I've been giving the subject of how converts from heterodox groups are received into Orthodoxy...here, more or less, is the substance of these thoughts. I'm airing them, in the hope of eliciting informed comments and perhaps finding further food for thought.
Basically, I'm trying to articulate two different understandings - one which is more common now in "world Orthodoxy", the other amongst "traditionalists".
The "World Orthodoxy"/Augustinian Style View
According to the Apostolic Canons, a Bishop or Priest who recognizes the "baptism of heretics" is to be deposed. The natural interpretation of this, is that "recognition" would mean receiving them into the Church by some means other than Baptism.
Ostensibly, this canon is contradicted by the canons of later Ecumenical Councils, which identify specific heretical groups and say of these that converts are to be received by some means other than Baptism. It needs to be stated again - these groups clearly teach errors, often of a Christological nature.
In the centuries following the "great schism" (which found Rome leaving the communion of the Orthodox Church) there was some debate over how Latins were to be received into Orthodoxy. St.Mark of Ephesus was quite aware of the errors of the Latins and explicitly stated that the Latins were not simply schismatics, but also heretics. Yet, from what I've read, he believed they should be received into the Church with Chrism and repentence (as for the Chrism, I am not sure if this was outright Chrismation, or the form used for receiving Orthodox who have apostatized from the Church but desire to return) - ostensibly this contradicts the Apostolic Canons.
For centuries (until well into the 1600's), normative Russian practice was to outright Baptize all converts from Catholicism. However, in the 17th century it was argued (at least to the satisfaction of those attending the particular synod) that the Roman Catholics were not "heretics", but rather schismatics. However ignorant one might wish to believe these Orthodox might have been, it is hard to believe they were not aware of key Latin innovations like the filioque clause or the Latin doctrine of indulgences...the very type of thing which caused St.Mark to say they were in fact "heretics." So what gives? And why did the distinction between "heretic" and "schismatic" matter to the Russians?
Byzantine practice appeared to go back and forth, or at least varied. Early on appears to have involved not the particular false teachings of the Latins, but the manner of "baptism" employed in many parts of the west - at first it was the practice of baptizing with a single immersion; later it was the Latin change to baptizing all of their flock with three aspersions (pouring). Both were seen as being (at best) of doubtful "validity", particularly the practice of single immersion. However, those who favored a means of reception other than outright Baptism, argued (and truthfully at the time) that the practice of single immersion was not universal amongst the Latins (who in most places after the schism, did in fact baptize in an Orthodox manner, though with some practices foreign to the Christian East...such as the use of salt, etc.)
Byzantine methods of reception depended, it would seem, on the state of relations between the Latins and the Orthodox. When the Latins were hostile (both temporally and spiritually), generally the Orthodox would firm up and receive them only by Baptism. Should this be dismissed as politicized/retribution like behaviour, or is this legitimate?
One way to avoid the obvious "contradiction" between the Apostolic Canons and the canons of later Councils (or the practice of the Greeks and Russians at various times, opting to receive Latins by some means other than Baptism) to conclude that what was meant by "heresy" in the Apostolic Canons has a different significance than it does in other contexts - it would then appear that the Russians (in differentiating between the Latins being "heretics" or "schismatics") were also speaking in the same manner as the Apostolic Canons. This would mean, only heresies involving the worship of an alien "god", were determined to make utterly inadmissable the baptisms of groups who otherwise used an Orthodox "form" of baptism (this is besides the inadmissibility of those forms of baptism which were simply incorrect - such as was used by the Montanists, for example.)
"Augustinian" teaching on the sacraments would support the above view - that heretics and schismatics can "baptize". However, even if narrowly "valid", such a baptism would not be fruitful; much like how someone who is baptized in an Orthodox Church for purely social reasons (while in truth having nothing but contempt for the Church and Her teachings) would doubtless be "baptized", but without repentence would not receive the remission of sins. The Augustinian understanding hinges upon the idea that there can be moral impediments to benefitting from holy mysteries - and that being a heretic or simply in schism is such an impediment.
The Augustinian interpretation does leave the question open of "what if"; what if someone in a schism (or even a heretical group) which "validly" baptizes is not aware, or culpable of being separated from the Church of Christ? The simple answer would be that this is ultimatly something hidden in God - however, as a rule the Church has little choice but to assume the worst for such people, in so far as it's apostolate to them is concerned (meaning, that they must treat all such persons as potential converts, working to bring them to a place where they will formally reject the errors of their sect and bring them into visible communion with the Orthodox Church.)
