An Answer to Archimandrite Ambrose Pogodin's Essay Concerning Orderly Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church

August 7, 2023

This article is a reply in critique of On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches (opens in a new tab)

The author of this article, Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin) reposed in the embrace of the Orthodox Church in November of 2004. His funeral, conducted in the Diocese of the West (OCA) was attended by then Bishop + Peter (Loukianoff) of Cleveland, now Archbishop of Chicago and Mid-America.

As this article is critical of the position espoused by Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), let me indicate that only for the sake of brevity hereafter is Fr. Ambrose referred to by his surname. I care only to make a response to this article directly because of its prominent position as a matter of reference and the submission of many to the positions espoused, meaning not at all to detract from the happy memory of Fr. Ambrose. May his memory be eternal!

Before reading this article, read a short life of Fr. Ambrose and his essay located at the link above. Do note the touching photograph picturing Fr. Ambrose, Blessed Seraphim of Platina and his godson Sasha Logunov.

In On the Question of the Order of Reception, Fr. Ambrose touches on the now hotly debated topic of reception into the Orthodox Church of those coming from other Christian Churches. In line with the official teaching of the Orthodox Church in America, I accept Fr. Ambrose to admit as much concerning the utility of the description, "The use of the term “churches” here does not speak to the issue of ecclesial status of groups outside of Orthodoxy." ¹

Pogodin's article consists of an introductory note, apendices, and four chapters. Chapter 1 deals with how the question of the reception of the heterodox was resolved in the Ancient Church. Chapter 2 is a historical survey of the reception of the heterodox into the Russian Orthodox Church. Chapter 3 is concerned with the decision of the Constantinople Council of 1756 establishing baptism for the heterodox and Chapter 4 outlines the method and criteria of reception of the heterodox into the Orthodox Churches in America and Canada.

It's my observation that while Pogodin gives many surveys of historical evidence, he does not so much outline the dogmatical basis and pressupositions of reception. Rather, these issues appear to be only a matter of course and are as such inferred by Pogodin, not explicitly defended dogmatically. I should note that Pogodin sometimes uses the schema of strictness and economy, but does not make an argument for or against the dogmatic perfection of this device.

I would like to inform the reader that much of my critical argumentation against the positions of Pogodin relies on the transparancy of the English translation by the late Fr. Alvian Smirensky (opens in a new tab). To me it reads as a very fine translation, nevertheless, I worry that the force I exert upon it in some places may be unfair. If my assumptions about what undergirds Pogodin's use of language as rendered in the English translation are incorrect in any place, please inform the present author as the Russian tongue is completely unintelligible to me.

With the aforementioned stated, let me say that Pogodin opens his measured article with key points that must be well considered by all coming to the question of reception. Permitting the paraphrase of Pogodin, when dealing with canons, we must give place to the circumstances under which a canon is written and to whom it refers. Also, it matters exceedingly whether the canon expresses a fundamental position as the very principle of the Church, or whether is reflects an issue pertaining only to the time. To discern these nuanced aspects and impose a legitimate heuristic, we must also consider how the Church's legislation handles the canonical treasury of the Church.

I argue that Pogodin gives many proofs from history, and therefore reconciles a rational and deductive point of view. However, what seems lacking is an intuitive approach which discerns the dogmatical vision of the Church in her judgments.

The proper scope of Apostolic Canon 46

Let's follow the matter with Pogodin from the very beginning, presenting Apostolic Canon 46:

We ordain that a bishop, or presbyter, who has admitted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics, be deposed. For what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath a believer with an infidel?²

It is important to note that Pogodin takes the stance that it is not all heretics in general but rather only certain heretics—those known to us by the light of historical inquiry—that must be considered when refusing to accept their baptisms.

If we are to assume that it is not heretics in general with which Canon 46 is concerned, but rather only with certain types and stripes of heretics, then perhaps we may come to a conclusion that is not so much different than the ancient fathers when considering heretics contemporary to the primitve Church. However, if we are to make this assumption, and then directly consider the heretics of our own day, we very well may come to quite different conclusions.

Instead of this descriptive approach, I argue that Canon 46 is reflecting a prohibition of the acceptance of the baptism of heretics on account of a deficiency in the heretics themselves; or taking the positive antithesis, on account of the fidelity of the Faith of the primitive Church. Depending on what heuristic approach we take here, I argue that we will come to very different conclusions as far as the issues of the present day are concerned.

