Some opening thoughts: On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church

August 1, 2023

This volume, I see, as being indispensable to our time. It is a volume that needed to be written, and it could have been written by anyone who, following the patristic stream that runs through St Nicodemus the Hagiorite, attached themself to the same manner of feeling and thinking. It could be said that this book is simply footnotes on St Nicodemus the Hagiorite.

By this I mean to say that the groundswell of controversy surrounding this book is peripheral to the actual dogmatic issues handled within. That is, this volume, while it may have certain small faults here or there (of which I will trouble my readers with later) cannot be said to have no basis. Nor can it be said to be distorting the Faith, any more so than it could be said that St Nicodemus "distorted" the Faith. All of the principle argumentation in this book, you could lay at the feet of St Nicodemus, as in similar manner to the way St Gregory Palamas explicitly elucidated the Essence and Energies, St Nicodemus makes explicit the axioms of reason behind the so called "economic theory" of reception into the Church.

So, if there are any extraordinary faults that chop this volume down at the root, then let us also chop down St Nicodemus in the same manner. If owing to human frailty there are smaller faults, let us address those issues reasonably and without rancor. But if a band of heretics and schismatics wrote this volume, let us also anathematize St Nicodemus the Hagiorite.

Now, for the benefit of none but myself, let me here reason and speculate how to interpret these affable and grave words:

The application of economy has presuppositions that are required by the canons. As economy means a deviation from the rule based on the needs of the times, economy can never replace the rule, oikonomia cannot become akriveia. When the presuppositions for the application of economy are lacking, economy cannot be applied.

— Chapter 8: "The Principle of Economy Prior to St Nicodemus the Hagiorite", pg 198

I take this to mean that the authors are advocating for a certain norm of behavior in the dispensation of economic lenience. That is, one bishop ought not capriciously receive a catechumen without duly considering his baptism administered under the auspices of a previous heterodox organization. Was the catechumen baptized in the threefold form with the utterance of the Divine Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

If not, then to what extent is the bishop lawfully granting leniency against the "norm" of an economic entry into the Church?

The authors draw upon an acceptable source as evidence for the limit to economy:

"And what is more than this [acceptable application of economy], it will be, forgive me, no longer economy, but the guilt of lawlessness and the transgression of divine canons. For the limit of economy, as you know, is not to completely violate any regulation, and not to go to extremes, and not to cause harm to the most important thing in the case when a small indulgence can be made according to time and circumstances.

— St Theodore the Studite, Epistle 24, quoted on pg 196

It seems clear from this reasonable evidence that it is not convenient to accept as normative from the episcopacy such lenient economization of the rule of baptism which amounts to scandal of the faithful and transgression of even the most permissive synodal economies.

To me, it doesn't seem that only the one received and the one receiving is to be considered when permitting an economic entry into the Church. Rather, to not disturb good order, a bishop is wise to not give place to scandal among the faithful.

Not only the faithful at large, but the newly illumined should be considered carefully. That is, not only the current state of the unilluminated catechumen, but the state of the future communicant. For a father does not only care for a child as he is, but exercises himself to foresee the road ahead that his child must in due time travel. Whether a father places a stone in the way, or runs ahead to remove the stone from his child's path, this should be likewise considered by the episcopate.

Could it be that by dispensing a very lenient economy, the bishop may be setting up his child for later doubts or troubles? It seems from the contemporary testimony of the faithful that such troubles have been experienced at times. Could it be that such troubles come from those who would harm the integrity and soundness of mind of the faithful by stirring up a cloud of silt, sowing seeds of doubt in the one received by great lengths of economy?

It is possible that this is the provocation, and a burden of blame rightly settles on the "rigorist" that causes doubt. Yes, it could be, but should the bishop foreseeing this stone in the path of his child then take such into consideration in his economization? Let me be so bold as to say that it is worthwhile for a Shepherd to consider this.

I think the words of the Russian evangelistic priest, Daniel Sysoev, are convenient to this point:

One of the most painful and gross violations in performing the sacrament of baptism is baptizing by effusion [pouring], or even by sprinkling, for no apparent reason. Due to this distortion many hundreds of Christians are confused as to whether their spiritual birth was indeed valid. Many commune unto judgment and condemnation because of this. Dozens of schisms profit by this distortion, claiming that many Christians, even bishops, are not actually baptized. The priest's criminal laziness and indefference give rise to conflicts between local churches."

— Neomartyr Daniel Sysoev, Catechetical Lectures, quoted on pg 53

So who then is to blame? I think it is clear that both the permissive cleric and the divisive "rigorist" is to be blamed. For this first opens the wound, and the second further mutilates the body.

Now let us also consider the shepherd himself. Does he so receive economically so as to give place to the rising of scandal in the Church? Is this for the good of the whole? If it is clearly not, then is it for the good of the one permitted to enter leniently? Perhaps it is for the good of this one, despite rupture among the many. Perhaps for this one sheep, it is a good thing to forget the fold upon occasion. But ought such a daring use of episcopal prerogative become something of a norm among a shepherd and his flock? Credulity is strained at some point, I imagine, and it appears we have a witness of this strain today among many. Now, for a moment, let us hypothetically consider the length of economization that a shepherd may exercise. Let us go beyond what is reasonable, and test the limits for our benefit, seeing what can be done, but ought not be.

Let us say that a catechumen is baptized by a priestess of some cacodox communion. Let us say affusion, and that only once, was granted in such a case. Let us also say that the Thrice-Holy and One Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was not pronounced. Let us say that such a priestess confessed a baptism of complete blasphemy, unworthy to be repeated within the confines of this discourse.

