Thoughts?

[Seraphim Reeves]

The following is from St.Athanasius,

And these too hazard the fulness of the mystery, I mean Baptism; for if the consecration is given to us into the Name of Father and Son, and they do not confess a true Father, because they deny what is from Him and like His Essence, and deny also the true Son, and name another of their own framing as created out of nothing, is not the rite administered by them altogether empty and unprofitable, making a show, but in reality being no help towards religion? For the Arians do not baptize into Father and Son, but into Creator and creature, and into Maker and work . And as a creature is other than the Son, so the Baptism, which is supposed to be given by them, is other than the truth, though they pretend to name the Name of the Father and the Son, because of the words of Scripture, For not he who simply says, O Lord,' gives Baptism; but he who with the Name has also the right faith. On this account therefore our Saviour also did not simply command to baptize, but first says,Teach;' then thus: `Baptize into the Name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost;' that the right faith might follow upon learning, and together with faith might come the consecration of Baptism.

There are many other heresies too, which use the words only, but not in a right sense, as I have said, nor with sound faith, and in consequence the water which they administer is unprofitable, as deficient in piety, so that he who is sprinkled by them is rather polluted by irreligion than redeemed. So Gentiles also, though the name of God is on their lips, incur the charge of Atheism, because they know not the real and very God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. So Manichees and Phrygians, and the disciples of the Samosatene, though using the Names, nevertheless are heretics, and the Arians follow in the same course, though they read the words of Scripture, and use the Names, yet they too mock those who receive the rite from them, being more irreligious than the other heresies, and advancing beyond them, and making them seem innocent by their own recklessness of speech. For these other heresies lie against the truth in some certain respect, either erring concerning the Lord's Body, as if He did not take flesh of Mary, or as if He has not died at all, nor become man, but only appeared, and was not truly, and seemed to have a body when He had not, and seemed to have the shape of man, as visions in a dream; but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about with them the phrase, `He was not,' as mud in a wallet, and spit it forth as serpents their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity. Right indeed is it to pity their dupes; well is it to weep over them, for that they sacrifice their own interest for that immediate phantasy which pleasures furnish, and forfeit their future hope. In thinking to be baptized into the name of one who exists not, they will receive nothing; and ranking themselves with a creature, from the creation they will have no help, and believing in one unlike and foreign to the Father in essence, to the Father they will not be joined, not having His own Son by nature, who is from Him, who is in the Father, and in whom the Father is, as He Himself has said; but being led astray by them, the wretched men henceforth remain destitute and stripped of the Godhead. For this phantasy of earthly goods will not follow them upon their death; nor when they see the Lord whom they have denied, sitting on His Father's throne, and judging quick and dead, will they be able to call to their help any one of those who have now deceived them; for they shall see them also at the judgment-seat, repenting for their deeds of sin and irreligion.

(Four Discourses Against Arius chapter 18 - par.42, 43)

It seems plain from the above that St.Athanasius rejected the Baptism of the Arians - yet we know that according to the Ecumenical Councils, the Arians were accepted without "re"-Baptism. Arguably, this is a case of "economy" in the sense St.Nicodemus the Hagiorite taught.

In the above we see the rational for why St.Athanasius rejects the Baptism of Arians as being genuine - because while the Arians use the right "words", the doctrinal content behind those words (when used in an Arian church) would be erroneous.

Given what I've read so far on this subject, the message I get is that "heretical baptism" is of itself void, because of the disbelief/misbelief of the heretical sects administering it.

With this in mind then, what about Roman Catholic baptism? I suppose you could make the same argument as St.Athanasius makes against the Arians - on the basis of the filioque heresy. By extension this could be extended towards Protestantism in general (at least the old fashioned, "confessional" sorts, like Lutheranism or Presbyterianism), since by default they too are "filioquists"; and in the case of more modern, evangelical sects, they're so non-creedal and a-doctrinal in spirit that it's hard to know exactly what their denominations actually believe about God, and the Person of Christ.

Of course, this begs the question about those groups who do not differ on any points of doctrine, but simply on issues of authority or other ecclessiatical matters. While there is obviously a sin involved with those who are responsible for the schism, or those who are fully aware of it but have no interest in rectifying their position on the matter... given the basis St.Athanasius has here for denying the grace of Arian baptisms, could it be said that those groups are in fact "graceless"?

This is particularly pressing, since history is riddeled with schisms which were temporary in nature, and even ostensible schisms which involved parties who were later deemed genuine confessors and even martyrs for the faith. According to the first canon of St.Basil, who cites St.Cyprian as an authority, the communication of the Holy Spirit, and the Apostolic Succession, are broken by schismatics - but how do we distinguish ultimatly blameless ruptures in communion (though these can be quite bitter) from real schisms?