We should admit the question: Do we have any reason to believe the drafters of Canon 46 are concerned with only certain heretics instead of heretics in general? And if they are concerned with only certain heretics, why aren't they named? Furthermore, in the canonical tradition, do we have evidence that specific heretics are the only purview of a canon, when such heretics are addressed not specifically but only in general? On the contrary, it seems that when any synod seeks to address certain heretics, they address them specifically and not only in general.

Should our canonical heuristic, therefore, be inclined to take the simpler meaning of Canon 46, and ascertain that this canon consigns all heretics in general to its scope rather than only certain heretics left unspecified? Furthermore, if we take this canon to indicate all heretics in general, we are then able to say that this canon addresses an issue which is principally dogmatic, rather than principally pragmatic.

I think we have reason to believe Canon 46 is hitting on a dogmatic point as essential and a pragmatic point as the necessary conclusion. For instance, take the apostolic injunction recorded from the Council of Jersusalem in the Acts of the Apostles:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.³

From this scriptural canon, should we assume that the Apostles are concerned with meats offered to only some idols?—for the canon does not state exactly which idols meats offered unto are not to be consumed. Should we judge that we must first take council with the circumstances of the injunction, discover by our methods of research exactly which idols sacrifices of meat were made unto, and then learn that from meats offered unto these certain idols we should abstain?

Granted, in many situations, we may find ourselves complying with the letter of this apostolic command, in that discerning which idols of the time meat was sacrificed unto, we too do not consume the meats of these sacrifices, and therefore have fully complied with the canon! We therefore have done well in complying with the letter of the canon, but have we missed its spirit? For if we miss the spirit of this canon, then we may find ourselves eating meats sacrificed to idols that could not have at all been within the purview of the Apostles when they drafted this canon.

Therefore, by taking into consideration the letter of the canon, and by taking into account the circumstances in which the canon was composed as a matter of first importance, we have actually misinterpreted the apostolic injunction to refrain from all meats sacrificed to all idols.

Additionally, Pogodin notes that the baptisms of the heretics contemporary to the Apostolic Canons had no relation to the Apostolic form of Orthodox baptism, and therefore interprets this criteria as the main concern of the fathers who composed Canon 46. Pogodin states that these heretics had no "sensible teaching" about the Holy Trinity, nor the Incarnation of the Son of God; and for this reason their baptism was disowned by the writers of the Apostolic Canons.

But why should we take this measure of the incorrectness of the dogma and praxis of heretics as the main concern? Why would we favor this interpretation of the fathers' motives instead of taking as primary the original error of the heretics. What is this original error? The error that precedes heresy,

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.⁴

It would seem to me that there is an error that precedes that of heresy, namely apostasy. And in order to apostatize, one must first excommunicate themselves from Christ and from His Body, the Church. Therefore, I argue that an ontological error (that of falling outside the salvific bounds of the Church) is the primary error addressed in that Canon 46 proscribes the acceptance of baptism from heretics.

Leaving aside the primary deficiency of falling away from the Church, let us look at the measure Pogodin uses to judge the baptism of heretics. They lacked 1) a sensible teaching of the Trinity and 2) a sensible teaching about the Incarnation of the Son of God. Pogodin draws the conclusion that these are the reasons the acceptance of such was proscribed, "Heretical baptism had neither, and therefore, it could not be accepted as equivalent to the baptism performed in the holy Church." But is this really a sensible standard by which to judge a supposed equivalency of the baptism of heretics?

Granted, it is sensible in what is manifest about many heretical baptisms. Oftentimes heretics lack both sensible teachings of the Church. But we are still stuck with the issue of authority. We must assume that if the heretics had the correct form and the correct teachings on these two dogmas, they would have the authority to baptize. And even if we do not go so far as saying that they had the authority to baptize, we are at least going so far as to say the Church must recognize the baptisms performed by these heretics. But by what standard are we torturing the Church's arm into compliance to the rites of heretics? This is not an issue that Pogodin addresses.

The matter of economia in light of Sts. Cyprian and Basil

Pogodin, relying on the evidence from the renowned canonists Zonaras and Balsamon notes that "the Orthodox Church, being always merciful, tended to lean towards the more lenient view" [in that heretical baptism had an admitable utility for the Church]. This very much appears to be the case in the matter of reception of certain ones from the heretics.

While the Synod of Carthage (256 AD) ruled that all must be received by baptism, it is clear that this ruling is relaxed and that the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council are more lenient to the heretics of their day. But if we are to admit that they are more lenient, we must then admit that there is a more strict ruling as well. And if there is a strictness and a leniency, it appears that there is an obvious schema for judging the matter. We therefore cannot escape the conception of akriveia and economia. For Pogodin moreover remarks on the judgment of mercy made by the Church, "...the Church followed the path of mercy and condescension."

