The Basis on Which Economy May Be Used in the Reception of Converts
by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)
The canons which deal with the relation of bishops, and in
general of all the children of the Church, to those outside her,
are the following: Apostolic, Nos. 10, 12, 45, 46 and 65;
Conciliar, 1st Ecumenical, Nos. 8 and 19; 2nd Ecumenical, No. 7;
6th Ecumenical, No. 95; Laodicea, Nos. 7, 8 and 33; Carthage,
Nos. 68 and 79; and the Canonical Rules of St. Basil the Great,
Nos. 1 and 47.
Among these some canons directly indicate by what rite which
heretics and schismatics should be received into the Church if
they desire it and request it, after renouncing their errors and
confessing the Orthodox faith and their acknowledgment of the
true Church.
Naturally, these canons do not lessen the necessity of baptism
by water for every man, although it must not be forgotten that
very ancient instances in the Church give us examples of the
descent of the Holy Spirit upon the yet unbaptized, so that the
subsequent baptism had a supplementary and chiefly disciplinary
significance, as uniting them to the earthly Church of Christ.
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell
on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision
which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the
Holy Spirit; for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify
God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as
well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of
the Lord" (Acts 10:44-48).
Of this same event the Apostle Peter recalls further:
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as
on us in the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord,
how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall
be baptized with the Holy Spirit. For as much then as God gave
them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord
Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts
11 :15-17).
Without dwelling further on the explanation of these
utterances, we must, of course, also notice that the descent of
the Holy Spirit, referred to in the words of the Acts which have
been quoted, did not release the believers from the obligation of
baptism by water, and this obligation many who converted from
heresy had to fulfill in accordance with the 46th canon of the
Holy Apostles, although they already had heretical baptism.
Later Councils, however, clearly distinguish which heretics
should he "cleansed by true baptism" (95th canon of the
6th Ecumenical Council and 1st rule of Basil the Great), and
which should be received by the second mystery, and which by the
third mystery and be left in their existing orders. All this is
set forth in detail in the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical
Council; in the 95th canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council; in the
1st rule of Basil the Great, and others.
However, they all issue from the same idea which lies behind
the 68th canon of the Carthagenian Council, namely, that heretics
and schismatics are without grace, which is only received by them
on being united to the Church: there can be no half-grace, in
spite of the Latin opinion. If we compare this thesis with other
canons of the Councils, we shall see that it entirely agrees with
them.
For this we need note the following characteristics of
conciliar legislation on this subject:
1. These canons were changed a) according to time, and b)
according to locality.
2. Their strictness or relaxation depended not so much on
the character of the heresy or schism, as on the varying
relationship of the heretics or schismatics to the Church;
and they varied in one direction or the other, according to
changes in this relationship of the schismatics to the
Church.
3. Sometimes the Ecumenical authorities declared their
decisions not to be final, and sometimes even deferred their
decisions while awaiting new Church Councils.
Let us turn first to the second point.
The Carthagenian Council, in its 79th canon, decided: "To
send letters to our brethren and fellow bishops, and especially
to the apostolic throne in which our revered brother and
fellow-minister Anastasius presides, to the effect that by reason
of the great need in Africa, which is known to him, for the sake
of peace and for the good of the Church, even Donatist clergy
should be received in their sacerdotal orders if they correct
their disposition and desire to come to universal unity, in
accord with the judgment and will of each bishop ruling the
Church in that place, if this will prove beneficial to the peace
of Christians. It is well known that in former times also this
schism was so treated witness to which fact may be found in
instances from many Churches and from almost all the African
Churches in which this error arose."
So we see here an instance of the application of the principle
that has already been pointed out. The manner of admitting the
various apostates depends not so much on the quality of the
heresy, as on the spiritual disposition of the candidate, and on
the expected benefit to the holy Church.
In this connection it is especially important to master the
significance of the 1st canonical rule of St. Basil the Great.
"The Cathari are of the number of the schismatics.
Nevertheless, those of old, such as Cyprian and our own
Firmilian, were pleased to include them all under one and the
same regulation: Cathari, Enkratites, Hydroparastatites and
Apotactites.
"For although the beginning of the apostasy arose through
schism, yet those who fell away from the Church no longer had the
grace of the Holy Spirit. For the power of imparting grace
disappeared because the lawful succession was cut off. For those
who first fell away had received consecration from the fathers,
and through the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gift.
But when they fell away, becoming laymen, they had power neither
to baptize, nor to lay on hands, and could not confer on others
the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had
fallen away. Therefore, those who came from them to the Church,
being considered to have received baptism from laymen, were of
old commanded to be cleansed anew by true ecclesiastical
baptism."
