theological arguments
points to the awesome decline in the level of knowledge among the
Russian hierarchs of that time and especially that of Philaret himself who
was infected with a passionate hatred for the Latin Poles. Patriarch
Philaret said: 'The Latin papists are the most vile and ferocious of all
heretics since they include in their law all the condemned heresies of the
ancient Hellenic, Judaising, Arian, and heretical faiths, along with the
pagan idol-worshipers, along with all the damned heretics with all their
imagination and activity.' Turning towards Jonah Philaret asked: 'How
dare you begin to introduce here in this capital city things that are
contrary to the canons of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers and
direct that the Latins, who are worse than dogs and conscious enemies of
God, be brought in not through baptism but only through Chrismation?'
Then Patriarch Philaret placed a ban on Metropolitan Jonah, forbidding
him to serve. All the arguments and references offered by Metropolitan
Jonah were rejected by Philaret." Not concerned with any archival or
historical data, simply so to say, on his own, Philaret announced: "In our
Moscow State, from its very founding, it has never been that the Latin
heretics and other heretics were not baptized." According to Patriarch
Philaret's declaration, Latinism is the repository and source of all
heresies.[58] Within two weeks the question arose about receiving
Uniats that were leaning towards Orthodoxy along with other Slavs that
were infected by the spirit of Calvinism. Patriarch Philaret decreed that
everyone, even those baptized Orthodox who later left Orthodoxy, must
be re-baptized. Those who were baptized by pouring and not by
immersion must also be re-baptized. These rigorous decisions had
unfortunate results. A massive return of fellow Slavs did not take place.
In 1630 even a Uniat Archbishop Athenogenes Kryzhanovski was re-
 baptized. Originally he had purely Orthodox ordinations up to and
including the rank of Archimandrite. He was lured away to become a
Uniat archbishop. Upon his return and after his re-baptism he was re-
ordained."[59]

The decree of the Moscow Council of 1620 about the re-baptism of Latins, Uniats,
Lutherans and Calvinists was soon recognized to be in error and was repealed very
quickly. The decree was reached only as a result of the hatred towards the non-
Orthodox because of the persecution by them, which the Russian Church suffered, as
was pointed out by Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow, author of the monumental
history of the Russian Church.[60] Another historian of the Russian Church,
Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky) writes: "The decision is incorrect in the light of the
Church's teaching, but is understandable because of the terrors of that time."[61]
Patriarch Nikon, with his brilliant mind, could not but recognize the error of that
decision and rescinded it twice. During the Church Council of 1655, Patriarch Nikon
and the Council fathers decreed that the re-baptism of Poles is illegal and repealed the
need to receive them into Orthodoxy by re-baptism, directing this to be done by
chrismation.[62] At the Church Council that took place in the following year (1666)
presided over by the same Patriarch Nikon, the same subject was once again brought
up for discussion. Metropolitan Macarius writes:

"It was felt that it was necessary to debate this matter once again. All
Russian bishops were invited to this new Council along with the
metropolitan of Kazan. The Antiochian Patriarch Macarius again insisted
that the Latins should not be re-baptized when converting to Orthodoxy
and had a heated argument with the Russian hierarchs. He tried to
convince them by making references to their own books of Canons. To
support his argument, he presented an extract from some ancient Greek
book brought from Mt. Athos, which made a detailed analysis of the
subject, and in this way compelled the Russian bishops to submit,
however reluctantly, to the truth. This extract, signed by Macarius, was
presented to the sovereign (Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich), translated into
Russian, printed and handed out. The Tsar issued an Ukaz that prohibited
the baptism of Poles and others belonging to the same faith. Not satisfied
with all this Macarius, who soon left Moscow, sent a letter to Nikon
about the same matter. Along with this Patriarch Macarius wrote to
Patriarch Nikon that "the Latins must not be re-baptized: they have the
seven sacraments and all seven Councils, and they are all baptized
correctly in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with an
invocation of the Holy Trinity. We must recognize their baptism. They
are only schismatics, and schism does not make a man unfaithful and
 unbaptized. It only separates him from the Church. Mark of Ephesus
himself, who opposed the Latins, never demanded their re-baptism and
accepted their baptism as a correct one."[63]

The final and decisive ruling on this subject was the decree of the Great Moscow
Council of 1667. Patriarch Joasaph II took part in the Council, which took place
during the reign of the same Aleksei Mikhailovich.

Here is how we read about it in Metropolitan Macarius' "History of the Russian

Church":

"The rite for the reception of Latins into the Orthodox Church was now
completely changed. It is known that in accordance with Patriarch
Philaret Nikitich's Conciliar Statute, Latins were re-baptized in Russia.
Even though at the time of Patriarch Nikon, upon the insistence of
Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, who was then in Moscow, it was twice
decreed at the Council that Latins would not be re-baptized in the future,
the deeply rooted custom of re-baptizing remained in practice. This is
why Tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich proposed that the Great Council should
discuss and make a decision on this question. The Council fathers
carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich's statute and came to the
conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the
Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was
forbidden to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of
their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins
must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern
Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-
baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint
them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their
reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus
who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching
and decreed:

'Latins must not be re-baptized but only after their renunciation of their
heresies and confession of sins, be anointed with Chrism and admit them
to the Holy Mysteries and in this way bring them into communion with
the holy, catholic Eastern Church, in accordance with the sacred canons
(Chapter 6)'."[64]

Since 1718 the Spiritual Council [Synod] decreed not to re-baptize Protestants who
were baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity.[65] From that time the Russian Church
never returned to the re-baptism of Latins, Lutherans, Anglicans and Calvinists. Later
the Russian Church decreed that confirmed Roman Catholics and chrismated
Armenians be received by the third rite, i.e., through confession and repudiation of
heresy. Lutherans, Calvinists and other Protestants who were baptized by triple
immersion (or by pouring), to be received by the second rite, i.e., by chrismation and
repudiation of heresy. They were chrismated because in the first place they do not
have such a sacrament and secondly, they do not have a priesthood based on apostolic
succession. Anglicans and Episcopalians are likewise received through the second rite
because it is questionable (as Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote) whether their
church has preserved apostolic succession.

Russian theologians strictly adhered to the view of not re-baptizing Latins, Armenians
and those Protestants who were baptized in their churches in the name of the Holy
Trinity. Members of the royal household, who previously were Protestants, were
received into Orthodoxy through chrismation.

In Archbishop Benjamin's well-known "Novaya Skrizhal'" ["New Tablets of Law"]

we read the following:

"All heretics are divided into three types. To the first belong those who
do not believe in the Holy Consubstantial Trinity and do not perform
baptism by triple immersion into water; these, along with pagans and
Muhammadans are to be baptized as directed by Canon 19 of the First
Ecumenical Council. Heretics of the second type are those who believe
in the One God in the Trinity and are baptized by triple immersion, but
have their own delusions and heresies and with the exception of baptism
either do not recognize other sacraments or, in performing other
sacraments improperly, reject chrismation. They are not to be baptized
because they are baptized, but, following the repudiation of their heresies
and confession of the Orthodox Faith, are to be united to the Church by
way of the sacrament of Chrismation, as is prescribed by Canon 7 of the
Second Ecumenical Council. The third type of heretics, called dissidents,
maintain all the seven sacraments including chrismation, but, having
separated from the unity of the Orthodox Church, dare to add to the pure
confession of faith their own delusions, which are contrary to the ancient
teachings of the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, and introduce many
pernicious views into the church and, in rejecting ancient pious rites of
the Church, introduce new traditions, which are contrary to the spirit of
piety. These we do not baptize for the second time nor do we anoint
them with the Holy Chrism. After the repudiation of their delusion and
repentance from their sins, they confess the Orthodox Symbol of Faith
 and are cleansed from their sins by the prayers and hierarchical
absolution."[66]

Bishop of Smolensk Parthenius' book "On the Duties of Parish Priests," which was
approved by the Synod for all churches, contains rules for the proper rites for the
reception into the Orthodox Church of those Latins and Protestants that were baptized
in the name of the Holy Trinity. Some are to be received by the third rite; others by
the second. Those priests who would like to re-baptize Latins and Lutherans are
referred to as "ignoramuses" (§82).

