Unfortunately, I have heard differently directly from people who have been to confession at some monasteries. I have also had the experience of serving a mission close to one of these monasteries. The monks Baptized children from my parish without having the courtesy to inform me. One of our Antiochian Bishops has told me about the problems caused by monks telling people received into the Orthodox Church by Chrismation that they are were not properly received into the Church and need to come to the monastery for a so called corrective Baptism. It is heresy to Baptize someone who was received into the Eastern Orthodox Church through Chrismation, because it denies the grace that they received through their Chrismation, which perfects whatever was lacking in their non-Orthodox Baptism.
Fr. John W. Morris
Have you gone through the proper jurisdictional channels to address this?
Glancing at the second Ecumenical Council Canon 7 and sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 95, how is it determined from which group the penitent heretic hails?
Canon 7: "As for those heretics who betake themselves to Orthodoxy, and to the lot of the saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom; viz.: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, those calling themselves Cathari (or “Puritans”), and (those calling themselves) Aristeri[60] (Note of Translator. — This designation may be based upon the Greek word aristos, meaning “best,” though as a word it signifies “lefthand.”), and the Quartodecimans (quasi “Fourteenthists,” to use the English language in this connection), otherwise known as Tetradites (though in English this term is applied to an entirely different group of heretics), and Apollinarians we accept when they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the catholic and apostolic Church of God, and are sealed first with holy myron (more usually called “chrism” in English) on their forehead and their eyes, and nose, and mouth, and ears; and in sealing them we say: “A seal of a free gift of Holy Spirit.” As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, and Montanists, who are here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who do some other bad things, and (those belonging to) any other heresies (for there are many heretics here, especially such as come from the country of the Galatians:[61] all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks. Accordingly, on the first day we make (Note of Translator. — The meaning of this word here is more exactly rendered “treat as”) them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcize them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus do we catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen to the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."
Canon 95: "As for heretics who are joining Orthodoxy and the portion of the saved, we accept them in accordance with the subjoined sequence and custom. Arians and Macedonians and Novations, who called themselves Cathari[236] and Aristeri,[237] and the Tessarakaidekatitae, or, at any rate, those called Tetradites and Apolinarists, we accept, when they give us certificates (called libelli); and when they anathematize every heresy that does not believe as the holy catholic and Apostolic Church of God believes, and are sealed, i. e., are anointed first with holy myron on the forehead and the eyes, and the nose and mouth, and the ears, while we are anointing them and sealing them we say, “A seal of a gift of Holy Spirit.” As concerning Paulianists who have afterwards taken refuge in the Catholic Church, a definition has been promulgated that they have to be rebaptized without fail. As for Eunomians, however, who baptize with a single immersion, and Montanists who are hereabouts called Phrygians and Sabellians, who hold the tenet Hyiopatoria (or modalistic monarchianism) and do other embarrassing things; and all other heresies — for there are many hereabouts, especially those hailing from the country of the Galatians[238] — as for all of them who wish to join Orthodoxy, we accept them as Greeks. Accordingly, on the first day, we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; after this, on the third day we exorcise them by breathing three times into their faces and into their ears. And thus we catechize them, and make them stay for a long time in church and listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. As for Manicheans, and Valentinians, and Marcionists, and those from similar heresies, they have to give us certificates (called libelli) and anathematize their heresy, the Nestorians, and Nestorius, and Eutyches and Dioscorus, and Severus, and the other exarchs of such heresies, and those who entertain their beliefs, and all the aforementioned heresies, and thus they are allowed to partake of holy Communion."
On what exactly are you basing your very public charge of heresy?
My baptismal certificate from the Greek Archdiocese is signed by the Priest who performed the Sacrament of Baptism, the sponsor and approved by the Metropolitan. Are you saying that the presiding Metropolitan did not approve those baptisms, or that there is something amiss that should be brought to the attention of the Metropolitan?
Is it correct protocol to bring these charges on an internet forum, without having the Metropolitan in charge of that monastery present, or possibly not even informed of what has taken place?