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

I can't really comment on the Baptism stuff at this point (the thread is going faster than I can process the information ), though I'd like to address the comment by Saint John. I'll preface what I'm going to say with this: I consider St. John to be the greatest saint of the past century, and perhaps the brightest light of Orthodoxy since St. Seraphim of Sarov. I do not doubt for a second his sanctity, or his understanding of truth. However, I must agree with Metropolitan Philaret (perhaps another Saint?) when he said:

I cannot understand the position taken on this issue by the late Vladyka John, a true minister of God and a man of God. - A Letter from Metropolitan Philaret to Abbess Magdalena

Met. Philaret was, of course, speaking of a different situation, but the basic idea holds the same, as can be seen by the rest of Met. Philaret's thought:

Why didn't he "dot the i " from the very beginning and explain to the Evlogians the total falsehood of their path and position? For it is precisely because of this, because it was not stated at once and clearly where the truth is and where falsehood (for two truths there cannot be), where is white and where black, where light and where darkness, which path is correct and which incorrect--there would not now exist this "interjurisdictional hodgepodge" and the position would be clear.

That fact, that many from among the "Orthodox" indiscriminately attend what ever church, what does it tell us? Why simply that people do not hold the truth dear. For this very reason they don't bother giving the matter much thought. "The services are identical, everything is the same what need is there to philosophize?" Or, as our Fr. John Storozhev in Harbin (the last spiritual father of the murdered Imperial family), one of the best pastors of the Diaspora, used to say with poignant irony: "the bells ring; the popes [colloquial Russian for simple village priest] serve; the singing is good; what more do you want?" To which may be added the oh, so familiar "After all, God is one!"

I would not dare say a word against St. John, but I must admit that I don't always understand why he did and taught as he did. I believe it was divine providence that someone as strict as Met. Philaret became the First Hierarch, to keep those more moderate from going too far, including perhaps even the blessed Saint John (and, if memory serves, John was one of the original supporters of the young Met. Philaret becoming first hierarch, because of his piety, and because Bp. Philaret hadn't become a member of any of the factions or parties).

Hopefully at some point I will get all the information about baptism read through!

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

... given the basis St.Athanasius has here for denying the grace of Arian baptisms, could it be said that those groups [schismatics] are in fact "graceless"?

• but how do we distinguish ultimatly blameless ruptures in communion (though these can be quite bitter) from real schisms?

Seraphim,

The Church has treated schismatics in two ways. On the one hand there was the thought that the baptisms of those priests who were not in visible unity could be accepted without any further consideration. This is qualified below. On the other hand, and more prominent, schismatics were treated the same as heretics. You will note that according to the canon of St. Basil, which was in the time of St. Athanasios, the Arians, clear heretics, were lumped together with schismatics to be received by economia. Simaltaneously, other heretics were lumped together with schismatics to be received by complete Baptism. The explanation as documented in a book I read was given by examination of the form each groups used. It was clearly shown that those being received by economia had not corrupted the form, but for those who did, they were received by exactness. So clearly, the severity of the heresy had nothing to do with it.

To your point about blameless schisms, it is interesting to note that St. Basil and St. Athanasios were in schism with eachother as a result of the confusion brought on by the Arian heresy. The Arian were quite organized and at many points had the complete support of the emperor. They had all of the churches whereas the Orthodox were forced into "the catacombs". Not only that, but St. Basil was part of a group (I forget the name of the group off hand) which was only one of four existing in Antioch at the time. He recognized them all as being Orthodox and wrote many letters to St. Athanasios, who was in yet another group divided group, to try and bring all the Orthodox together. Finally they appealed to Rome who were consider unbias as they were disconnected from all the turmoil in Constantinople, who sent a delegation of bishops to reconcile the various Orthodox groups. But what happened? The Roman bishop consecrated yet another group creating even more confusion. Sound familiar? As it was with St. Basil though, it is known he did not baptize or "receive" anyone from these divided groups but recognized them as Orthodox. And this is used out of context, like many other situations, to bolster the ecumenist position that there were times people from other groups were received without any Baptism or Chrismation.

[Justin Kissel]

Anastasios,

Of course a reading of St Basil's first canonical epistle shows that he believes that schismatics have grace for a time

Yes, but what type of grace? Do they have sacramental and virtuous grace? St. Basil's 1st Canon mentions the view of "the ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian" regarding certain schismatics:

they have no longer the communication of the Holy Ghost, who have broken the succession. They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen; and therefore they ordered those that were baptized by them, and came over to the Church, to be purged by the true baptism, as those that are baptized by laymen. - Canon 1

Not all take such a stance in all situations, but it does appear to be a tenable position to hold to, and a perfectly Orthodox practice/mindset, no?

[Seraphim Reeves]

Justin, Anastasios,

Of course a reading of St Basil's first canonical epistle shows that he believes that schismatics have grace for a time

I'm not sure about that. In the first canon it says...

They who first made the departure had the spiritual gift; but by being schismatics, they became laymen

What that seems to be saying, is not that they had this grace after going into schism - but rather that the originators of the schism were at one time real Bishops and Priests, being ordained in the Orthodox Church, of which they were once members. However, once they go over into schism, they become laymen - that is to say, they lose the power to act as Priests, which would include ordaining further clergy.