Now let us say that this catechumen is brought to the Church to be enlisted among her faithful members. Should the bishop in any case permit an economization of such a wretched pollution of our One, Holy Baptism? It's my unworthy judgment that such an economization is grotesque and undue in any case. But let us go farther and say that this economia is granted—for we cannot completely rule out that such a scandal against propriety has perchance happened in the Church—and the catechumen is brought in with Holy Chrism alone. Is this then "baptism" economized and the newly illumined truly brought into the fold?

It's my unworthy judgment that such a one is truly brought into the fold, that such a one is truly illumined, and that baptism where there was none, is somehow mystically given by the Spirit in Chrismation. I have no reason to believe this other than my own instinct upon the matter, and such an instict is given to wavering. And I suggest that all who are given to such an opinion as myself, while they mean well, cannot be truly sure in all cases so as to speak dogmatically, nor to be construed as having a dogmatic basis. Rather, it appears that the canons and norms of our Holy Faith supposes that we should be more conservative than lenient in dogmatic matters and pastoral norms.

So what then ought to be done with such a one brought in, in such a scandalous manner. It's my unworthy judgment that such a person ought to be baptized again, that is baptized for the first and true time. Thus, such mystical grace given at Chrismation, finds its form and embodiment at an inopportune time in the future, rather than in a worse, scandalous, and more grievous past event.

For if the prerogative of the Bishop allows for a lenient entry, so as to cause scandal and give way to pious unrest among the Church's members, let also the Bishop have the authority to reassign the grace of the Mystery to the future in a way like unto which he assigned grace to the past.

For what will please our Good and Holy God more? And what will confirm in the mind of the doubting illumined one the truth of his baptism? And what will quiet the unrest of the scandalized among the members of the Holy Church? I unworthily say that a correction is a less grievous sin against Grace than an event of such horror and blasphemy being counted as the exercise of lawful economic prerogative.

So who shall we scandalize, and who shall we hurt if the Bishop grants a corrective baptism? I say we will hurt the feelings of our ecumenist friends, that we will hurt the friends of the world within and without the boundaries of the Orthodox Church. For what is the true scandal of a correction? It is in the humility of the episcopacy to correct a mistake, to correct an over extension of the arm past the use of the joints—binding and contorting the arm as if bound to the blasphemies of heretics. But the Church is not so bound, nor should her Bishops behave as if they are so bound.

Now what can be said of a catechumen that seeks induction into the Mysteries of the Church, but yet will not permit the bishop to bring him near to Christ except in the case that such a horrific event is economized and called that which it cannot be truly called. Is such a catechumen worthy of the name Christian? It's my unworthy judgment that such a catechumen will be more so injured by his entry into the holy things than if he were to stay outside. But even in the event that the shepherd sees a utility in accepting such a catechumen by Chrismation alone, it is my unworthy judgment that such can be done, though unlawfully and against piety, to such an extent that Christ truly accepts such an injured member and the Spirit is given to such an injured member.

Let the pious cry out against the normalization of such horrors against the strictness of our Faith. But also let the pious remember that they too may become unworthy of the Mysteries, in like manner to the one received, if by doubting his induction they also find fault and doubt their own.

Now what is it if one brought into the Church via inordinate use of economy is brought in with spiritual wounds and remains unhealed? Is this enough for his brother to spurn him, or rebuke him for the travesty of lenience that led to his participation? It's my unworthy judgment that such a rebuke is at first unthinking and at worse a sin against Grace. For in what spirit does the corrector approach his wounded brother? In a spirit of piety and wisdom or full of reproach so that things may be placed in good order? If in wisdom, let the corrector first correct himself so that he is perfect in every way. And then, being approached by his wounded brother, let the corrector explain that he is perfect by no other virtue than by his orderly reception and due use of the Mysteries. And if he wishes to correct his brother, he should have no problem first correcting himself.

And how could it be a sin against Grace to approach one's weaker brother—so much weaker, in fact, that by no other means than that of tearing great fissures in the correct form and feeling of our Faith, a bishop has condescended to the aid of the weak one—with a complaint against his reception? It can be a sin against Grace by calling into question the true Grace that was really dispensed. For even if the baptism was utterly lacking, it is my unworthy judgment that one wounded yet disposed toward holy things can still cooperate with the Grace of Chrismation. And more so, such a one may be strengthened in the Chalice, to such an extent that Grace may overflow and abound even without a baptism worthy of being filled with Grace. Now, what is it if this one received under impropriety then gets a feeling for correcting himself? What if he feels he ought to have received a baptism in truth within the Orthodox Church? It's my unworthy judgment that such a strengthened one should thereby be more strengthened by the due administration of that which was completely lacking, even blasphemed and polluted aforehand. And the sin of administering the true form of baptism after one's illumination is no greater, yet maybe if someone is feeling, a smaller crime such that it is truly a sort of reparation and repentance, both on the part of the bishop and the one illumined.

And what bishop would refuse repentance on account of unduly administering the Mystery of Chrismation to someone not yet ready to accept our Baptism? One more sure in his judgments than God Himself, who has clearly handed down to us the measure of fullness required for salvation, that is, Orthodox baptism as instructed. Which bishop holds himself above this command, and which bishop would do well in rescuing a soul yet not desire to do better by making good on both the form and it's intended Effect.

© 7532 — The Neophytic Millennial

A Sub(par)stack by John Jared Foy