In 1858 the Sacred Ruling Synod published the rites that detailed in which way and by
which rite the non-Orthodox coming into the Orthodox Church are to be received.
One of these is titled: "The Rite for Receiving into Orthodoxy Those Who were Never
Right-believing and from Their Youth were Not Brought up in the Orthodox Church,
but Who had a True Baptism in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret prepared a rite for receiving a Roman Catholic

priest who is to be received by the third rite, without any repetition of baptism,
chrismation or ordination.[67] But such a priest can preserve his sacral rank in the
Orthodox Church only in the event that he remains celibate, i.e., he had not violated
his vow made at the time of his ordination by marrying. If he had been married before
his conversion to Orthodoxy, he is received as a layman and does not preserve his
right to his sacerdotal rank.[68]

Archbishop of Astrakhan Sergius' book "Rules and Rites for the Reception of Non-
Orthodox Christians into the Orthodox Church" (Viatka, 1894) gives the three rites for
the reception of non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church on the same basis and
understanding as of the above-noted authors.

To counter the accusations directed against the Orthodox Church by Old Ritualists of
all stripes, for not re-baptizing Latins, Lutherans and Calvinists, Metropolitan Gregory
published his book "The Truly-Ancient and the True Orthodox Church of Christ,"
which presents apologetic explanations for doing so in Part 2, Chapters 33 and 34.
Also see Transactions of the Kiev Theological Academy, June-August 1864, "On the
Reception of Non-Orthodox Christians into the Orthodox Church: Historical and
Canonical Analysis against the Priestless." See also the article in Khristianskoye
Chteniye, June 1865, "Analysis of the Principle Upon Which the Priestless Justify
Their Practice for the Re-Baptism of the Orthodox Upon Converting Into Schism."

The rites, on the basis of which the Orthodox Church performs the conversion to
Orthodoxy of Roman Catholics and Protestants, are given in Fr. K. Nikolsky's
"Manual for the Study of the Order [Ustav] of Services." It also contains a number of
instructions and directives from Church authorities on this subject.

The well-known S. V. Bulgakov's "Reference Book for Sacred Ministers" lists in

detail how to perform each of the three rites by which the heterodox and non-
Orthodox are received into Orthodoxy. There is also a listing of directives and
instructions from Church authorities on these subjects.[69]

We find the same directives and rules in other manuals for parish clergy and
collections of Church decrees on various topics.

_____________________________

We will now list a number of regulations of the Russian Church on the subject of
the reception of Latins and Protestants into Orthodoxy.

As we noted above, the ultimate legislation which prohibited the re-baptism of

Latins upon their conversion to Orthodoxy, was the decree of the Great Moscow
Council of 1667, Chapter 6.

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.[70]
 Joining the Orthodox Church is preceded by instruction and affirmation
of the teachings of the Orthodox Church, with the learning of certain
prayers.[71]

As for the sick, every accommodation is made for them and the instruction is given in
the light of their strength and their reception should not be delayed.[72]

 A written statement is taken from those coming to Orthodoxy that they are
accepting Orthodoxy of their own will. Their reception is entered in part
one of the parish's baptism, marriage and death register. In some parts of
 the Empire where the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox live together, it is a
requirement that the local authorities notify the local Roman Catholic
priest or the Lutheran pastor if a member of their parish converted to
Orthodoxy.
 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.

Persons in danger of death who wish to be received into Orthodoxy are to be received
through the priest's laying on of hands and the dying person's confession, after which
he receives the sacred mysteries. This order is appropriate with respect to a Roman
Catholic or an Armenian. Lutherans, Calvinists as well as Episcopalians should be
received by the anointing with the Holy Chrism on the brow, followed by communion
with the holy mysteries. A funeral is performed according to the Orthodox rite.[73]

These were the basic laws of the Russian Church with respect to the reception of non-
Orthodox into Orthodoxy.[74]

Bulgakov similarly summarizes the methods for the reception into Orthodoxy as
follows:
 There are three rites for the reception of those turning to the
Orthodox Church: baptism, chrismation, and repentance and
communion with the Sacred Gifts.

Pagans, Jews and Muslims are received into the Orthodox

Church by means of baptism. In addition, those followers of
Christian sects that deviate from the fundamental dogmas of the
Orthodox Church, reject the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Trinity
and the performance of the sacrament of baptism (such as
Eunomians who rejected the equality of the Persons of the Holy
Trinity and performed baptism with a single immersion into
Christ's death, or Montanists who performed baptism in the name
of the Father, Son, Montanus and Priscilla,) are likewise to be
received by means of baptism.

Those sectarians who perform baptism correctly by three

immersions with the Divinely formulated words: "In the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," but err in particular dogmas
of faith (Arians, Macedonians and others) are to be received by
means of Chrismation.

Dissenters from the Church who have a legitimate hierarchy but are
separated from the Orthodox Church on questions of moral, ritual
or disciplinary matters as well as dogmatic teachings of a secondary
level (Donatists, Eutychians, Nestorians) are to be received by means
of repentance and repudiation of their errors.

The Russian Orthodox Church conforms to the laws of the ancient

Church in similar situations. Recognizing that baptism is the
essential condition for entering into the ranks of her members, she
receives Jews, Muslims, pagans and those sectarians distorting the
fundamental dogmas of the Orthodox Church, by means of baptism.
She receives Protestants by means of Chrismation. Those Catholics
and Armenians who were not confirmed or chrismated from their
pastors, she likewise receives by means of chrismation. Those
Catholics or Armenians who were confirmed or chrismated, she
receives by means of the third rite: through repentance, repudiation
of errors and reception of the Holy Mysteries."[75]

With respect to members of the Anglican Church, Bulgakov is of the opinion that
a priest cannot assume the responsibility upon himself by receiving them through
the third rite and must receive them through the second rite, by means of
chrismation, as was done at the time of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. In case of
doubt, the priest is obliged to consult with the diocesan authority.[76]

Archpriest Nikolsky summarizes the subject of the reception of non-Orthodox as

follows:

"The sacrament of chrismation, separate from baptism, is performed

upon the heterodox uniting with the Orthodox Church, but only upon
those who, having received proper baptism, have not been chrismated,
such as Lutherans, Calvinists and those Roman Catholics and Armenians
who were not anointed with Chrism (not confirmed)."[77]

Roman Catholic clergy, as noted above, are received in their order, following their
repentance, repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. The actual
rite for the reception of a Roman Catholic priest into Orthodoxy was compiled by
Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.[78]

With respect to the validity of the Anglican clergy's orders, Metropolitan Philaret
neither rejected nor recognized them and recommended their re-ordination upon
coming into Orthodoxy, with the observance of the conditional formula: "If you are
not ordained." In the opinion of come Russian scholars (e.g., Prof. V. A. Sokolov), the
Anglican Church preserved the apostolic succession and all sacraments of the Church.
In the opinion of others, such is not the case. There have been no authoritative
determinations by the Church on this subject.[79]

The Russian Church received Uniats who desired to return to the bosom of the
Orthodox Church with great joy. They returned to Orthodoxy as individuals, as
parishes and as whole dioceses. During the reign of Catherine the Great, up to two
million Uniats united with the Orthodox Church. In the 19th century, Uniats converted
to Orthodoxy by the thousands. How did the Russian Orthodox Church receive them?
She received them with love. Their very desire to reunite with the Holy Orthodox
Church was sufficient to proclaim that they were her children. The love of the Mother
Church set aside all impediments and all rites by which they should be received into
Orthodoxy. Bishop Porphyrius Uspensky, in describing his audience with the
Patriarch of Constantinople in 1843 writes that he informed the Patriarch that in 1841,
13,000 Uniats reunited with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarch inquired:
"Did you baptize them?" Bishop (then an Archimandrite) Porphyrius Uspensky gave a
negative reply, explaining to the Patriarch that "the Uniats, by their inner conviction
and faith, have always been in communion with our Church and had no need to be re-
baptized."[80] When the Uniats were reunited with the Orthodox Church in 1916, as
the Russian army occupied Galicia, the Russian Church once again expressed an
exceptional cordiality: the Uniats were received as "our own." There was not the
slightest emphasis that they are leaving something and coming to something new. The
Holy Russian Church received them as her children simply in response to their desire
to be children of the Orthodox Church. Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich was in
complete accord with this delicate and magnanimous treatment of them.[81]

_______________________________

To summarize the material presented on this subject we will say that in ancient times
the Russian Church did not re-baptize the Latins who converted to Orthodoxy. Re-
baptism was introduced for a brief period (from 1620 to 1667) as a result of those
horrors that the Russian Church and the Russian people experienced from the Latins
and from Catholic Poland during the Time of Troubles. Since 1667 - with respect to
the Latins, and from 1718 - with respect to Lutherans and Calvinists, the law for re-
baptism was repealed once and for all. Concurring with the views of our prominent
theologians, the Russian Orthodox Church's legislation followed that tradition and the
rite for the reception of non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church was established.
These views and these laws were distinguished by the humane and tolerant principles
that were characteristic of the Russian Church. Where there is Truth, there will be
strength and magnanimity. O, how marvelous is our great and wise Russian Church!