Moving on, one of the most glaring issues with the article is an introduction which is almost inexplicable, "It should be acknowledged that with the words of St. Basil the Great and of the Fathers of the Laodicean Council the Church determined a path for further ecumenical legislation..." Here let me interrupt Pogodin and supply what is assumed. Pogodin is referencing the spirit of economy that is found in St. Basil when he says in his Canon I:

Because some in Asia have otherwise determined, let [their baptism] be allowed: but not that of the Encratites; for they have altered their baptism, to make themselves incapable of being received by the Church. Yet custom and the Fathers, that is bishops, who have the administration, must be followed; for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism. We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons. But let none be received without unction. When we received Zois and Saturninus to the Episcopal chair, we made, as it were, a canon to receive those in communion with them.⁵

It is well and good to recognize the spirit of economy, that because on account of other bishops in Asia of which St. Basil is aware to be allowing an economic entry into the Church, Basil as well makes a ruling to follow the same decision of leniency, stating, "...for I am afraid of putting an impediment to the saved; while I would raise fears in them concerning their baptism."

Here it is clear that St. Basil is saying, "Because there are other folks who have been allowed into the Church without baptism, I don't want to make a decision that would upset them if I do not also permit these ones under my charge coming from the same heresy to enter via a lenient path as well. For if I choose to enforce the rule of baptism on these ones under my care, what will those who come from the same error think about their need for baptism! Rather, because they are entered into the Church economically, let me also bring these ones into the Church in like manner so as to not disrupt their faith who are afar off and cause them to believe they will require a corrective baptism."

Now, I understand that I have been very bold in paraphrasing and expanding St. Basil in this way. But I do so only because Pogodin takes such an abscure sense from St. Basil's first Canon. For Pogodin states,

...in the canons of St. Basil the Great and the local council in Laodicea) the following is also evident: that the holy Church accepted as genuine that baptism which was done in the name of the Holy Trinity even though the baptism took place outside of the Orthodox Church, but in all respects corresponded to that baptism which was performed by the Orthodox. In such a case it is accepted as genuine and effective upon the reception of the convert into the Orthodox Church by way of repentance and chrismation. Then the words of St. Basil the Great become quite clear when he says: 'The older authorities had judged that baptism acceptable which disregarded no point of the faith.'

Let me again clarify the matter Pogodin has asserted, for I'm almost incredulous that he could be so asserting (in the way that I understand him to say it), for he writes, "...the holy Church accepted as genuine that baptism which was done in the name of the Holy Trinity even though the baptism took place outside of the Orthodox Church".

Now, what Pogodin means when he says the Orthodox Church accepted as "genuine" the baptism done in the Triune name and form, is something that I marvel over. For he has clearly, before adding such a claim, written the following, "Further St. Basil advances St. Cyprian of Carthage’s point of view according to which all heretics and all schismatics must be re-baptized when coming into the Orthodox Church since the heretics and schismatics are completely lacking in Grace."

And also, he cites the 1971 ROCOR Synod with the following:

Thus, St. Basil the Great, and by his words the Ecumenical Council in confirming the principle that there is no genuine baptism outside the Holy Orthodox Church, allows, out of pastoral condescension, which is called economy, the acceptance of certain heretics and schismatics without a new baptism.

Now, on what basis could Pogodin state then that the Church accepted as genuine a baptism from the hands of heretics. By "genuine" does he mean to say there is Grace in any such baptism? That would be contrary to the 1971 Statement of the ROCOR Synod which he quotes without raising an objection. If Pogodin then does not claim that there is Grace in these "genuine" baptisms, in what way may we say that such a baptism is genuine? Only in the most bare sense, which is to say "admissable". For to say genuine is to give the idea that one is the same as the other. Whereas admissable is to say that upon inspection, it may be made worthy by an act of Grace according to episcopal prerogative.

Pogodin further states about a heterodox baptism, "In such a case it is accepted as genuine and effective upon the reception of the convert into the Orthodox Church by way of repentance and chrismation." This seams to upend the meaning entirely of everything he has thus far stated. I argue that the baptism itself is not accepted as genuine. Rather, the baptism is made genuine by the act of Grace according to the dispensation of the Mystery by the authority of the Bishop. This does not seem to me to be splitting hairs. Rather it appears to be the most necessary distinction when discerning the meaning of the historical evidence.

