Dogmatic Stricture and Leaky Baptisms: An Introductory Response to Dogmatic Assertions of Those Who Would Prohibit Re-Baptism

August 4, 2023

When entertaining the issue of whether Protestants and Catholics have a valid baptism, there are two (among other) dogmatic points and their commonly associated conclusions that bear to be investigated:

1. The Orthodox Church is the true Church.

   Ergo, only the sacraments of the Orthodox Church are ontologically true sacraments.

2. There is "one baptism for the remission of sins"

   Ergo, rebaptism of converting Protestants and Catholics, provided that they are baptized in the Name of the Holy Trinity, is a grave sin.

With this second point, I argue, we are in danger of counting any baptism (in the Name of the Holy Trinity) as an Orthodox baptism. It seems to me, that there is a mistake in such a presumption that we may be able to improve upon.

As a thought experiment, let us consider the following: is it possible that the Church is bound to accept the baptism of anyone by anyone, under any condition or circumstance, provided that it is done in the Name of the Trinity? I argue that the Church is not bound to accept any baptism in the Triune formula. Rather, it seems that the Church has the power and authority to choose for herself which is her baptism, and which is not her baptism.

It seems this is the only tolerable option, else we run into issues of a different sort, such as:

Can heretics and schismatics tell the Church what to do?

If we are to grant this, we must then ask a pertinent question: what are the dogmatic bounds by which we may discern what actions and commitments the heretics are able to force upon us?

To the the first question, I humbly offer a categorical No. Heretics and schismatics have no authority to direct the decisions of the Church in any matter. Rather, it is only by the authority of the Church that any such action of a heretic or schismatic is considered; whether it be approvable, acceptable, or sacrilegious.

To the second, I offer: There are no dogmatic premises by which we may discern what actions and commitments the heretics are able to force upon the Church. For if there were dogmatic premises by which we may discern such a case, then it stands to reason that the Church is not actually the One with all authority in Heaven and Earth.

And if the Church is not truly the administrator of all authority (univocally) as I suggest, then Christ is not truly the Head of the Body. Rather, if the Church must comply with the actions and commitments of heretics and schismatics, then there is some way in which Christ Himself is lacking in authority.

But I reject both premises, the first that we must by some threat of violence—whether of divine retribution or of the machinations of the heterodox—comply with the actions and commitments of heretics; and the second, that there are any dogmatic premises set before the Church that she must obey regarding the actions or commitments of heretics.

Therefore, it stands to reason that there must be some other way to interpret the following Nicene clause: There is one baptism for the remission of sins.

On its face, both those who grant true ontological identity to heterodox baptism and I are in agreement. First, we agree that there is indeed one baptism for the remission of sins. Second, rebaptizing is a grave error which upends the metaphysical indellibility of the soul's regeneration. So how might we advance an argument that the conclusion from the premise is unwarranted. Well, first we must establish some ground rules.

Do those who would forbid re-baptism state univocally that the ontological identity of baptism outside of the Orthodox Church is identical to that of baptism in the Orthodox Church? Now, if those who would prohibit rebaptism first take this as an axiom to reason from, then I believe the whole issue is entirely intractable, and we cannot come to an agreeable solution.

However, if those who would forbid rebaptism do not state this axiomatically, but rather reason to it as a necessary conclusion from a confession of "one baptism for the remission of sins", then there is some room to work together on the issue.

For, if it is that, first, the ontological identity of baptism is found only within the Orthodox Church, and found in no other place from the time of its institution by the Lord Himself, then we can further reason upon how it came to be that baptism "leaked" out of the Church, and was then found in truth to be a thing common to the heretics and schismatics.

But, if those who would forbid rebaptism do not believe that baptism was first only given to the Church within the Church's primitive ontological expression as disciples of the Lord, then we are speaking of two different kinds of baptism altogether. And if we are speaking of different baptisms, then it is impossible to convince anyone of my position who is predisposed to doubt my premises. But, let us take the navigable route in hope that we can agree and therefore further work to resolve the issue.

If it is true that somehow baptism leaked out of the Church, on what dogmatic premises can we say that such a baptism thereafter maintained it's ontological identity as a Mystery of the Church granted by the sole authority of Christ? Furthermore, has the Church given us any dogmatic grounds to assume that such a baptism would maintain it's ontological identity as a Mystery of the ontologically unified Church?

From my understanding of the dogma of the Orthodox Church, I see no reason to believe that a "leaked" baptism is an ontologically authentic baptism. Now, if there is some dogma in the apostolic deposit of which I am as yet unawares that would lead someone to believe that a leaky baptism must be considered as identitical to an Orthodox one, then I pray someone to enlighten me about the matter.

But as the evidence stands, and from the arguments made in favor of a prohibition of rebaptism, I do not see any dogmatic basis for this assertion. Rather, it appears that: 1) There is no dogmatic basis that asserts leaky baptisms are true baptisms 2) It must be defined as an axiom that leaky baptisms are true baptisms in order for the premise to find a firm standing.