It is clear that by this regulation the Church does not
recognize in heretics and schismatics either the priesthood or
the other mysteries, and considers them subject to ecclesiastical
baptism in the nature of things. However, in this rule of St.
Basil, she admits the possibility of yet another manner of
receiving them. This is what we read further:
"But inasmuch as some in Asia have been resolutely
desirous, for the sake of the edification of many,
to accept their baptism, let it be accepted." St. Basil
writes further: "The baptism of the Enkratites should be
rejected and such, coming to the Church, should be baptized, but
if this should be detrimental to the general well-being, then the
usual custom should be adhered to, and the example of the
fathers, who-judiciously arranged our affairs, should be
followed. For I fear lest in desiring to keep them from hasty
baptism we should hinder those seeking salvation, by the severity
of postponement."
Now let us attempt to generalize all these indications given
at various times and reconcile them with apparent exceptions and
relaxations.
Every mystery has two sides—the visible and the
invisible. The second is administered only within the true Church
by faith and sincere prayer, according to the words of the
Apostle Peter: "The like figure whereunto even baptism cloth
also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Pet. 3:21). And the same
thought is found also in the teaching of St. John Damascene. For
those who are baptized without faith "the water remains
water" only. Heretics and schismatics, having the visible
side of baptism, chrismation and holy orders, are entirely devoid
of those gifts of grace which are bound up with these mysteries
for believers within the true Church. Therefore, certain of them,
for the alleviation of the rupture in their spiritual life and
for "the edification of many," are permitted to enter
the Church without the visible side of the mysteries of baptism
or holy orders (that is, by the second or third rite), but
through the operation of another sacramental act in which they
receive the grace of baptism, chrismation and holy orders. (For
example, for Roman Catholics, Nestorians and Donatists.)
Many are troubled by this question: Is it then possible to
replace one mystery with another? But we, that is, not we, but
the canons quoted above, are evidently founded on the words of
the Gospel: "God giveth not the Spirit by measure" (Jn.
3:34). Or, in other words, those among heretics, whether clerical
or lay, baptized and anointed (with chrism) by heretics, had only
the empty sign (or outward form) of the mystery, and it receives
the complement of grace only through that mystery which unites
them with the holy Church (chrismation or penance). Moreover, in
confirmation of this principle, should be added the custom,
established in the Church, that the reception of heretics and
schismatics, "in their existing orders," may be
performed only by a bishop; if a priest receive them, then they
enter the Church as simple laymen. This means that a schismatic
priest united to the Church receives true priesthood only through
episcopal reception; but a priest cannot bestow this grace on the
one received. It is only on such a conception of the mysteries of
the Church that her regulations as to the applicability to
heretics and schismatics of one or the other rite of reception
can be accepted; only on such a conception can the decisions of
the holy apostles about the baptism of heretics and schismatics
be reconciled with the further canons of the Councils about not
baptizing them, and about their reception by the second, or even
by the third rite. And therefore it is futile for Roman Catholic
theologians to blame the Orthodox for such diversity in practice.
As a condition of their reception in their existing orders,
the existence among schismatics, before their conversion to the
Church, of hierarchical succession, is usually insisted upon; but
from the canonical rule of Basil the Great already quoted, we see
that no schismatics have any succession and cannot have
any; a hierarchy falling away from the Church "become laymen
and cannot confer the grace of the Holy Spirit, of which they are
themselves devoid." Therefore, in judging of one or the
other rite of reception, the question of schismatical succession
is in any case secondary if not quite irrelevant.
Besides the canons of the Councils already quoted, and those
of the holy Fathers, we may refer to the words (also already
quoted) of St. Basil the Great, that each Church should keep the
customs established by her, and be guided by considerations of
benefit to the Church, and the changing disposition of heretics
(for the better or the worse). Thus special consideration was
shown to the Nestorians, although their heresy was recognized as
one of the worst, for it divided the One Mediator (I Tim.2:5)
into two persons and refused to entitle the most holy Virgin,
Mother of God. But by the time of the promulgation of the canon
they had forsaken their fanaticism and sought reunion with the
true Church. That is why local Churches now increased and now
relaxed strictness in the manner of reception.