___________________________

Footnotes

[43] Prof. A. V. Kartashev, Outlines of Russian Church History, v. 1, pp. 264-265.

[44] Prof. N. Talberg, History of the Russian Church, p. 71.

[45] Kartashev, op.cit. Chapter on The Uncoupling from the West, pp. 263-266.

[46] Ibid, p. 263.

[47] Talberg, op. cit., pp. 71, 73.

[48] Kartashev, op. cit., p.264.

[49] Ibid, p. 264.

[50] Ibid, p.266. A number of works are devoted to the description of relations

between the Russian Church and the West. One of the most significant examples on
this subject, in our humble opinion, is the three volume work of P. Pierling, La Russie
et le Saint Siege, Paris, 1897.
[51] The popes were strict rulers. Thus, one pope is gratefully remembered for making
the streets of Rome safe for residents and pilgrims. He did this by ordering that all
suspicious characters be hanged. The popes had a good and loyal police force. "Santa
Uffici" (Sacred Chancellery) had a "Bocca de la Verita," an opening in the wall where
anonymous denunciations could be dropped off and that brought about a great fear
among the Roman residents. The popes may have had personal enemies, but the popes
had no fear of enemies on the principle of faith. Such were unknown in Rome.

[52] Lives of the Saints, compiled by St. Dimitri, Metropolitan of Rostov, for May 14.
See also Fools-for-Christ in the Eastern and Russian Church by Ioann Kovalevsky,
Moscow, 1895, pp. 238-249.

[53] Kovalevsky, op. cit., pp. 249-251.

[54] Ibid, p. 161ff.

[55] We can note here that Russian historians characterize Marina Mnishek's
reception of Orthodoxy as strictly a political act. The policy of the False Dimitri was
permeated by the goal to Latinize the Russian Church. See: Metropolitan
Makarii, History of the Russian Church, v. X, pp. 99-122. See also Prof.
Kartashev, op. cit., v. II, p. 60. As for the aims of the False Dimitri, there is also a
view that he, probably, wanted to be a real Russian Tsar and not a lackey of Rome and
Warsaw. Professor Platonov in his book about Boris Godunov correctly notes that
there is nothing worse than to raise calumny against a dead person who cannot make a
rebuttal.

[56] .Kartashev, vol. 2, p. 98.

[57] Idem.

[58] Kartashev, pp. 96-97.

[59] Ibid, p. 99.

[60] Metropolitan Makarii, History of the Russian Church, v. XI, p. 232.

[61] Cited in Prof. Talberg, op. cit., p. 467.

[62] Metr. Makarii, op. cit., vol. XII, pp. 175-175.

[63] Ibid, pp. 196-197.

[64] Op. cit., p. 786. For the original text see Acts of the Moscow Councils 1666-1667,
Moscow, 1893, pp. 174-175.

[65] Nikodim Milash, op. cit., p. 592, note II.

[66] Archbishop Benjamin, Novaya Skrizhal', 16th ed., SPb, 1899, pp. 475-476; [see

also Jordanville reprint of the 17th edition, §79, p.506].

[67] Found in Nikolsky, Manual for the Study of the Order [Ustav] of Services, 1900

ed., pp. 685-686.

[68] Bulgakov, Reference Book for Sacred Ministers, 1900 ed., p. 947, note 2.

[69] Ibid, p. 929 and notes on p. 948.

[70] Decrees of the Holy Synod, 1840, II, 20. 1865, VIII, 25. Statute of the Spiritual
Consistory, 22, 25.

[71] Tserkovnye Vedomosti, 1893, 28. Practical Instruction [for Rural Pastors], 181ff.

[72] Tserkovnye Vedomosti, 1891, 21, p. 280.

[73] Instruction of the Sacred Synod, 1800, Feb 20, note 4. See more details about this
in Nikolsky, op.cit., p. 684

[74] About some special situations of some heterodox coming into Orthodoxy, which
are not directly related to our subject, see Compilation of Directives and Notes on the
Problems of Pastoral Practice, Moscow, 1875, pp. 73-75.

[75] Bulgakov, op. cit., pp. 928-929.

[76] Ibid, p. 929, note 1.

[77] Archpriest Nikolsky, op. cit., p. 678.

[78] In the journal The Annals of the Imperial Society of History and

Antiquities (1892, book 3), there is material indicating that clerics, uniting with the
Orthodox Church from heresy whose baptism and ordination is unquestioned, should
be received only by giving a written confession of the Orthodox Faith and the
repudiation of their heresy, as was the practice of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
with respect to bishops and other clerics who were Iconoclasts. These must be
received in conformance with Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council, each in his
clerical rank, by vesting them in accordance with their rank. See Archpriest Nikolsky,
p. 686, note I..

[79] See Bulgakov, op. cit., p 948, notes.

[80] Porfirii Uspensky, Book of My Life, v. 1, p.173.

[81] Protopresbyter George Shavelsky, Memoirs of the Last Protopresbyter of the

Russian Army and Navy, v. II, pp. 33ff.

The Russian Church was tolerant towards the non-Orthodox. Prof. N. Zernov's
book Orthodox Encounter (1961) gives some historical material about the meetings of
Russian theologians and hierarchs with non-Orthodox theologians and hierarchs,
especially with Anglicans, from which one can appreciate the broad views of the
Russian Church. Narrow views and confessional fanaticism was foreign to her. I
would like to add on my part that while I was at the ancient Cathedral of York I saw,
preserved under glass with great reverence, an Omophorion of a Russian hierarch that
the latter presented to the Archbishop of York. We can recall how cordially the
Russian Church received the well-known Palmer and how open she was towards him.
He, on his part, enriched the Russian theological literature with his remarkable work
about Patriarch Nikon.

Russian hierarchs in most cases stood by the principle that "the divisions between
Christian denominations do not reach the heavens." It is well known how tenderly and
attentively the righteous Father John of Kronstadt related to the non-Orthodox,
maintaining a correspondence with them. Queen Victoria, to whom the English
translation of Father St. John of Kronstadt's work My Life in Christ was dedicated,
reverently received the book and reflected upon its author with the greatest respect.
Here is an extract from the Anglican theologian Birkbeck's book Two Days in
Kronstadt (1902), pp. 277-295:

"Fr. John's face was as usual, calm and had a bright smile. He moved
with difficulty between the rows of attendants, all of them pressing to
kiss his hand or receive his blessing. Among them I noticed not only
several German Lutherans, but also two Muslim Tartars who were
waiters in the restaurant and who also asked for and received his
blessing. His influence reached far beyond the boundaries of the
Orthodox population."

Father John of Kronstadt had conversation with an Anglican archbishop and upon his
exit from the guesthouse he was pressed once again by the attendants. (As is known,
Metropolitan Anastassy participated in the writing of this book, having been a student
of the Theological Academy).

The relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with the non-Orthodox was permeated
with such nobility and cordiality. It is not likely that anyone could accuse St. Philaret,
Metropolitan of Moscow, or the righteous St. John of Kronstadt of not being firm in
their Orthodoxy! On the contrary, it is precisely this strength - theirs and that of the
Russian Church - that allowed such magnanimity and tolerance in the approach
towards the non-Orthodox. Where there is Truth - there will be freedom, and strength,
and magnanimity.

