The subject of baptism has come up over and over again. It would be a huge victory for the ecumenists to convince people through confusion that there are baptisms outside the Church, because it would naturally follow (in time) that if they have that grace of the Church in this regard, then why not also the Eucharist, or Holy Marriage?
Of course it is nothing new to say that the Church of course received people by economia, but this in no way means that the Holy Fathers ever recognized those dippings as anything but meaningless.
But in order to confuse, perhaps the most grand distortion frequently referred to by those defenders of the new-calendar and the WCC, is the reference to Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council.
They say that this canon (see below) accepted Baptisms outside the Church as being real baptisms, based on the degree of their heresies.
There are other canons describing how the church has received certain groups in history, and indeed, this is a great source which the new-calendarists have cast in a cloud of confusion blending myth with distortions.
It is true and nobody can dispute that the Church has always regarded Herself as the sole Ark of salvation. Just as nobody can approach the Father except through the Son, likewise, nobody can approach the Son except by His Body the Church. Accordly, the Holy Fathers not only do not recognize the dippings of groups outside the Church, they cast them in a negative light calling them “impious” and “polluting”. And because the mind of the Church does not change, each Ecumenical Council (and a great many lesser Synods) has always upheld and declared all the teachings of the Great Council before it.
The mind of the Church is notably present in its very ancient Apostolic Canons:
Canon 46. "We command that any bishop or priest who has recognized a Baptism or communion administered by heretics be deposed; for what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an Infidel?"
Canon 47. "If a bishop or priest re-baptize anyone that already has been truly baptized, or If he falls to baptize anyone tainted by the impious, let him be deposed, as mocking the Cross and the Lord's death, and falling to distinguish a priest from pseudo priests."
Canon 50. "If any bishop or priest shall not perform three Baptisms for one initiation, but a single Baptism, administered in the death of the Lord, let him be deposed. For the Lord did not say, 'Baptize in my death,' but, 'Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
These Canons inform us that 1) the form of Baptism is three immersions in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and that 2) any Baptism administered by heretics is not only meaningless, but possibly a concord with the demons.
But now, bearing in mind the above Canons, what is to be thought about Canon 7, of the Second Ecumenical Council?
"Those of the heretics who come over to Orthodoxy, and the part of them who are saved, we receive according to the following customary order: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatarians, and Novatians who call themselves Cathari or Aristeri, and Quatrodecimans or Tetradites, and Appolinarians, we receive upon their giving a written renunciation and anathematizing every belief which is not like-minded with the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God; whereupon we first seal them, that is to say, anoint them with the Holy Myron on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and while we seal we say, ‘Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.’ Eunomians, however, who are baptized with only one immersion, and Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and Sabellians, who teach the identity of the Father and Son, and do sundry other mischievous things, and the adherents of all other heresies (for there are many such here, particularly among those, who came from the country of the Galatians) ... all these, when they desire to come over to Orthodoxy, we receive as heathen, and on the, first day, we make them Christians; on the second, Catechumens; on the third, we exercise them, by blowing upon face and ears: and we instruct them, and make them spend time in the Church and hear the Scriptures: and then we baptize them"
The Latins and those new-calendarists who are in agreement with them in the matter of heretical dippings, look upon the above "concession" as a complete reversal of the Apostolic Canons, an unqualified acceptance of the papal view. It is difficult to understand how an honest interpretation can produce such a conclusion. It is still more difficult to understand how those who believe in the Church's infallibility, can, on the strength of the scantiest reference, calmly jump to the conclusion that the Church, through the mouths of the Holy Fathers assembled at the Second Ecumenical Council, completely reversed herself, declaring that to be true and right that which she formerly condemned as wrong, and which, furthermore, she later denounced again in the Canons of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. It would seem that faith in the Church's infallibility ought to predispose one to reconcile her various pronouncements for the sake of personal honesty. At the very least, She should be given the benefit of the doubt, to the extent of being presumed innocent of self-contradiction until proven beyond all doubt as being guilty. If an honest interpretation of the, above-quoted Canon be found, one which agrees with itself and at the same time does no essential violence to the Apostolic Canons, such an interpretation would certainly be more respectful to the fathers, and more logical as well, than the conclusion jumping mentioned above. In fact, there is such an Interpretation, and it requires no sophistry or word-juggling. It requires nothing but a commendable reluctance to read into the Canon things which are not written there. Because certain specifically named classes of heretics are mentioned as having been received by Chrismation alone, why need we Jump to the conclusion that the Canon recognizes heretical dippings? Nowhere in the text is it written that heretical dippings are anything more than declared by the Apostolic Canons.