Thus under the Patriarch Philaret, in 1620, the Latins were
reunited though baptism by water, like the heathen, because then,
that is at the time of the introduction of the Unia, a very
seductive propaganda was carried on by them, but when the Russian
Tsar annexed Little Russia (1653) and the next year carried out a
victorious expedition into Lithuania, and many Uniates began to
ask to return to Orthodoxy, the Council of 1667, in spite of all
its severity towards deserters from the Church, decreed the
reception of Roman Catholics by the third rite. Under the Turkish
yoke the holy Church was in a different position. There heresy
and schism were stronger, just at the time when among Russians
they were weaker, and therefore the practice of the Eastern
Churches took a different direction from that of the Russian
Church: when our forefathers baptized the Latins, the Greeks only
anointed them with chrism, and when we were already keeping the
regulation of 1667 and admitting them by the third rite, the
Greeks in the Council of 1754, in which all the four Eastern
Patriarchs took part, were decreeing the rebaptism of Latins and
Protestants. (They have only of late revoked this decree, and
that without a new conciliar decision, thereby yielding to the
principle of opportunism.)
Another opinion is held by the estimable Russian Old
Believers, whom I have always regarded with special respect and
sympathy, although they consider us Orthodox "heretics of
the second rite," and receive those entering their community
by chrismation, even bishops. (The last such case took place in
Russia in 1925, and the first in Rumania in 1846, when they
received Arsenius, the first Greek bishop to join their
community.)
Apparently the Old Believers are imbued with Latin views on
this question. For though the warmest opponents of the Latin
heresy, of which they, as well as our other forefathers as far
back as the seventeenth century, wrote: "of all the heresies
the Latin is the most terrible," yet, by a misunderstanding
they assimilated the doctrine of the mysteries according to the
Greater and Lesser Catechisms of the seventeenth century, which
only by a misapprehension are called Orthodox, and which set
forth (in the section on the mysteries and on the Atonement)
purely Latin doctrine. However, as books in "the ancient
printing," they are held by the Old Believers to be
infallible. In reality these books, like the majority of the
Greek and Slavonic books of that and the preceding epochs, were
paraphrased from Latin books, only with the exclusion of such
Latin errors as were exposed by the Patriarch Photius in his
Encyclical Epistle of the ninth century. This is why, like the
Latins, our Old Believers have declared that the Nikonites (that
is we) are "heretics of the second rite," and anoint
with oil (they have no holy chrism), not only the laity who come
to them, but also bishops and priests; at the same time receiving
them in their orders—a matter for tears and laughter. Like
them the Latin theologians also—those dull
scholastics—make it an accusation against the Orthodox that
they have changed the rite of the reception of schismatics and
heretics at various times and places, which indeed is fully
agreeable with the meaning of the canons and with ancient
ecclesiastical practice. A mystery is not simply an opus
operatum, but a pouring out of the grace of God preserved in
the bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Does this practice agree with our teaching about the Church
and about grace, or with the Latin teaching and its understanding
of sacraments, opere operato, as giving great grace
to the faithful and a certain half-grace to heretics and
schismatics? The latter is denied by the 68th canon of the
Carthagenian Council, which declares that in the true Church
alone are the mysteries administered, for she "is the dove,
the one mother of Christians, in which all mysteries, eternal and
life-giving, are received to salvation; but by those remaining in
heresy are received to great condemnation and punishment. That
which in the truth would enlighten and assist them towards
eternal life, in error becomes to them the more blinding and the
greater condemnation."
From this canon it is seen that heretics and schismatics have
no grace whatever; it does not exist outside the one Church of
Christ. And if in the same canon, immediately before the words
quoted, it is said that those heretics, on anathematizing their
former errors, "are received into the Church by the laying
on of hands," then it is clear that they obtain freedom from
the ancestral sin, that is, from the taint of sin, precisely
through this laying on of hands. That is to say, in this second
mystery, the first is given to them also, namely, the grace of
baptism.
Mechanical or purely formal understanding of the mysteries and
the Church leads even educated people into the most foolish
beliefs, superstitions and actions. Thus, devotion to the faith,
though worthy of all respect, under the slavery of Western
scholasticism was the cause of the following amusing episode:
In the eighties of the last century a Greek bishop, a
speculative person (probably Bishop Lycurgus, but perhaps I am
mistaken in the name), visited England. Certain English priests,
doubting the validity of their orders (that means also of their
Church?) asked him to reordain them, and this the traveler
performed, of course for filthy lucre's sake (Titus 1:1 1). But
withal, remembering the canonical rule that bishops may not
officiate in a strange diocese without the consent of the local
ecclesiastical authority, they set forth with the said bishop to
the open sea, and there on the vessel received
"ordination" from him, still remaining afterwards
clergymen of the Church of England. In this way, while straining
at a gnat, they swallowed a camel, for it is clear that if the
Greek Church is the one true Church, then after entering it it is
impossible to remain Anglican; and while remaining Anglican it is
impossible to receive ordination from a bishop of the Greek
Church, which is as yet alien from Anglicanism.