The Constantinople Council of 1756

The 1756 Council in Constantinople, at the time of Patriarch Cyril, carried out the
decision that it is appropriate to receive Roman Catholics and Protestants converting
to the Orthodox Church exclusively by way of baptism. In addition to Patriarch Cyril
of Constantinople Patriarch of Alexandria Matthew and Patriarch of Jerusalem
Parthenios signed this decision. This decree reads:[82]

"Among the means by which we are vouchsafed salvation, baptism is in

the first place that was entrusted by God to the Holy Apostles. Inasmuch
as the question was raised three years ago whether it is proper to
recognize the baptism of heretics turning to us (with a desire to be
received into our faith) then - inasmuch as that baptism is performed
contrary to the tradition of the Holy Apostles and the Holy Fathers and
likewise contrary to the practice and decrees of the Catholic and
Apostolic Church, - we, brought up by the mercy of God, in the
Orthodox Church, preserving the Canons of the Holy Apostles and the
Godly Fathers and recognizing our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church and her mysteries, among which is the divine baptism, and
consequently, considering everything that takes place among heretics
and is not performed as commanded by the Holy Spirit and the Apostles
and as it is now performed in Christ's Church, as contrary to all of the
apostolic tradition and as an invention of corrupt people - we, by a
common decision, sweep aside any heretical baptism and thus receive
any heretics turning to us, as not having been sanctified and not being
baptized and we first of all, follow in obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ
who commanded His Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. We further follow the Holy and Divine Apostles who
 established triple immersion with the pronouncing at each of them, one
of the names of the Holy Trinity. We further follow the Holy and Equal-
to-the Apostles Dionysius[83] who says that the catechumen, having had
all his clothes removed, must be baptized in the font, in sanctified water
and oil, calling upon the three hypostases of the All-Blessed Divinity,
afterwards anointing him in the divinely-created Chrism, then becoming
worthy of the salvific Eucharist. Finally we follow the Second and the
Quinisext Ecumenical Councils that prescribe that those turning to
Orthodoxy be considered as unbaptized who were not baptized by triple
immersion, at each of which the name of one of the Divine Hypostases is
pronounced, but were baptized by some other means. Adhering to these
Holy and Divine decrees we consider heretical baptism to be worthy of
judgement and repudiation inasmuch as it does not conform with but
contradicts the Apostolic and Divine formation and is nothing more than
a useless washing, according to the words of St. Ambrose and St.
Athanasius the Great, neither sanctifying the catechumen nor cleanse
him from sin. This is why we receive all heretics turning to Orthodoxy as
those who were not baptized properly as not having been baptized and
without any hesitation baptize them according to the apostolic and
conciliar canons upon which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of
Christ - the common mother of us all - firmly rests. We affirm this, our
unanimous decision which is in conformance with the apostolic and
conciliar canons, with a written testament subscribed with our
signatures."

As Bishop Nikodim Milash points out: ." . . this synodal decision does not mention
Roman Catholics by name and does not say that their baptism should be rejected and
that they be baptized upon converting to the Orthodox Church; however, this is quite
evident from what and how everything is stated in the decision."[84]

The "Pedalion" (Kormchaya Kniga) openly states that this decision refers to Roman
Catholics. In a lengthy discussion about receiving the non-Orthodox by means of
baptism we read:

"Latin baptism is erroneously referred to by that name: it is not a baptism

at all but is simply a washing. This is why we do not say that we 're-
baptize' the Latins, but we 'baptize' them. The Latins are not baptized
since they do not perform triple immersion at baptism, which has been a
tradition in the Orthodox Church from the apostles from the very
beginning."[85]
Not a single Orthodox Church, except the Greek, accepted this decision. The Russian
Orthodox Church in receiving non-Orthodox converting to Orthodoxy, followed those
canons that were adopted in 1667 and 1718, which recognized baptisms performed in
the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran Churches as valid and did not repeat them.

The well-known canonist of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Bishop Nikodim Milash,
explains:

"Non-Orthodox are received into the Church either: a) through baptism,

or 2) through chrismation, or 3) through repentance and confession of
the Orthodox Faith. This was established back in the 5th century, to
which the Presbyter Timotheus of the Church of Constantinople testifies
in his epistle to his concelebrant John. The Kormchaya gives this epistle
wherein he writes: "There are three rites for accepting those coming to
the Holy Divine, Catholic and Apostolic Church: the first rite demands
holy baptism, the second one - we don't baptize, but anoint with the Holy
Chrism, and the third - we neither baptize nor anoint, but demand the
renunciation of their own and all other heresy."

The basis for this is Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council. These three rites for
receiving the non-Orthodox into the Church remain in full force today in the Orthodox
Church. By the first rite the Church receives those heretics who wrongly teach about
the Holy Trinity, who do not recognize baptism or do not perform it according to the
Divine commandment. By the second rite, i.e., by means of chrismation, those
heretics who are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and do not reject the Holy
Trinity, but are in error about certain aspects of the faith; as well as those who do not
have a legitimate sacred hierarchy nor the sacrament of chrismation. This includes all
of the various Protestants. This rite is also used in receiving Roman Catholics and
Armenians who have not been anointed with the Holy Chrism by their bishops or
priests. But if they, i.e., the Roman Catholics and Armenians, were anointed with
Chrism in their Churches, they are received into the Orthodox Church by means of
the third rite in which those who are received, following a certain period of time in
studying the Orthodox catechism, then in a verbal or written repudiation of their
former beliefs, they solemnly confess the Symbol of Orthodox Faith and then,
following prescribed prayers on the part of the Orthodox bishop or priest, are
communed with the Holy Gifts."[86]

With respect to the decisions of the 1756 Constantinople Council we read the
following views of the same Bishop Nikodim Milash:

"The decision that each Roman Catholic as well as each Protestant who
wishes to convert to the Orthodox Church is to be baptized anew was
 made by the 1756 Council in Constantinople during the time of Patriarch
Cyril V. This conciliar decision was motivated by the Western
Christians' being baptized by pouring and not by three immersions. Since
the only proper form of baptism is only that which is performed by three
immersions, it follows that Western Christians must be considered not to
have been baptized since they were not baptized in that manner and
consequently, they must be baptized when they want to convert to the
Orthodox Church. This decision by the above mentioned Council in
Constantinople was called for by extraordinary circumstances, which
arose in the 18th century in the relations between the Greek and Latin
Churches, and was a reaction on the part of the Greek Church towards
the aggression against that Church on the part of Latin propaganda. From
a formal point of view the motivation for this decision has some basis
since the Orthodox Church's canons call for the baptism to be performed
by triple immersion of the one baptized into the water and the term
baptism itself, is derived from the act of immersion, and the same canons
condemn that baptism which was done by a single immersion as was
done by various heretics of the first centuries of the Christian Church.
But the Church has never condemned that baptism which was done by
pouring. Not only that, but the Church itself permitted such a form of
baptism in the event of need and considered baptism by means of
pouring as not contrary to the apostolic tradition. Therefore, the above-
noted decision of the Constantinople Council cannot be considered as
binding for the whole Orthodox Church since it is contrary to the
practice of the Eastern Church of all centuries and particularly, to the
practice of the Greek Church itself from the time of the division of
Churches to the time of that Council in Constantinople."[87]

And still more:

"As a result of the exceptional conditions that arose in the relations

between the Greek and the Latin Churches, the 1756 Council in
Constantinople promulgated a requirement to baptize anew every Roman
Catholic desiring to convert to the Orthodox Church. A similar
requirement called forth by a similar set of circumstances as was faced
by the Greek Church was decreed by one of the Moscow Councils in
1620. But these requirements, deviating from many centuries of practice
by the Eastern Church, were looked upon as an extreme example of
strictness, inevitably called for by the unfavorable circumstances of the
times, and do not have, nor can have, a universal significance."[88]
This then is the opinion of one of the best known canonists of the Orthodox Church.
We will repeat that not a single Orthodox Church, with the exception of the Greek,
adopted the decisions about the re-baptism of Roman Catholics or Lutherans during
their conversion to Orthodoxy.