Now let us allow the inquiry: Is there any evidence from the patristic witness that—dogmatically speaking—leaky baptisms are true baptisms in all cases? The answer appears to be no. There is no legacy of dogmatic teaching from any of the Saints that, without condition, leaky baptisms are true baptisms in all cases.

Rather, it appears that in the patristic witness there are statements which deal with leaky baptisms here and there. Leaky baptisms of this sort and that. In fact, it appears that each leaky baptism was handled with due consideration to the variety of form of the leaky baptism, and also to the dogmatic presuppositions of the folks doing the leaky baptisms.

Now, what can we assume by this evidence? It seems that leaky baptisms are of a different pedigree and sort, with some being more defficient than others, and none being held up as the standard by which the real McCoy should be judged.

I think from this evidence, it stands to reason that no Father could be really sure that any leaky baptism was ontologically identical to the baptism that they themselves administered. Granted, while some of these Fathers made judgments as to how similar these baptisms were to their own, it doesn't appear that any of them made the dogmatic assertion that, in all cases, leaky baptisms are identical to their own Orthodox baptisms.

Rather, it appears that each Father that was confronted with this issue was pleased to find some similarity in the leaky baptism to that of their own. It seems to me that they didn't reason like unthinking zealots. On the contrary, many Fathers reasoned something like:

These folks use the Triune Name, they use trine immersion, and they carry out the baptism with some manner of caution to conform to the rule that the Lord handed down to the Church.

If I may be so bold as to speak for the Fathers, let me also reason upon the summary of their reflection. Confronted with the form of the heterodox baptism, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that any number of Fathers would look on the leaky baptism with pity toward those upon whom it was performed, seeing in it perchance the good intention of the officiant and aspirant, the care to conform to the Orthodox form, and the solemnity of the rite. These are good things, not bad. Even if the leaky baptism isn't ontologically identical to the Orthodox baptism, it seems that there may be something worthy to commend in the whole exercise.

[But in such a case, how could it be said by some Fathers that a leaky baptism is a pollution?]

Now, what about the case wherein there may be some great number of folks who have received this leaky baptism. And a Father, seeing in himself some amount of jealous zeal to reclaim orphans from delusion and error, bethought himself that it would make sense to make a decision based on the following simple grounds:

1. The leaky baptism is close enough in form as my own.
2. I have the authority to change leaky baptisms into real baptisms.

Now, concerning the first item, I think it is perfectly plausible that any number of Fathers would believe that a leaky baptism is close enough. We have evidence that some Fathers didn't think so, and required rebaptism (ie the Cyprianic bishops). But we also have evidence that other Fathers perhaps took a more pragmatic stance and decided that "good enough is good enough". Does this mean that those bishops of whom took a pragmatic stance were reasoning strictly upon a dogmatic basis? No, I don't think so. But it also doesn't necessarily mean that they meant to create or confirm dogma in their exercise of episcopal prerogative.

Furthermore, if a Father sees fit to judge the congruity of a leaky baptism as a pragmatic issue, and does not make a dogmatic assertion about all leaky baptisms, it stands to reason that any number of Fathers believed that they had the authority to correct a leaky baptism without doing it over again.

Therefore, Premise One seems to necessitate Premise Two, and to me, these premises seem like they compliment one another dogmatically. How so? First, there is a way in which our nobility of reason as exercised within the Orthodox phronema doesn't nitpick at issues that can be legitimately resolved by passing over an obvious defect.

Now let's examine that assertion a bit. On the one hand, we have the cohesive dogma of the Orthodox Theology. This dogma cannot be sacrificed even for a moment. For as soon as it's wholeness is sacrificed, none of it can stand together. Rather it all falls to pieces. (But the Orthodox Theology is unchanging and eternal!) Therefore, when it is sacrificed, in truth, we dissipate ourselves.

Seeing that we cannot at all by pushing make any ground against the bulwark of the Orthodox Theology, if we ourselves are to give way and pass over a transgression against the Theology, we must do so in a spirit of nobility. It seems then that philotimo—or as I render it: gentility—is in good order. And because of this sense of refinement, it seems to me that many Fathers have chosen the path of philotimo above the path of stricture to the dogmatic necessities of the Faith.

Am I right at all to place these two in juxtaposition? Let's hesitate there for just a moment because I believe these two only appear to contradict each other. Rather, to me it seems that they very well might compliment each other. I think this is the way we should view the issue of apparent discord among the Fathers. While some enforced the dogmatic stricture of the Church, others practiced spiritual gentility within the bounds of their authority, sovereign right, and epsicopal prerogative. In this way, we can harmonize the entire discordance of many Fathers, and the apparent contradictions of synods.

This yet leaves open other problems which I will not bother here to address, as they may only take away from my point. But, I finally say that I don't think we are wise to completely disintegrate the stricture of the dogmatic basis of trine baptism in the Church whilst we attempt to make a case for the gentility, prudence, and nare I say laxity of some Fathers. Also, this article does not address the many specifics of argumentation that some Fathers use when they refuse to rebaptize those coming from heresy and schism. It also does not discuss in detail the nature of the Cyprianic ethos. For these faults, you will have to allow a secondary discourse.

© 7532 — The Neophytic Millennial

A Sub(par)stack by John Jared Foy