Thoughts?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Mon 19 July 2004 11:13 am

Oops--you did say epistle earlier in the thread, though. Will read it when I get home

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Mon 19 July 2004 11:59 am

Anastasios,

Thank you for bringing this ancient wisdom of the Church to light.

First, it seems important to mention that this ancient epistle only reinforces what has been said here all along concerning the baptism of heretics. That they have no baptism is not a question, which in fact does not support the ecumenists at all, it only highlights their heresy further. Why they would use this is a remarkable question.

I also think it is important to mention that this epistle uses the word “baptism” differently at different times, even in the same sentences. Sometimes it means the One True Baptism, sometimes the act of baptism (true or not), sometimes just the concept, which is the act performed by heretics (and schismatics depending on your view).

Now to your points. Clearly St. Basil advances St. Cyprians point of view that the “baptism” of all heretics and all schismatics are completely lacking in Grace. But St. Basil expressed his authority not in the direction of a akrivia, but in the direction of a merciful resolution, serving for the benefit of the Church. I could cite some of his other writing to prove this if you like.

1) [*] The other region which held “divergent” views is no secret. The 47th Canon of this same council mentions it was Rome. More specifically at the time, it was St. Augustine. And before St. Augustine, another such person in Rome was St. Stephen, who even excommunicated St. Cyprian for his correct and ecumenically accepted canons. On the other hand, Rome’s ideas were never accepted by any ecumenical council.

With regard to the Cathari mentioned here, see 4)

2) [**] The Pepuzeni is another name for the Montanists. They baptized in the name of "the Father, and of the Son, and of Montanus". The “ancients” left no room for economia in the case of heresies, which is why St. Basil says there is no possibility here.

3) [*** and ****] I cannot see how this would serve the ecumenist position since they struggle greatly to prove the opposite: that the schismatics are outside the Church and the heretics are part of the Church. But with regard to this, clearly St. Basil is not suggesting that schismatics were members of the Church of Christ when in other places he is clear schismatics have no Grace and is nobody’s idea of an ecclesiastical compromiser. So is he contradicting himself? I could only conclude that by “of the Church” he means they are like those of the Church in every way except being inside her bosom. This thought is also born out when you consider that the baptism of schismatics which he supposedly “accepts” (as you forward), he later rejects in his forty-seventh Canon, by saying, “In a word, we baptize all Novatians, and Encratites, and Sarcophores. Even if rebaptism is prohibited with you for the sake of some economy, as it is with the Romans, nevertheless let our word have the power of rejecting, to put it plainly, the baptism of such.”

4) [****** and +] or [Paragraph 2] Clearly the reference to St. Cyprian’s formula was a reference to akrivia (i.e. the Canon in exactness) and to say that their baptism was not a true baptism, but concludes with economia (i.e. dispensing or relaxing of a canon), that for the sake of the discipline of the many, they will be accepted by economia and the Holy Chrism of the Church. This means in other words, in order to bring back “the many” into the discipline of the Church, they will accept their form, not their baptism. The canon summarizes thus: “Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism” Clearly “some in Asia” determined otherwise in order to “bring back the many” and that the form was the consideration in being able to do so.

5) [++] Clearly St. Basil is saying here that in order to be unacceptable to the Church, Encratites corrupted the form of his baptism! What better admission is there than this? Therefore the form was corrupted and could not be accepted through economia, but only by akrivia. With regard to their not knowing if they were heretics or not, and since then it was thought ALL heretics should be accepted only by exactness, it was recommended that exactness be used.

To further illustrate the point, if there was a possibility that they were just schismatics and as the ecumenists say, they had a true baptism, then it would have been a grave sin to re-baptize. But it was because that neither heretics or schismatics have grace that they didn’t really care to find out which they were, that they would just Baptize them.

So this is just my 2-cents worth, working under the constriants that the canons do not contradict the faith and themselves, although at times they may have the appearance of doing so (just like scripture).

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Tue 20 July 2004 10:11 am

Anastasios,

I know next to nothing about the Greek that Saint Basil was writing in. How sure can we be what "accepted" (as translated into English) means in this context:

But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, for the sake of the discipline of the majority, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted.

Some might say that the baptism was accepted, and therefore was "valid". However, given that St. Basil (and the rest of the Fathers) say that schismatics are outside the Church and do not have sacramental grace, would it not be more consistent to say that they "accepted" the baptism, in that they simply acknowledged that it had occured--not as a real baptism, but simply as a dunking--and that they would therefore, out of economia, not give an Orthodox baptism? I have a real problem with the word "valid," because it implied legitimacy in English... to me at least, it implies sacramental grace. Even the word "proper" seems wrong to me, since a baptism done outside the Church is really improper (even if done in a technically correct way). Maybe I'm not putting enough thought into this?