But Pogodin then goes on to use St. Basil to justify his position, quoting St. Basil's Canon I: "The older authorities had judged that baptism acceptable which disregarded no point of the faith." What are these older authorities that St. Basil speaks of? Canon I expressly mentions, "The ancients, viz. Cyprian and Fermilian, put these, and the Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, and Apotactites, under the same condemnation".⁶ Now, I should say that I'm mostly sure that Sts. Cyprian and Fermilian are here mentioned by name. But I cannot preclude that they are entered as editorial notes. To the best of my sources available, these two Saints are the only ones mentioned by name in Canon I.

For those as of yet unaware, it was precisely Sts. Cyprian and Fermilian that advocated against the admission of heterodox baptisms. So then we may see that the baptism that is being called acceptable by St. Basil is not that of the heretics, but rather, that of that of the one which "disregarded no point of the faith." And what is the baptism that complies and ratifies the Orthodox Faith, it could not at all be the baptism of any heretic, as such persons expressly deny some point of the faith. So then how could we accept Pogodin's interpretation as correct? We can't at all without completely upending the meaning of St. Basil.

The introduction of the concept of baptismal validity

Pogodin makes reference to the Great Trebnik of 1895 when he cites,

The office for receiving into the Orthodox faith such persons as have not previously been Orthodox, but have been reared from infancy outside the Orthodox Church, yet have received valid baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, however, rejected other mysteries and customs and who held views contrary to those of the Orthodox Church.

But here we have a problem, for Pogodin goes straight from the ancient Father's to the Trebnik of 1895 (Kiev-Caves Lavra). The issue is not in what is admitted in the Trebnik here, but rather what has to be completely thrown aside; that is, all of the other Orthodox synodal documents that do not express any sort of idea of "validity" of heterodox baptism. Indeed, we find that the Great Trebnik of 1895 was edited from previous versions (prior to the Nikonian reforms) which did not include that there was any "validity" to heterodox baptisms.⁷ Furthermore, this doesn't say anything for the tumult of latinization during the times in which Nikonian versions of the Slavonic liturgical texts were promulgated.⁸ But about this we cannot speak so much here, and will have to entertain the matter in greater depth later.

And here is the force of Pogodin's argument, for he adds,

Had the holy Orthodox Church doubted the genuineness of such a baptism then there is no question that it would ever subject that person, who comes to her for the sake of the salvation of his soul, to the danger of remaining without baptism, the greatest of sacraments, being motivated by pastoral condescension towards heretics and schismatics, on the basis of economy (i.e., for the general welfare of the Church), i.e., undertaking a compromise at the price of the salvation of that person’s soul who entrusts the Church with the salvation of his soul!"

So we have added validity to genuineness in the baptism conferred by the heterodox. But if it is truly genuine, then why must Pogodin say there has been compromise. For surely, something that is genuine consists of no compromise. And even here, Pogodin admits the schema of economia. Now, I can't ascertain whether he admits this schema dogmatically, or if he uses it only as a matter of course. But even if it is only rhetorical, we have admitted that there is something lacking from such a baptism so as to not be truly called genuine.

And let us not forget that Pogodin's evidence does not require his argument. For who is saying that it is even possible for anyone to be brought into the Church with an economized baptism and yet still be devoid of the Grace conferred in baptism? This is not an argument that is being made by anyone with good sense, nor is it necessary to say that a heterodox baptism is genuine in any demonstrable way other than that it may be accepted and filled with Grace upon induction into the Church.

A transition from arguments unfounded to conclusions unproven

After giving an argument for the justification of valid baptisms, as it were, Pogodin then moves on to an argument for the method of reception from the canonical evidence in the 6th Ecumenical Council: Canon 95, thus repeating Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council with adaptation from Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical Council.

We must be aware of what has been passed on to the reader in the transition of the arguments. First, Pogodin has asserted that there is a genuineness to heretical baptism upon which basis it is accepted by the Fathers. This is actually contra the teaching of the Fathers, which is precisely the opposite: That the baptism of heretics is at some times accepted so as to be made genuine by an act of Grace through the authority of the Church. Second, Pogodin, relying upon the supposed genuineness of heretical baptism, then argues for the admissability of heretical baptisms of different sorts and varying degrees, depending on how similar the dogmas and baptismal forms of the heretics are to a supposed genuine heretical baptism by which it is being judged. This is a far cry from holding up the bona fide Orthodox baptism as the standard by which other heretics' baptisms are judged.