In the text we find two groups of specifically named heretics, the first of which is accepted by Chrismation only. This group we shall call "group 1." The other group which is ordered to be "re-baptized," we shall designate as "group 2." Let us examine and compare a few of the heresies named in the two groups in order to discover, if we can, the reason why it was decided to favor group 1over group 2.
Is group 2 heretical, whereas group 1 is “merely” schismatic? No. While such as the Novatians and Quatrodecimans in group 1, may actually have been schismatic, the Arians in the same group where heretics of the deepest dye. Are those of group 1 more orthodox in their Trinitarian and Christological teachings than those of group 2? No again. Tertullian did most of his writings after becoming a Montanist. A perusal of his teachings shows that the Montanists were almost if not completely Orthodox in their opinions concerning the Holy Trinity and Christ. The Arians however were pitifully in error with regard to these vital doctrines. And yet the Arians are in group 1 and the Montanists in group 2!
Well then, perhaps the form of the correctness of the form of their Baptism was the criteria? In group 2, the Eunomians and Sabellians both baptized with but one immersion and without the Trinitarian formula. The Montanists of the same group however practiced the Orthodox form correctly. A similar examination of group 1, each and every sect employed the Orthodox form.
So consider why group 1 was received by Chrismation only. Was it because their dippings outside the Church were considered real by reason of ritual correctness? Certainly not, for in this case, the Holy Fathers would have been guilty of “mocking the cross” and the Lord’s death,” (Apostolic Canon) for ordering the re-baptism of Montanists. The only alternative to this uncharitable conclusion is the theory that you mentioned, that the Fathers discriminated by some rule between the various degrees of heresy recognizing the dippings of the less heretical, and not those of the more heretical. But this notion is absurd since 1) it is a historical fact that the Arians were not less heretical than the Montanists, but even more so since they had the wrong answer to the very first question of faith, "Whom say ye that I am" Besides, 2) the Spirit-guided Fathers, not being fools, could not have failed to perceive that such a rule is impossible to apply. Imagine being confronted with a couple of dozen sects, all of which administer Baptism in the Orthodox manner, all of which differ fn many respects both from Orthodoxy and from each other. All are wrong, but in various degrees of wrongness. Furthermore, those who are closest to Orthodoxy in some ways, are the farthest from her in other respects, since error is seldom consistently erroneous. Imagine being faced with the task of dividing them into arbitrary groups (i.e., the more heretical and the less heretical).
Surely, faced with such a task, the owner of the most powerful intellect soon would be carried away screaming to a madhouse. Inasmuch, then, as the premise that the Holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council accepted the out-of-Church dippings of group 1 as real leads to the conclusion either that the same Fathers were willing to make a “mockery of the Lord's death”, or that they were incredibly stupid, the premise is manifestly false.
We have proven our point by simple logic alone, but we shall substantiate it by the ancient Fathers. St. Athanasuis is not only an expert witness on the subject of Arianism, but a saintly Father whose Orthodoxy are beyond dispute. Speaking of Baptism administered by the Arlans, he says, "How should not the Baptism which the Arians administer be wholly vain and profitless, having a semblance, but nothing real as an aid to holiness." “…For the Arians do not baptise 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 siimply says, ‘O Lord,’ gives Baptism but he who with the name has also the right faith" (Orat. 2, art. 42 - 43).
St. Basil the Great, in his ecumenically approved canons, has something to say about the Cathari (Novatons), another member of our group1. "The Cathari are schismatics, bit it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these – Cathari, Encratites, and Hyfroparastatae - by one common condemnation, because the origin of separation arose through schism, and those who had apostatized from the Church no longer had on them the grace of the Holy Spirit for it ceased to be imparted when the continuity was broken. The first separatists had received their ordination from the Fathers and received the spiritual gift by the laying on of their hands. But they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they no longer were able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain. And, therefore, those who were from time to time, baptized by them, were ordered, as though baptized by laymen, to come to the Church to be purified by the Church's true Baptism. Nevertheless, since it has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the majority, their Baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted" (13p. 188). St. Basil says "for the sake of management. of the majority," in other words, "by economia."
Conclusion: Since every priest and bishop of the OCA believes and accepts the baptism of heretics, they are hence self-deposed according to the Apostolic Canons.