We will now look at the circumstances that prompted the decision of the
Constantinople Council of 1756, which was cited above in full. Professor A. P.
Lebedev in his "History of the Greco-Eastern Church under the Power of the Turks"
writes as follows:

"The Council under the patriarchate of Symeon (taking place in

Constantinople in 1484) required on the part of a Latin renegade (i.e., a
person desiring to convert from the Roman Catholic faith to the
Orthodox faith) that he would only renounce his Roman Catholic errors.
The act of reception was that the renegade was anointed with the Holy
Chrism, as it is done during the baptism of infants. The rite was notable
for its simplicity. In this respect the Greek Church of the 15th century
stood much higher than the Greek Churches of the 18th and 19th
centuries. As is known, the Greek Church in the 18th century raised a
noisy argument about the means for the reception of Latin converts - as
well as of Protestants - to Orthodoxy, and began to lean towards the
opinion that such renegades must be re-baptized as actual heretics who
do not believe in the Trinitarian dogma. As a result of those arguments,
there arose in the Greek Church a practice contrary to the canons which
could serve to cool the desire of the renegades to convert to Orthodoxy,
with the result that those seeking the Orthodox truth began to be re-
baptized."

Professor Lebedev writes further:

"One of the most convincing examples, which serves as evidence to

what a great degree of instability existed in the Church in
Constantinople, was the history accompanying the arguments about the
baptism of the Latins. In 1751, during the reign of Patriarch Cyril V, in
the region of Katirli in Nicomedea there appeared a certain monk,
Auxentius, who was a deacon and who began to preach to the people
about the errors of the Latins. With a particular insistence he began to
preach against the validity of Latin baptism coming to the conclusion
that the Latins (and the Protestants along with them) must be re-baptized
upon their conversion to the Greco-Eastern Church. Patriarch Cyril,
although fully aware about Auxentius' preaching, gave the appearance of
knowing nothing about it, acting so out of fear of bringing about a hatred
from the papist side, although deep in his soul he was in full accord with
the preacher. The number of those in agreement with Auxentius'
teaching grew from day to day, but the Patriarch out of caution
expressed neither sympathy nor a lack of sympathy with the prophet, as
Auxentius was looked upon by the people. Auxentius insinuated himself
as a prophet by malice and cunning. He managed to learn from their
confessors about the sins of some of his own and their spiritual children
and upon meeting them would accuse them of their sins when they
believed that these sins were not known to anyone, and insistently
admonished them to refrain in the future from the greater of such sins
threatening them with eternal punishment. The one who was so accused,
naively believed that Auxentius was privy to secrets. Because of this he
was perceived as a prophet. Auxentius was seen as a holy man, and he
attracted any number of men and women who would hang on to his
every word, repented of their sins, begging for an imposition of his
hands and asked for his prayers and blessing. Soon, in the following year
of 1752, there was a change in the patriarchate. In place of Cyril, Paisius
II became patriarch. He immediately ordered Auxentius to stop his
preaching about the re-baptism of Latins and Armenians. Yes,
Armenians, because the seer of Katirli pronounced that Armenian
baptism was invalid. But, the latter did not want to listen to the voice of
the patriarch of Constantinople. Once or twice Auxentius was summoned
to the synod where he was admonished collectively, but he had no
thought about leaving his delusion. Then, in order to admonish
Auxentius of Katirli, a didaskolos [teacher], a certain Kritios, was sent,
but the crowd, aroused by the fanatical preacher, could barely be
restrained from tearing the didaskolos to pieces. The public excitement
grew and grew. Auxentius was listened to not only by the simple people,
but also by archons and archontes, and a large part of his hearers came
over to his side and joined him in expressing their obvious
dissatisfaction with Patriarch Paisius and the synod. Supported by the
mob, Auxentius not only did not want to hear the reproofs and the orders
of the patriarch and the synod, but he publicly dared to name as heretics
the patriarch himself along with the synod, declaring them to be devotees
of papacy. In opposition to Paisius, Auxentius praised the former
patriarch, Cyril V, as a truly Orthodox person because, to be sure, Cyril
was inclined to share the views of that extreme and unreasonable
opponent of the Latins. The patriarch and the bishops, in an attempt to
end the controversy and to dampen the discord between the Greeks and
the Armenians and the Papists, once again forbade Auxentius to continue
his illegal preaching. But these new pressures on the part of Church
authorities against Auxentius resulted in the public's expression of their
hatred towards the patriarch and the bishops. The opposition of
Auxentius' partisans against the Church authorities took on the
characteristics of a riot. Thus the Turkish government became involved
in the affair, in all probability at the insistence of the patriarch and the
synod. That government approached those responsible for social unrest
in its own fashion. It understood that a direct and open action against
Auxentius would not be without danger and thus initiated a ruse. Once,
during the night, a very important Turkish official was sent to Auxentius
in Katirli in order to invite the false prophet to Constantinople,
supposedly for a distinguished audience with the Grand Vizier. The plan
was successful. Ambition reared itself in Auxentius. His admirers on
their part urged him to accept the Vizier's invitation. But as soon as
Auxentius got into the boat and moved away from the shore, as if on a
previously arranged cue, the troublemaker was strangled and his body
was thrown into the sea (according to another version, Auxentius and
two of his chief admirers were hanged). On the following day Auxentius'
followers arrived in Constantinople and went right to the Grand Vizier's
palace; but they did not get any news about the fate of their leader.
Following this they, as a mob, moved towards the Patriarchate, yelling
and screaming abuses against the patriarch. Finally they seized the
patriarch and subjected him to a beating. The Phanar police were barely
able rescue the patriarch alive from the hands of the enraged mob. Then
the patriarch hid himself and sailed into the sea. The mob could not be
calmed. Some 5000 people moved towards the Porte and started to yell
in one voice that they did not want Paisius as patriarch and demanded
the restoration of Cyril V to the throne. The mob yelled with fury: "We
don't want Paisius! He is an Armenian! He is a Latin! That's why he
refuses to baptize Armenians or Latins! He wants to destroy the
Venerable One (Auxentius)! We don't want him!" And so Cyril became
patriarch. In ascending the throne he did everything he could to benefit
the party of Auxentius. He issued an official document by which he
decreed to re-baptize Roman Catholics and Armenians when they
convert to Orthodoxy. Not everyone went along with the Patriarch's
determination - the more senior of the bishops were against it, an
especially strong protest in defense of the truth came from Metropolitan
Acacius of Cyzicus and Samuel (later patriarch) of Derconium. There
was even a tract proving the illegitimacy of re-baptism. There is a strong
attempt in the patriarch's document to tone down the effect of that tract
upon the mind. We read in Cyril V's document: ." . .We triply condemn
the senseless and anti-canonical composition. Whosoever would now or
in the future accept this composition, we proclaim them to be
excommunicated, whether they be priests or laymen. Their bodies upon
their death would not turn into dust and will turn into timbrels. Stones
and iron will decay, but their corpses, never! Their fate should bring
them a pox and strangling like Judas! Let the earth swallow them up like
Dathan and Abiram! May the angel of the Lord pursue them with his
sword to the end of their days." A learned Greek author, Vendotis, filled
with a feeling of indignation towards Cyril's determination about re-
baptism, could not find sufficient words to express his feelings
adequately. He noted: does not Cyril wish to proclaim God himself as a
protector of every profanity and heresy? Does he not want to proclaim
that the Holy Apostolic Church is capable of falling into error? He writes
that Cyril was able to support his determination only with the help of
Turkish authorities. According to him, the incumbent Sultan, Osman,
having learned about Cyril's determination said that the patriarch acted
like an Islamic Mufti who had the right to define Islamic religious
teaching and that all metropolitans are obliged to defer to the patriarch in
this decision, and whoever does not wish to do so, let him return to his
diocese so that the arguments may cease in the capital.