Pogodin then makes an argument from St. Mark of Ephesus. For in recounting the words of St. Mark in that he called the Latins heretics, he also recounts that St. Mark did not make an argument to re-baptize the Latins. But on what grounds does Pogodin present this argument as evidence that St. Mark believed the Latins had a genuine baptism? And why, when St. Mark is silent about the genuineness of Latin baptism, would we say that he really takes it to be genuine in that he does not speak of re-baptizing them? Why would we take this as evidence for the genuineness of Latin baptism when in fact we have evidence from St. Mark that he believed the Latins were schismatics and heretics and devoid of Grace?

So because St. Mark advocated for the chrismation of Latins when they repent and join the Church (in step with the prescription of the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council) we are now to say that this means St. Mark believed there was a genuine baptism among the Latins? This can't at all be the correct interpretation, for in ascribing this to St. Mark, we must also ascribe it to the ancient Fathers, and we have already revealed that Pogodin has escaped their meaning as well.

The Moscow Council of 1666 - 1667

Pogodin then makes a choice selection of the Muscovite Council of 1666-67 that reiterates that the Latins are not to be baptized. But is it not convenient that he would select evidence from a council of the Nikonian reforms, fraught with injustice, ascerbity, and innovation from the practiced Slavonic forms.⁹ Furthermore, this synod has been in part overturned by the Russian Church today, as the anathema against the Old Believers has been reputiated.¹⁰ If the council therefore is found lacking and revocable in part, why are we to presume this council is any true confirmation of the mind of the Church as concerns the dogmatic basis for the reception of Latins? On this issue herein, we do not have room here to investigate further. But it is worth mentioning that all of Chapter 2 turns upon the validity of the 1666-67 Moscow Council.

Continuing in Chapter 2, Pogodin gives an account of pre-Mongol reception of Latins into the Russian Orthodox Church and of the 1620 Council of Patriarch Philaret of Moscow. I cannot dispute anything more within this chapter as I am simply unknowledgable to a great extent. Yet, there is evidence that he does not speak in turn when he cites, "The strict and uniform Russian practice of re-baptism was established later, in 1620, by Patriarch Philaret. But even then a part of the Russian episcopate spoke against this."

While I can grant on account of my ignorance the historical veracity of this claim,¹¹ on what basis does Pogodin believe that such a ruling of the 1620 Council is wrong? If it is wrong, is it wrong dogmatically, or is it simply a matter of being too strict? If it is an issue of strictness alone, and the ruling promulgated at the 1620 Moscow Council is not a dogmatic issue, then the force of the argument is decreased.

Stating, "It is only as the result of what can be described as crude personal pressure on the part of Patriarch Philaret, the Moscow Council of 1620 decreed that Latins be re-baptized upon converting to Orthodoxy", Pogodin asserts there was no dogmatic basis for the ruling of the 1620 Council in that Latins were to be rebaptized. But in not addressing the dogmatic issues: the blurring of the ecclesiological bounds of the Church due to Latin intrigue; Pogodin's argument is deflated and I find this chapter to be nearly impotent to the resolution of his argument.

Pogodin appears to hold the Nikonian reforms as the ideal of Russian Orthodoxy, but on what basis can we say that these reforms are ideal when in fact the Russian Church has today in part repealed them? For they were at the time highly contentious so as to divide the Russian Church. And by what norm does one account for the illegalization of re-baptism? No such precedent is found in the Ecumenical Councils, nor in the Apostolic Canons, or St. Basil's Canonical Epistle. Rather, in all such findings, baptism is to be prefered—not precluded.

Concerning Russian quibles with the Greeks

Concerning Chapter 3, I will be quite brief, but only let me say that the grounds upon which Pogodin disfavors the ruling of the 1756 Council of Constantinople is rather lackluster. In quoting A. P. Lebedev he states,

As is known, the Greek Church in the 18th century raised a noisy argument about the means for the reception of Latin converts — as well as of Protestants — to Orthodoxy, and began to lean towards the opinion that such renegades must be re-baptized as actual heretics who do not believe in the Trinitarian dogma.

Here we have Lebedev (as cited) admit a new criteria to the matter of the genuineness of baptism. For St. Basil admits that a baptism is acceptable only that departs in no points from the Faith. And St. Basil hands down this ancient rule, which he finds in part from Sts. Fermilian and Cyprian as exemplars—but now we have an academician introducing a new criteria. More specifically, the scope of criteria for the genuineness of baptism is constricted in that the only issues which pertain to the genuine character of Orthodox baptism is the soundness of the dogma of the Holy Trinity.