However, I'll grant there is something I could be missing here.

Seraphim

[Anastasios]

Everyone,

I believe that I quoted that first canonical epistle (NOT the first canon) and commented on it extensively here. So let me check the archives of this forum before I spend time quoting again.

Anastasios

[Anastasios]

Ooops, I posted it on OCnet not here. So here is a copy of what I wrote...

---

The following is food for thought for Seraphim and others. I do not necessarily believe everything I wrote in the comments but I am arguing one strain of thought used by Orthodox today so I can see what Seraphim and others have to say.

---

First Canonical Epistle of St Basil (later excerpted as Basil Canon 1) [edition & translation: De Farrari]

Now regarding your inquiry about the Cathari, mention has already been made, and rightly have you called to mind that we should follow the custom existing in each region, because those who once rendered a decision in their regard held divergent views about their baptism.* But the baptism of the Pepuzeni seems to me to have no sanction, and I have wondered how this escaped Dionysius, versed as he was in the canons. For the ancients decided to accept that baptism which in no wise deviates from the faith.** Accordingly, they employed the names: heresies, schisms, and illegal congregations; heresies, those who are completely, broken off and, as regards the faith itself, alienated; schisms, those at variance with one another for certain ecclesiastical reasons and questions that admit of a remedy; illegal congregations, assemblies brought into being by insubordinate presbyters or bishops, and by uninstructed laymen. For example, if someone who has been apprehended in error has been forbidden the exercise of his office and has not submitted to the canons, but has unjustly arrogated to himself the episcopal and priestly functions, and certain people, abandoning the Catholic Church, have gone along with him, such an affair is illegal congregation. And schism is to be at variance regarding penance with those belonging to the Church. And heresies are, for example, those of the Manichaeans, of the Valentinians, of the Marcionites, and of these very Pepuzeni; for here at once regarding faith in God itself disagreement exists. The ancients, accordingly, decided to reject completely the baptism of heretics, but to accept that of schismatics on the ground that they were still of the Church; and as to those in illegal congregations, to join these again to the Church after they had been improved by adequate repentance and change of heart; hence they often received into the same rank, whenever they have repented, even those in orders who have gone off with the insubordinate. Now the Pepuzeni are clearly heretical, for they have blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, unlawfully and shamelessly giving the name of Paraclete to Montanus and Priscilla. Therefore, either on the ground that they are making men partakers of the divine nature, are they to be condemned, or on the ground that they are mocking the Holy Ghost by comparing Him to man, and thus are liable to everlasting punishment because blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is without forgiveness. Therefore what reason is there in our having sanctioned the baptism of these who, baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of Montanus or Priscilla? For those have not been baptized who have been baptized in the names which have not been handed down to us.**** Hence, even if this has escaped the notice of the great Dionysius, we, on the other hand, must not maintain the imitation of the error. For the absurdity of the thing is quite evident of itself, and clear to all whoever share at all, even slightly, in the power of reason.

The Cathari themselves also belong to the number of schismatics. Still, however, it seemed best to the ancients - I refer to Cyprian and our own Firmilianus - to subject all these - Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arose through schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit******; for the imparting of it failed because of the severance of continuity. For those who separated first had ordination from the fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift, but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore, they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church. 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.+

We must, however, observe the wicked action of the Encratites, for in order to render themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted for the future to forestall the matter by practicing a peculiar baptism of their own, whereby they have violated even their own practice.++ Accordingly I think that, since nothing has been clearly established regarding them, it is proper for us to reject their baptism+++, and if anyone has received it from them, to baptize him on his entering the Church. If, however, this shall prove to be injurious to the general discipline, we must resort again to custom, and must follow the fathers who have dispensed legislation that pertains to us. For I entertain some fear lest, while we desire to make the people cautious about baptizing, we may by the severity of our decision stand in the way of those who are being saved. But if they maintain our baptism, let this not disturb us. For we are not under obligation to return them the favor, but to observe the canons scrupulously. And on every ground let it be decreed that those who come from their baptism be anointed, to wit, in the presence of the faithful, and thus approach the mysteries. But I know that we have received the brethren Izois and Saturninus into episcopal rank, who were of that party. Therefore we can no longer separate from the Church those who have joined their company, since through the acceptance of the bishops we have published a kind of canon of communion, with them.

• If they held divergent views then that must mean some accepted their baptism as a baptism.
  ** In other words, if you had a faith in what baptism was and does (i.e. the right form and intent) even if you are heterodox, it counts.
  *** All of whom denied the Trinity as we know it.
  **** The line separating “in” and “out” is not so clear.
  ***** But if they had been baptized in the right formula it would have counted.
  ****** People love to misread this part. He is not saying this is what the Church teaches, he is saying this is what CYPRIAN teaches.
• Clearly accepting their baptism.
  ++ Encratites did not baptize in a Trinitarian formula.
  +++ If we can reject their baptism and thus speculate on whether it counted, we could have stated it counted (if they had performed it correctly); in other words, the main concern is whether it was done correctly.