The controversy, which arose about the question of re-baptism,

continued during the time of Cyril's successor - Callinicus IV. This is
what happened to this patriarch. When Callinicus celebrated for the first
time in his new office, as he stood on the solea to impart his blessing to
the people he heard a frenzied cry from those present: "Down with the
Frank, brothers! Down with the Frank!" Then the mob threw itself upon
the patriarch and dragged him out of the church not wishing to desecrate
the church's dais with blood. It was barely possible to rescue the
unfortunate patriarch from the hands of Auxentius' fanatical followers.
The patriarch, half-dead and stripped of his clothes, barely survived with
his life thanks to the bravery of his clerics. The people's anger was
directed at the patriarch completely by chance. It was said that he
supposedly thought like the Latins and this view was based on the fact
that prior to becoming patriarch he lived in multinational Galata, and so
they thought that he was a creature of the Latins who also lived there.
Callinicus remained patriarch for only several months. These then, were
the lamentable circumstances which brought about the repeal of the
Church's ancient practice of receiving Latins and Armenians who
converted to the Orthodox Church - by means of their rejection of their
former errors and followed by chrismation."[89]
It can be added to the words of our great scholar that this determination about the re-
baptism of Latins who converted to Orthodoxy was the result of ignorance and bad
faith in the preparation of the determination. There is a total absence of any reference
to the decisions of previous Councils, opinions of the Holy Fathers such as St. Mark
of Ephesus and St. Gennadus II (Scolarius) Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the
result of demagoguery and narrow chauvinism. Thus, this determination can in no
way be called "Ecclesial" but as something alien to those great Church canons and the
opinions of the Holy Fathers that were known to the Universal Orthodox Church.
Thus, it is clear why the other Orthodox Churches did not accept it as such.

Although it is an uncontroversial fact that this was an expression of hatred towards the
Latins, the circumstances can in no way be compared to what happened in Russia at
the time of Patriarch Philaret and what took place in the Patriarchate of
Constantinople in the 18th century. There was an unprecedented and cruel onslaught
of Latins upon Russia. There was the martyrdom of Patriarch Hermogenes and a
persecution of the Orthodox Church and her bishops. There were malicious plans on
the part of the Latins, working through the False Dimitri, to destroy all champions of
Orthodoxy in Russia. In the Greek world there was the presence of Latin propaganda
spread primarily by Jesuits (such as what they spread in all other lands). That
propaganda had a minimal effect in Greek lands and was even contained by the
Turkish powers and, it can be said, was of a rather limited scale.[90]

As was pointed out, Greek chauvinism that was to grow in the 17th, 18th, and 19th
centuries in monstrous strides, played no small part in Patriarch Cyril V's
determination. After Byzantium ceased to exist, the great-power pride of Byzantine
Empire and of its Church was replaced by an unhealthy chauvinism among the Greeks
and especially among the Greek hierarchy. This chauvinism projected in a passionate
hatred towards the non-Orthodox, a contempt towards other Orthodox peoples and
malevolence even towards Russia, her people and her Church, from which the Eastern
Church received countless benefits and wealthy gifts, enjoying the protection of the
Russian monarch and the Russian Church. They looked down upon the Russians and
would not look for anything authoritative in the legislation of the Russian Church,
which could have been of benefit to them.

In his book "The Character of Russian Relations towards the Orthodox East in the
16th and 17th Centuries," Professor N. F. Kapterev writes:

"Arriving in Moscow to beg for alms, the Greeks went out of their way
to praise and glorify the Russians. They would be touched upon
encountering their proper and firm piety, however, in this case they
frequently spoke without sincerity, without a genuine respect for Russian
piety, but with a desire to please the Russians in every way, to be liked
 by them and thus curry favor with them in anticipation of more generous
alms. They looked upon the Russians as a people, although strong and
wealthy, but at the same time coarse and ignorant who were still in need
of care and guidance from the more mature and educated Greeks. It is
self-evident that the Greeks did not express their unflattering opinions
while in Moscow, where they were strictly watched, but when they were
out of Russia they were not so constrained."[91] "In the eyes of the
Greeks, the Russian people were coarse and ignorant and stood on the
lowest step in their Christian understanding and life."[92]

Further Professor Kapterev gives several examples of Greek bad attitudes towards the
Russians. He gives some of the Russian complaints about the extreme and
contemptuous attitude of the Greeks:

"In 1650 Pachomius, a cleric of the Chudov monastery, upon returning

from Moldavia, reported to the Tsar: "Those Greeks abroad hate the
Russian people from Moscow and Kiev, and those who come through
are called dogs." He writes further: "And the icons that your Royal
Mercy gave as gifts to the Greek elders for various monasteries in
Palestine, the Greek elders sell them and carry them about the
marketplaces as if they were plain boards. They do not venerate those
icons and do not place them in their churches."

The Greeks burned the service books that the Tsar sent to the Greek monasteries in
Athos, which extremely upset the Russians and which was done for lack of respect
towards them. The compiler of the Russian Menologion noted that ." . . the Greeks are
proud and contemptuous" towards the Russians, scorning their piety. One of the
Greeks, in a letter to his kin in Constantinople, writes: "God wants to rescue me from
the crude and barbaric people of Moscow . . . they are hardly Orthodox
Christians."[93] Especially characteristic was the information - based on primary
sources - given by Professor Lebedev:

"It is pointless to think that the Greek hierarchy looks kindly upon the
Russians, who hope to do away with the triumph of the crescent over the
cross in the ancient lands of Orthodoxy. The Greek hierarchs know very
well that there is no greater threat to the Ottoman Turks than that from
Russia. However, blinded by their Phylletism, they look down upon her
from on high hardly concealing their contempt. According to their
thinking, to fall under the dominion of Russia would mean to be
embraced by crudity and barbarism. The Greeks think: "What is there in
common between the Russian whip and the noble Hellenic nation?
Between despotism and freedom? Between the Scythian darkness and
 Greece of the South? What is there in common between that radiant and
noble Greece and the gloomy Ahriman [the spirit of evil in
Zoroastrianism.- Tr.] of the North? The dreams about their spiritual
union is merely the fruit of the mob's ignorance for whom the peal of
bells is worth more than those enlightened thoughts accessible only to
the best of the Greeks."

The Greeks have looked down on the Russian with such scorn not just since recent
times, not only in the 19th century. They did so even earlier. Already in the middle of
the 17th century some Greek peddlers, dealing in their moldy merchandise in
Moscow, afterwards dared to spread preposterous stories about Russia in
Constantinople. For example, they said that there were no teachers in Russia and that
the Tsarevich himself was taught by them, the peddlers, to "play with spears" and that
some monk "conjured the Russians" never go to war against the Tartars and that the
Russians paid heed to that monk. They made light of the Russian Tsar himself saying
that he got so involved in the crafting of a silver font for the baptism of the (Danish?)
king's son that he completely neglected all of the most important matters. But the
disdain towards the Russians, as towards people less cultured than the Greeks, was not
the only reason. This was the fear among the senior clergy of a possible conquest of
Constantinople by the Russians. The hierarchy was afraid that if the Russians expelled
the Turks from Europe, the bishops would be forced to live and act according to the
Church's canons, something that the bishops were no longer accustomed to do. One
very learned Greek bishop, in the 1860s, summed up the thinking of all the earlier
bishops when he said: "You Slavs (i.e., Russians) are our natural enemies. We must
henceforth support the Turks. As long as there is Turkey, we are taken care of. Pan-
Slavism is dangerous for us." As the result of all these attitudes on the part of the
Greeks and especially the bishops, one Russian traveler to the Middle East noted that
beginning with the lowest monk and ending with such representatives of the Church
as the patriarch, all the Greek clerics hate us instinctively, but also from the bottom of
the heart. We will give some examples of this hatred with which the most senior
hierarchs of the Greek Church are animated. These facts bring about a morally
difficult situation, and we will refrain from any comment. Let the facts speak for
themselves.