Of course, this all raises the question of just what can be meant by a "valid" baptism, if it is celebrated outside of the Church? Obviously such a thing exists in some sense, otherwise there would be no way for the Church to receive converts from some groups by a means other than Baptism...but alas, what does that mean? Let us take the case of a more "culpable" person (it's hypothetical, so we can say such) - they know about the Orthodox Church, but they don't care much about the truth, are lazy, and while having some vague belief in a "higher power" really think one religion is basically as good as another...thus, since they were born of a particular ethnicity, they think they should be in such and such (heretical/schismatical) religion. They were "validly" baptized, but by the Augustinian view are not benefitting from this, and never were (let's say they were a part of a sect which baptized only in adolecence - so this person never had a sense of sin or anything even resembling contrition.) What does that mean...that the Holy Spirit was mindful of the ministrations of the schismatical-heretical clergyman, touched down and actually "marked" the person in question...but did not (or perhaps "could not") regenerate them because of their crummy attitude? Or in the case of such a heretic, does something even less than this happen?
"Traditionalist" View
Of course, one could also posit the view that the Augustinian style understanding is all wrong; that even "valid"/acceptable-form non-Orthodox baptisms are never anything more than a bath (or at least that is all we can assume or know from our human vantage point). In such a case, receiving non-Orthodox by "exactitude" in every case (baptizing them) would make perfect sense. However, how does such an understanding allow for reception of converts by "economy"? What is there than can be received? I've heard the argument (and once unquestioningly accepted it myself) that the fact they were at some point given the "waters" of Baptism is sufficient - since in Baptism, the waters are a sign of grace, not grace itself (ex. in the book of Acts, where the Holy Spirit descends upon some gentiles as a sign, prior to their being Baptized - yet St.Peter argues they should still be Baptized, though mainly as a matter of good order). The idea then, in such an understanding, would be that reception into Orthodoxy is "fixing" or "adding to"/completing something which was otherwise barren.
Given the above (non-Augustinian) understanding, the only significance a non-Orthodox baptism (valid rite) has, is whatever significance the Orthodox Church decides to give it; in particular, whatever significance a particular Bishop (or local Church) choses to give it, based upon his discretion (or synodal/canonical guidance.) This would mean then, the pastor of souls is left (if it is left to his discretion; typically it is not) with two basic choices - to complete something which by itself is broken and really of no use, or to simply bestow the whole "something" outright. The reason for choosing either, would seem to depend on circumstances, and would apply only to those who have received some outward form of baptism which can be accepted as being basically "Orthodox".
The strength of this non-Augustinian view (which appears to be favoured in every traditionalist/old-calendarist treatment I've read) is that it gives some rational to the reality of some Orthodox Churches "going back and forth" on how they dealt with certain heterodox groups (such as the Latins.) Without this view, my earlier questioning of such changing positions remains (is the return to a strict policy simply "sour grapes", a form of vindictiveness...this is not a particularly flattering view of the Orthodox at all!).
The weakness of this "non-Augustinian" view, is that it leaves the ostensible contradiction in the way "heretic" is used; on one hand, the Apostolic Canons say "no heretical baptism allowed, period"...where as later Councils are willing to admit certain heretical baptisms.
One way around this seeming "contradiction", would be to say that newer legislation/policy replaces older ones. Thus at one time (in the earliest Christian period), it pretty much was the rule (and eventually was stated such) that all converts from heterodoxy were "re"-baptized; and this was for real pastoral reasons. This policy changed, for equally real pastoral reasons. The same can be said for each "going back and forth." While not every canon applies in every place and context (indeed, some overlap), they are not discarded - the reason being that there is an underlying lesson/doctrine in the canons, even ones which fall into disuse. The clear implication of the ancient Apostolic Canon on heretical baptism being, that without the Church's benevolence/correction (should She choose to do such), it is to be regarded as being nothing.
Another advantage of the "non-Augustinian" view, is that it avoids a semantical distinction which I doubt can reach into the unseen world - namely that some heresies will invalidate an otherwise exoterically "valid" baptism, while others will not. While I do believe that the choice to receive some heretics by economy and others by exactitude was in large part based upon such distinctions (at the discretion of the Church), I have my doubts that the distinction itself (apart from the Church's economy and receiving of such converts) could make one heretic's baptism genuine, and another's simply a bath... or at least that it would be humanly impossible to ever make such a determination.
Penny for your thoughts...
Seraphim