Contemporary practice in the matter of reception is defined
along the following lines:
There must be 1) apostolic succession in the community to
which the person to be received has belonged; 2) baptism by a
regular rite (that is by threefold immersion in the Name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit).
When these conditions are fulfilled the rite of baptism is not
repeated. And if his community had that mystery which we call
chrismation (or myrrh anointing), the candidate for union with
Orthodoxy is received into the Church by the third rite, that is
by the mystery of penance only. We proceed thus with Latins,
Armenians and Nestorians; this is in accordance with Canon g5 of
the 6th Ecumenical Council and others. Such reception is called
"the third rite," and "in existing orders,"
that is, if the candidate be a cleric, then he remains such in
Orthodoxy after his reception. Does it follow from this that the
Church recognizes as means of grace and valid mysteries the
baptism, chrismation and orders which the candidate received
while yet outside the Church?
Contemporary practice, inherited from Latin teaching on the
sacraments and practiced by them long before their secession from
the Church (as is seen, for example, by reference to 47th rule of
St. Basil the Great), is evidently founded on the view that
heretics and schismatics have something like grace, some kind of
half-grace.
Not without some foundation the Old Believers put to me, while
I was still in Russia, this problem. If you consider all heretics
and schismatics to be as devoid of grace as the heathen, why
cannot you receive in his existing rank a baptized Jewish rabbi,
or even a Lutheran pastor?
I answered thus: first, they themselves do not desire it; and
secondly and chiefly, they had not even the visible side of those
mysteries which goes with the bestowal of invisible grace in the
Church—at least in the interest of Church discipline, and
perhaps also for other reasons.
The conditional nature of this aspect of the matter is so
great that the holy Fathers, the canonists, left some questions
(of a liturgical character) in an undecided state for a time.
Thus St. Basil the Great leaves many details regarding the manner
of receiving schismatics and heretics into the Church, without
definite decision, and, while fully recognizing the lawfulness of
various attitudes towards them in different Churches, leaves open
certain questions to be decided by new Councils and more definite
opinions of ecclesiastical authorities (Rule 1).
We have already seen that the 79th canon of the Carthagenian
Council decrees the reception of Donatist bishops in their
existing orders, "according to the judgment and will of each
bishop ruling the Church in that place; if this should prove to
further the peace of Christians."
Therefore, reception into the Orthodox Church, 1) is dependent
on the pastoral discretion of the local bishop, and 2) this
discretion is conditioned by the general good of the Church.
We may now add that the same canon establishes our manner of
reception in comparison with that of the Church of Rome and
others. The same 79th canon says further: "This
is done, not in violation of the decisions of the Council held on
this subject in lands beyond the sea, but for the good of those
who desire to enter the Catholic Church on these terms, and in
order that no barriers might be set up against their union with
the Church."
Such decisions of the Church would be quite impossible if the
mode of reception were conditioned by the same dogmatic point of
view from which each mystery is regarded by the Latins and
contemporary Russian theologians, namely, that strict
differentiation of the grace of the mysteries which is rooted in
our own theological schools.
Even Basil the Great, dogmatic as he is in defense of
ecclesiastical authority in the same classical first rule
regarding the manner of receiving the Cathari, expresses himself
quite conditionally and hypothetically, and admits both
practices. About the Enkratites he expresses himself thus:
"In as much as nothing has been clearly declared about them,
it were seemly for us to repudiate their baptism, if this not be
detrimental to the general well-being."
Continuing, St. Basil still further mitigates his
pronouncement, and after decreeing their reception by chrismation
he adds, "I am aware, moreover, that the brethren Zoin and
Satorin, who belonged to their community, were received as
bishops (that is by the third rite). And therefore those who
belong to their community cannot now be estranged from the Church
by severity of judgment after we have established a certain
manner of reception in admitting their bishops."
From the point of view we have presented, all this is
reasonable and consistent, but from the Latin scholastic point of
view quite impossible. Thus the adoption of one or the other mode
of reception for those of other confessions who enter the Church
(that is, heretics or schismatics) depends on ecclesiastical
economy, on the judgment of the local bishops and the Councils,
and on the existence of the outward form of the mysteries of
baptism, chrismation and orders in the communities from which the
applicants come.
Reprinted with permission from Orthodox Life, vol.
30, no. 4, July-August 1980, pp. 27-35. The following note
appeared at the end: "The above article appeared originally
in the journal The Christian East (Vol. VIII, 1927, pp.
60-69) under the title "Why Anglican Clergy could be
Received in their Orders" and is presented here in a
slightly abridged form."
|