The Right Reverend Porphyrius Uspensky in one of his works dedicated to the study
of Greek church life relates an incident, a "marvel of marvels" as he describes it. The
Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius (in 1845), when he appeared before Sultan
Abdulla-Medjid, kissed his foot and said: "Lord, now lettest thy servant depart in
peace, according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation which thou hast
prepared" (All this was directed to the Sultan). The narrator adds: that patriarch was a
friend of the Turks and an enemy of Russians and allegedly he said: "Let me have a
small piece of some Russian's flesh, and I will chop it into the tiniest particles." The
same Right Reverend Porphyrius writes in another of his articles: "In 1854, when the
war was raging in our Sebastopol, the ecumenical patriarch (naturally, of
Constantinople, but the author does not give his name; probably Anthimos VI), in
response to Sultan Abdulla-Medjid's orders, published a prayer for Orthodox
Christians, composed by him in the flowery style, in which God is begged for victory
for our enemies and for us (i.e., for our Christ-loving army) - defeat. The prayer reads:

"O Lord our God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who hast
created all in wisdom . . . O King of glory, receive Thou now the prayer
of Thy humble and sinful servants, which we now offer on behalf of the
most-sovereign, meek and most-merciful king and autocrat, Sultan
Abdulla-Medjid, our master. O Lord God of Mercy, hear us Thy humble
and unworthy servants in this hour and by Thine invincible might protect
him, strengthen his army, grant him every victory and spoil, destroy his
enemies, who rise up against his power, and do all in his favor, that we
my live a quiet and peaceful life, praising Thy most holy name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

There is no doubt that the patriarch of Constantinople and the Greek bishops prayed
not only with one mouth but also with all their hearts. This prayer, the Rt. Reverend
author adds, was even sent to Athos. But there it was not read, not in churches nor in
the cells." And finally, an episode from the last Russian-Turkish war over Bulgaria.
When the Russians occupied Bulgaria, the chief military commander, Count Totleben
was returning from Livadia, i.e., from the Russian Tsar himself. In Adrianopole he
was met by clergy of all denominations - Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews and even
Muslims. They all came to the count to demonstrate their gratitude for the protection
provided by the Russian authorities. They all came, - with the exception of the Greek
Metropolitan Dionysius. The Russian military authorities concluded from this and
other incidents that "the attitude of the Greek clergy towards the Russians was not
friendly and that they attempted to express that even in the smallest details."
Adrianopole again reverted to the Turks. When the new Turkish governor-general
Reut Pasha arrived there, the Greeks arranged a solemn reception, and it was said in
one of the speeches: ." . . for too long we were in captivity, finally we see our
liberator."[94]

In the "Letters from the Holy Mountain" we see that the Greek monasteries in Athos
refused to admit Russian scholars to use their libraries under the pretext that the
Russians steal their ancient manuscripts.

Whether as a result of deteriorating relations between the Russians or the Greeks, or

independently of that, the Sacred Ruling Synod in 1721, according to Professor
Kapterev, ". . . solemnly and officially repealed the elevation of the patriarch of
Constantinople's name during divine services, which up to this time was always done
in Russia, - not wanting to see even a hint or shadow of preference or pre-eminence of
the patriarch of Constantinople in the Russian Church."[95]

This has all been discussed not to bring about some kind of antagonism towards the
Greek people and their Church. All this has changed and improved over time and
become past history. Today relations between the Greek and Slavic Churches are
fraternal and collegial. Even relations with the non-Orthodox, that have at times been
hostile, now reflect mutual respect and cordiality.

We have discussed all of this to show the atmosphere that existed during the era when
the Church of Constantinople promulgated its decrees about the re-baptism of Roman
Catholics and Lutherans that desired to convert to Orthodoxy, and when there were
debates and interpretations of the canons in the Pedalion (Kormchaya). This was
taking place during the gloomiest period of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate's
history, when the Church's decrees, although written in flowery and ecclesiastical
language, were in substance motivated not by the true needs of the Church, but came
about because of ignorance, demagoguery and extreme chauvinism, and were
regressive with respect to the Canons of the Universal Church and a repudiation of the
beneficial experience of the Russian and other Slavic Churches. The great Russian
Church, moving along the path of magnanimity, broad vision and kindness as well as
upon canonical principles of the Universal Church and her own experience, not only
rejected this Greek decision about the re-baptism of Latins and Lutherans who
converted to the Orthodox Church, but even made the path towards Orthodoxy easier
for the non-Orthodox. We introduced the reader to her wise and considerate Canons in
the previous chapter of our essay.

___________________________

Footnotes

[82] Given in Nikodim Milash, Canons of the Orthodox Church with Commentary,

1911, vol. I, pp. 589-590.

[83] The reference is to the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, which are not of the apostolic
times but of later centuries.

[84] Milash, supra, p. 590.

[85] Pedalion, 1800 edition. English translation, 1857 edition, pp. 68-76, p. 402, note
9. Citations also taken from Bishop Nikodim' Orthodox Canon Law, p. 591.
[86] Bishop Nikodim Milash, Orthodox Canon Law, pp. 590-591.

[87] Ibid, pp. 591-592.

[88] Bishop Nikodim Milash, Canons of the Orthodox Church. . . , vol. I, pp. 119-

120.

[89] A. P. Lebedev, History of the Greco-Eastern Church under the Turks, 1903, pp.
270, 323-328.

[90] See Pichler, Geschichte der kirchliche Trennung, 1865, v. II, S. 107.

[91] N. F. Kapterev, The Character of Russian Relations towards the Orthodox East

in the 16th and 17th Centuries, 1914, p. 427.

[92] Ibid, p. 435.

[93] Ibid, pp. 428-429. He also says that the Russian monarchs, during a period of two
centuries, spent massive sums for the benefit of the East (Ibid, p. 144).

[94] Lebedev, op cit., pp. 174-177.

[95] Kapterev, op cit., p. 473.

Reception of converts
in the United States.

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:

 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.
 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).
 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.

___________________________

Footnotes

[96] Guidelines for the Orthodox in Ecumenical Relations, 1966, pp. 8-13.

[97] See Appendix One.

[98] See Appendix Two.

[99] See Appendix Three.

[100] See note one.

[101] Ecumenical Guidelines, 1972, p. 11..

[102] See Appendix Four.

[103] Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council; Canon 95 of the Sixth Ecumenical

Council.

[104] De baptismo, lib. V, cc. 2-3-4, Z.D. 43.

[105] This document was originally translated into English and published in Orthodox
Life, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1979, pp. 35-43. At the time of this publication, it is available in
that version at http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/strictness.htm.

___________________________

Appendices
Appendix One

In my "Notes on the Second Vatican Council" I brought out a number of examples

showing that the patriarchs of Constantinople in the course of centuries had cordial
relations with the popes of Rome. During the Second Vatican Council these relations
were especially improved. In the light of this, Patriarch Athenagoras' trip to Jerusalem
for a friendly meeting with Pope Paul VI becomes understandable, followed by the
patriarch of Constantinople's visit with the pope and the latter's response to the
patriarch, as well as the return of those sacred items to the Orthodox which it times
past the Latins took for themselves namely: the return of the head of Apostle Andrew
the First-Called whom the Church of Constantinople claims to be her founder, and the
return of the relics of St. Sabbas to the cloister bearing his name. The return of these
sacred items without a doubt served to bring about closer relationships between the
Greeks and the Roman Catholics. A Greek deacon and professor, who witnessed the
return of the head of the Apostle Andrew told me about the grand solemnity with
which the transfer of the relic, sacred to the Orthodox, took place. Apostle Andrew's
revered head, stored in a silver casket in St. Peter's Basilica, was escorted by the pope
and the Latin clergy and delivered by airplane to the Greek island of Patras by
Cardinal Bea with his escort. The island's populace all gathered at the airport. The
prime minister, representing the King of Greece, presented a high Greek decoration to
the cardinal from the king. Numerous religious processions, clergy in their vestments
and up to thirty bishops met the sacred relic, the head of the First-Called Apostle, after
its 600-year absence. It is difficult to describe the joy and the excitement when the
elderly cardinal brought out the sacred relic. Preceded by the religious procession the
relic was carried into the cathedral where Archbishop Athenagoras, head of the
Hellenic Church along with the whole Greek episcopate and numerous clergy,
celebrated a Divine Liturgy. At the end of the service the archbishop took Cardinal
Bea by the arm and came out towards the people. There was an ovation by the people
for the cardinal, asking him to relate the people's profound gratitude to the pope. "We
all cried," my informant told me, "the people cried, the bishops cried, the elderly
cardinal cried." A Divine Liturgy, celebrated by a bishop, was served for forty days.
The escorting and reception of the other sacred item - the return of the relics of St.
Sabbas from Venice to his cloister in Jerusalem was just as solemn and touching. St.
Sabbas told his pupils that his incorrupt body would be removed from his cloister and
later would rest in the Lavra, which he founded. He pointed out that he would return
to his cloister near the end of the world. A detailed description of the relic's transfer
from Venice to Jerusalem appeared on the pages of "Russkaya Zhizn'," No. 8793, by
Mrs. V. Arturova-Kononova.