But even taken for such a criteria, we cannot at all admit such leniency to the Latins, for the Orthodox cut them off from the Church in part on account for their Trinitarian heresy! viz. filioque. So how at all can we accept these words as reflective of the dogmatic concerns for the genuineness of Orthodox baptism, when Lebedev (and Pogodin vicariously), turn over the patristic rule and criteria?

If not on account of the poor vision of the academician Lebedev, Pogodin's argument is flattened; let us then find the quibling which completely deflates it, "As was pointed out, Greek chauvinism that was to grow in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries in monstrous strides, played no small part in Patriarch Cyril V’s determination." Fixing a point over the issue of bickerings spanning the length of an epoch between Russia and Constantinople, Pogodin appears to only weaken his argument. For previously, he makes the same argument yet turned against Patriarch Philaret of Moscow, but makes no apology for the same faults of the Nikonian councils.

Applying a narrow interpretation of historical evidence to the Church today

Finally, in Chapter 4 we come to the question of how the Orthodox Churches in America and Canada ought to receive their converts today.

Pogodin gives the method of reception according to the Russian norm since 1666-67:

1. Those converting from Judaism, paganism, and Islam, as well as those who distort or do not accept the dogma of the Holy Trinity, or where the baptism is performed by a single immersion, by means of baptism.

2. Those whose baptism was valid but who either do not have sacrament of chrismation or who lack a hierarchy with apostolic succession (or if it is questionable), by means of chrismation. This group includes Lutherans, Calvinists and Episcopalians (Anglicans).

3. Those whose hierarchy has apostolic succession and whose baptism and chrismation (or confirmation) was performed in their church, by means of repentance and repudiation of heresy, following instruction in Orthodoxy. This group includes persons of the Roman Catholic and Armenian confessions. If it happens that they were not chrismated or confirmed in their churches or if there is any question about this, they are anointed with the Holy Chrism.

Let me first say that I find absolutely nothing wrong with this manner of reception. I do not wish to be counted among the lot of unthinking zealots and those who trouble churches. Furthermore, it is not my place to say how my church ought to be receiving converts. Rather, in admitting the plausibile goodness (derived from its function, not according to any dogmatic merit) of these criteria for reception, we must by no means make dogmatic statements about the genuineness of the heretical baptisms or chrismations which preceded induction into the Orthodox Church.

I am afraid, however, that due in part to the vicissitudes of time, and moreover, the failure of maintaining a good stand for the truth, we have allowed these criteria for reception to become as it were agents of decay to our Orthodox ecclesiology. For Pogodin confesses,

In the chapter "On Ecumenism" in the collected documents and decrees of the Second Vatican Council, the Orthodox Church is spoken of with exceptional warmth. As one who was present at the Second Vatican Council in the capacity of an official observer from the Russian Church Abroad, I can be a witness to the exceptionally cordial and attentive relations towards all of the observers from the Orthodox Churches on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. To be sure, how firm those relations were, remains under question.

Here Pogodin risks the trespass of that danger indicated by St. Basil in his Canon I: We are not to allow their baptism, because they allow ours, but strictly to observe the canons.¹² But Pogodin, in emphasizing the fraternal warmth of the Latins, is near to forgetting the great peril of accepting on account of the congenial attitude of heretics, the poisons of their heresies. On this issue, see further the well elucidated dangers in The Misuse of Economy Leads to a Heretical Ecclesiology within On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church (opens in a new tab)

Note Pogodin's closing argument, in which he slighly condemns—muting words and favoring dark connotation—the findings of the 1971 ROCOR Synod, stating:

We see from Church history that it was the lot of the dissident sects such as Novatians, Montanists and Donatists to re-baptize those converting to them. Considering themselves "pure" and "better" and seeing themselves as the only ones who will be saved, they abhorred everyone else. They could have earned respect because of their high moral demands, but pride did them in. They cut themselves from the main body of the Church where life and grace did abide, and thus completely died out within a short period of time.

I will not even give this argument room (as stated, it is not admitted by the author) and is therefore not worthy of a response. Yet, let me say that guarding against the Donatist impulse is a most worthy cause for concern, but one that is not guarded against by relaxation, rather on the contrary, by watchfulness to heed the narrow Royal Path.

About this concern, I will pain my readers with another article in turn.

© 7532 — The Neophytic Millennial

A Sub(par)stack by John Jared Foy