Why traditionalists Baptize heretics, Split from The OCA

[LatinTrad]

Daniel, baptism is not optional. The Church does not have the authority to give Holy Communion or Confirmation to those who have not been baptized in water and the Holy Spirit.

The Fathers were still in the process of figuring out many of these issues. As with the Christological controversies, it took a few centuries for the Church to clarify what Sacraments would still be valid when performed by heretics. The opinions of the Fathers differ widely on this topic. Basil and Cyprian had a different opinion than Augustine and Leo and, it would seem, the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

It also seems that the praxis of treating all non-EO's as completely without grace is a relatively new innovation in the Russian Church. Before the fall of the Czars, Latins who converted to the ROC were received by an abjuration of "errors" or something like that.

Moreover, the Sixth Ecumenical Council does NOT say that its command to receive Nestorians and Monophysites by abjuration and confession is a concession or use of "looseness" as opposed to "strictness." It says no such thing. The canon simply dictates how they are to be received. To deviate from this canon is a violation of sacred Tradition.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

[Daniel]

Daniel, baptism is not optional. The Church does not have the authority to give Holy Communion or Confirmation to those who have not been baptized in water and the Holy Spirit.

The Fathers were still in the process of figuring out many of these issues. As with the Christological controversies, it took a few centuries for the Church to clarify what Sacraments would still be valid when performed by heretics. The opinions of the Fathers differ widely on this topic. Basil and Cyprian had a different opinion than Augustine and Leo and, it would seem, the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

It also seems that the praxis of treating all non-EO's as completely without grace is a relatively new innovation in the Russian Church. Before the fall of the Czars, Latins who converted to the ROC were received by an abjuration of "errors" or something like that.

Moreover, the Sixth Ecumenical Council does NOT say that its command to receive Nestorians and Monophysites by abjuration and confession is a concession or use of "looseness" as opposed to "strictness." It says no such thing. The canon simply dictates how they are to be received. To deviate from this canon is a violation of sacred Tradition.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

LatinTrad,
You are correct, baptism is obligatory. But the if Church desides that there are some that can bereived without the visible sign of baptism, so be it. I'm not going to argue with the St. Basil on this.

As to your second point, the Church has never ever ever recognized any heretical or schismatic Mysteries as being valid. Just not possible.

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear OOD,

I would think strictness would be the desirable option for the person entering the Church.

It may be the desirable option for the person entering the Church, but the Council decrees the manner of reception in language that, to me anyway, doesn't make it seem optional. Non-Chalcedonians are to be received by renunciation of errors, and then they can be admitted to Communion, per the decree of the council. And it's up to bishops, and not the person entering the Church, to apply that.

I have talked to people who have been received both ways, and the ones who received the form by the Church (ie baptism), neve have any regrets and are always very happy they did.

On the other hand, those who were chrismated, often did have regrets.

Then that's a problem they have with the Church, apparently.

Dear Daniel,

think the consessions made for non-Chaldean and others is mainly for pastoral reasons. The Church, I think, felt that if being strict with everyone would turn some away that in those cases Christmation, or Confession of Faith may suffice. The canon I don't think rules out that if one wanted to be baptized that they can be.

I think the canon itself might disagree with you. It clearly says how non-Chalcedonians are to be received, not the "if all else fails" approach to receiving them. Besides, since when did the individual, and not the bishop, decide on the manner of his reception into the Church?

Maybe also that aspect of the canon refers to those who were originally baptised Orthodox, fell into schism and the repented.

It's possible, but the text of the canon doesn't seem to make that distinction.

LatinTrad writes:

Someone's either baptized or they're not. If they are baptized, it is a sacriledge to re-baptize them. If they are not baptized, then they msut be baptized before partaking of Holy Communion.

You cannot let an unbaptized person partake of Holy Communion "for pastoral reasons," no matter how nice you are.

A question. I've heard EO say that when a person is received into the Church by some method other than baptism, the person's original baptism is not being regarded as valid, but the empty form is being filled. But if you really believe that all "heterodox" baptisms are graceless, why make any exceptions at all? Why not baptise everyone, and decree that as the only way, with no exceptions? This is, after all, baptism we are talking about. How does one get "baptised without baptism", so to speak?

There is no baptism outside of the Church, heretics and schismatics have no grace and therefore can't impart what they don't have. Accepting heretics and schismatic into the Church through means other than baptism does not in any way, shape, or form validate heretical/schismatic 'baptisms.

Again, how can you be baptised without baptism? That is clearly what seems to be happening in the case of someone coming from a heterodox group being received by, say, renunciation of errors.

But the if Church desides that there are some that can bereived without the visible sign of baptism, so be it.

But how is this legitimate if the only "salvific" baptism is in the Church, and someone is entering her from outside the Church?

Moreover, the Sixth Ecumenical Council does NOT say that its command to receive Nestorians and Monophysites by abjuration and confession is a concession or use of "looseness" as opposed to "strictness." It says no such thing. The canon simply dictates how they are to be received. To deviate from this canon is a violation of sacred Tradition.

This is the sense I got as well.

[Daniel]

Dear Daniel,

think the consessions made for non-Chaldean and others is mainly for pastoral reasons. The Church, I think, felt that if being strict with everyone would turn some away that in those cases Christmation, or Confession of Faith may suffice. The canon I don't think rules out that if one wanted to be baptized that they can be.

I think the canon itself might disagree with you. It clearly says how non-Chalcedonians are to be received, not the "if all else fails" approach to receiving them. Besides, since when did the individual, and not the bishop, decide on the manner of his reception into the Church?

Nestorians are required to make written statements, and to anathematize their heresy and Nestorios, Eutyches and Dioscoros and Severos, and the rest of the leaders of such heresies, as well as those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies; and thus they may partake of Holy Communion.

The way the canon reads is that this is the minimum that must be done for Nestorians and such to be recieved. It doesnot violate the canon to baptism them, particularly if the convert requests it, because the canon doesnot forbade it. I don't think there is any canon that forbades baptising any convert.

[Mor Ephrem]

The canon doesn't say anything about a minimum, Daniel. That is something you seem to be reading into it. And again, since when does an individual have a say in how he enters the Church? I thought bishops and priests decided these things.

[Daniel]

The canon doesn't say anything about a minimum, Daniel. That is something you seem to be reading into it. And again, since when does an individual have a say in how he enters the Church? I thought bishops and priests decided these things.

Granted I may be reading that into the canon, but my thoughts are based on other canons concerning baptism.

Since there is no baptism outside the church, and the Apostolic Canons call for the defrocking of a bishop or priest who recognized the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, and fail to baptize someone that had been polluted by the impious, I don't see how the 95th Canon of the 6th Council binds a bishops hands into only receiving Nestorians by confession.

[LatinTrad]

Although it would seem to allow something that is objectively immoral--if you take the Cyprianite, or even worse, the Donatist position.

If Bishops are anathema, should they receive those who have been polluted by the impious without baptizing them again, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong. Period.

Something has to give here. Either the Sixth Ecumenical Council is wrong, or St. Basil is wrong. I go with the Council, because Fathers could and did err, whereas the Church cannot and does not.