During the final session of the Second Vatican Council, an event took place that left a
great impression upon all those present. Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople and
Pope Paul VI announced simultaneously that they are mutually lifting the
excommunications and proclaim ineffective the anathemas placed upon each other in
1054. In Rome it took place as follows: The pope sat on his throne in St. Peter's
basilica. The senior cardinal read, on the pope's behalf, an epistle sent by the pope to
Patriarch Athenagoras in which the Pope expresses his regret that the Church of
Constantinople was offended by the Papal legates. We deeply regret this and "all
excommunications and anathemas that the legates placed upon Patriarch Michael
Cerularius and upon the Holy Church of Constantinople, we declare to be null and
void."

Just before that an epistle from Patriarch Athenagoras addressed to Pope Paul VI, in
French, was read to all the people, in which the Church of Constantinople declared
that all excommunications and anathemas that were placed upon "our sister, the Holy
Roman Church, are declared to be null and void."

Following this, after both epistles were read, Metropolitan Meliton, chairman of the
Rhodes convocation of Orthodox bishops and a senior representative of Patriarch
Athenagoras, approached the pope. He was vested in a gold royal mantle and was
escorted by two archdeacons. When the Papal epistle was read, the pope rose from his
place, unrolled his manuscript-epistle, which was embellished in gold as befits those
golden words to be written in gold, and showed it to the people. He then rolled it up
and gave it to Metropolitan Meliton. When the metropolitan accepted the manuscript,
kissing the pope's hand, the pope embraced the metropolitan and exchanged the kiss
of peace with him. The metropolitan's back was towards us, thus we were unable to
see the expression on his face. The pope was facing us, and at that moment his face
was so radiant that it is only right to say that this was the face of an angel. It is
difficult to convey that joy, that excitement, which at that moment seized all those
present who numbered in the thousands. Many cried, everyone applauded as is done
by the Italians and some, falling on their knees, raised their hands towards heaven in
an expression of profound gratitude to God for that moment. When the metropolitan
returned to his place, his path was accompanied by ovations which, I would say, were
even louder than those accompanying the pope. Many, in tears, turned to me as a
representative of the Orthodox Church saying that if the Vatican Council was
convened only for this moment, it was worth the effort and the means expended for it.
We all felt that we were present at one of the most notable, beautiful and moving
moments in history. And I noted, not daring to affirm, that this was a special sign of a
blessing from God. Perhaps it was only a natural phenomenon, but this was winter,
the end of December. It was cold and heavily overcast. But at the very moment when
the pope handed his epistle to Metropolitan Meliton, a bright ray of light broke
through the basilica's side window and the sun illuminated the pope and the
metropolitan.

The Russian Church Abroad did not recognize Patriarch Athenagoras' act, feeling that
the patriarch was obliged to do something like this only with the consent of all the
Orthodox Churches because the matter of the schism between the Eastern and
Western Churches concerns all the Orthodox Churches. This is not only a personal
relationship between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople. We, the observers
from the Russian Church Abroad, received a directive by telephone from our Church
authorities not to be present during the ceremony of the mutual lifting of anathemas
between the Churches of Constantinople and Rome. But we, after consultation with
each other, felt that such a demonstration would be harmful for our Church, which we
honorably represented. Our demonstration would not have been noticed. Of what
significance would have been the absence of three individuals in the face of a mass of
tens of thousands?

However, we felt that the mutual lifting of the anathemas, although it was a beautiful
and noble gesture, added nothing of substance to the relations between the Orthodox
and Roman Churches, since even prior to the Vatican Council, the relations between
the Churches have of late, improved. The Vatican Council merely strengthened them
thus the mutual lifting of the anathemas was a natural progression of these improved
relationship between the Churches. If only such a mutual lifting of anathemas
occurred in 1054 or shortly after, when there was still a unity of faith and dogmas
between the Eastern and Western Churches, this would have brought about a oneness
of the Church and without a doubt, the fate of the world would have been different.

Appendix Two

In one of its decrees the Vatican Council felt it possible and even desirable that
Roman Catholics finding themselves beyond the vicinity of a Catholic Church, could
receive the holy sacraments, including Holy Communion, from Orthodox Churches in
their vicinity. Only the Moscow Patriarchate responded to this and announced a
decision favorable to the Catholics, allowing them to receive Communion in Orthodox
Churches where there were no Roman Catholic churches. This decision was accepted
by the Patriarchal Synod on December 16, 1969 and was also affirmed at a later date.
See Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate in English, 1983, No 4, p. 76.

Appendix Three

Sometime before the Vatican Council a Polish priest who spoke fluent Russian told
me, with great feeling, of his experience. He was exiled to Siberia by Soviet
authorities. Then, during the Second World War a Polish contingent was organized to
be part of the British 8th Army. The Poles released from Soviet camps began to
organize their own divine services. But they had no vestments, nor sacred vessels.
They made vestments from sacking. Then they were told to contact the local Orthodox
bishop. When the Polish priests came, they were warmly received by the Russian
bishop who told them that he was really in a position to help them. He gave them
Roman Catholic vestments, sacred vessels and other church articles. These items
came to the bishop in the following manner. When the destruction of churches began
in the Soviet Union, the local Roman Catholic bishop instructed his clergy to bring all
church articles to the local Orthodox bishop saying, "Perhaps the Orthodox Church
will manage to survive, but we Catholics don't have a chance. So, let the Orthodox
bishop have all our church articles and when he has the opportunity, he will return
them to us." The Orthodox bishop, in returning all of the church articles said that he is
overjoyed that the day did come when they could be given back to their owners. It
goes without saying that this Polish priest became a friend of the Orthodox Church.

I had a minor experience, which I will now dare to relate. In 1952, I had a parish in
Bradford, England. There were many refugees in this industrial city that had their own
churches: Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and others. There was a substantial community
of Galician Ukrainians here, who were Uniats. I was told that they were quite hostile
towards us Russians. Once, at night, I had a call from the local hospital telling me that
a woman "of your religion" was near death. Taking the Holy Gifts I hurried to the
hospital. The night was not only dark but a heavy fog covered everything. One had to
walk from one streetlight to another. I reached the hospital and was shown the ward
where the seriously ill woman was laying in an oxygen tent. Here I learned that she
was not Orthodox but a Galician Uniat. Her husband was sitting next to her, crying. I
told him that she was not Orthodox but belonged to the Roman Catholic faith. It was
urgent that any Roman Catholic priest be called. At the same time I assured the
husband that I will not allow her to die without Communion, and if the Catholic priest
could not come or does not come in time, I will give her Communion myself. The
Catholic priest arrived quickly. He was an Englishman and did not know Russian or
Ukrainian. I offered my help. I asked the sick woman if she repents of her sins and
does she want to receive Communion. She answered, "Yes, Father" in her Ukrainian
accent. I related her words for the priest and he gave her Communion. I was at the
hospital several days later and was overjoyed to see that the sick woman was
recovering quickly, and she was happy to see me. After this, I was walking on the
street past a Galician club and was pleasantly surprised when all those who were
outside the building doffed their hats and greeted me, a Russian priest, warmly. I told
of this to our great hierarch, Archbishop John [Maksimovich] and said to him that I
would have given Communion to the dying woman even though she was a Uniat.
After this I was ready to accept any punishment that the Holy Orthodox Church would
give me. Archbishop John's reply was worthy of his sanctity and love towards people:
"No punishment would have been given to you."

Appendix Four

While in Sydney, Australia, in 1956, I was called to see a dying infant. The tiny child,
a boy, was in an incubator. I reached my hand through the opening in the incubator
and sprinkled the infant with holy water three times, pronouncing the formula of
baptism. I even had time to anoint him with Chrism. How can we speak about any
kind of immersion?

While a priest in one of the villages in Srem, in 1949, I had the occasion to baptize an
infant brought into my church. The winter was severe. The church was unheated and
we were all dressed in overcoats, nearly shivering from the cold. The infant was well
wrapped, only his head was showing. How was he to be baptized? The elderly priest,
the parish's former rector, told me to sprinkle him three times with Holy Water using a
basil branch and say: "The servant of God (his name) is baptized in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Amen." This is what I did and this was the only way it
could have been done.

Go to the top
 Missionary Leaflet # E

Copyright © 2000

Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission

466 Foothill Blvd, Box 397, La Canada, Ca 901011

Editor: Bishop Alexander (Mileant)

(reception_church_a_pagodin.doc, 12-25-2000)

Edited by Date