Here are the only relevant Canons I could find, and which have given me great pause when considering your post:
Second Ecumenical Canon 6:
"If, however, certain persons are neither heretics nor excluded from communion, nor condemned, nor previously charged with any offenses, should declare that they have an accusation of an ecclesiastical nature against a Bishop, the holy Council bids these persons to lodge their accusations before all the Bishops of the province and before them to prove the charges against the Bishop involved in the case. But if it so happen that the provincial Bishops are unable to or incompetent to decide the case against the Bishop and make the correction due, then they are to go to a greater synod of the Bishops of this diocese summoned to try this case. And they are not to lodge the accusation until they themselves have in writing agreed to incur the same penalty if in the course of the trial it be proved that they have been slandering the accused Bishop. But if anyone, scorning what has been decreed in the foregoing statements, should dare either to annoy the emperor’s ears or to trouble courts of secular authorities or an ecumenical council to the affrontment of all the Bishops of the diocese, let no such person be allowed to present any information whatever, because of his having thus roundly insulted the Canons and ecclesiastical discipline."
Fourth Ecumenical Council Canon 9:
If any Clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own Bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him first submit his case to his own Bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the Bishop. Let anyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to Canonical penalties. If, on the other hand, a Clergyman has a dispute with his own Bishop, or with some other Bishop, let it be tried by the Synod of the province. But if any Bishop or Clergyman has a dispute with the Metropolitan of the same province, let him apply either to the Exarch of the diocese or to the throne of the imperial capital Constantinople, and let it be tried before him.
Did the standing Bishops of the Americas not just have a meeting to begin to address these jurisdictional issues in real and tangible ways? Was this issue brought up before the Bishops in that meeting?
Did they all point fingers and each other and declare one another a heretic?
Fourth Ecumenical Council Canon 12:
It has come to our knowledge that some persons, by resorting to the civil authorities, have obtained pragmatics whereby they have contrived to divide one province into two, contrary to the ecclesiastical Canons, and as a result there are two Metropolitans in one and the same province. The holy Council has therefore made it a rule that no Bishop shall hereafter be allowed to do such a thing. For, if anyone shall attempt to do so, he shall forfeit his own rank. As for all those cities which have already been honored with the name of Metropolis by letters of the Emperor, let them enjoy only the honor, and likewise the Bishop who is administering its church; it being left plain that the rights properly belonging to the real Metropolis are to be preserved to this Metropolis (alone)
Fourth Ecumenical Council Canon 18:
The crime of conspiracy, or of faction (i.e., of factious partisanship), already prohibited by secular laws, ought still more to be forbidden to obtain in the Church of God. If, therefore, there be found any Clergymen, or Monastics, to be conspiring or to be engaged in factiousness of any kind, or hatching plots against Bishops or Fellow Clergymen[103] they shall forfeit their own rank altogether.
Fourth Ecumenical Council Canon 19:
It has come to our ears that the canonically prescribed Synods of Bishops are not held in the provinces, and as a result of this fact many ecclesiastical matters in need of correction are neglected. The holy Council, therefore, has made it a rule, in accordance with the Canons of the Holy Fathers, for the Bishops to meet twice a year in convention somewhere in each province, wherever the Bishop of the Metropolis designates, and for all matters to be corrected that may come up. As for those Bishops, on the other hand, who fail to attend the meeting, but who, instead of doing so, remain at home in their respective cities, and lead their lives therein in good health and free from every indispensable and necessary occupation, they are to be reprimanded in a brotherly way.
Fourth Ecumenical Council Canon 21:
Clergymen or laymen accusing Bishops or Clergymen are not to be allowed to file charges against them promiscuously and without investigation until their own reputation has been examined into.
Did you perchance wear any non-clerical garb in the week preceding chrismation?
Sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 6:
Let no one on the Clerical List don inappropriate clothing, either when living in the city or when walking the road; but, on the contrary, let him wear costumes that have already been assigned to the use of those who are enrolled in the Clergy. If anyone should commit such a violation, let him be excommunicated for one week.
Sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 31:
As for those Clergymen who hold a liturgy in oratories or prayerhouses or in private residences, or who carry out a baptism therein, without having obtained the consent of the local Bishop to do this, we decree that if any Clergyman fail to guard against doing this, let him be deposed from office.
Sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 34:
In view of the fact that the sacerdotal Canon clearly states that as the crime of conspiracy or of faction is utterly forbidden even by civil laws, it is much more fitting still that this be prohibited from occurring in the Church of God, we too are sedulous to insist that if any Clergymen or Monks be found either conspiring together or engaging in factional intrigues or hatching plots against Bishops or fellow Clergymen, they shall forfeit their own rank altogether.
And for a Father Confessor to speak frankly with soul charged to his care according to his good judgement is provided for in the Canons:
Sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 102
Those who have received from God authority to bind and to loose must take into consideration the quality of the sin, and the willingness and readiness of the sinner to return, and thus offer a treatment suited to the sin in question, lest by employing an immoderate adjustment in one direction or the other, they fail in compassing the salvation of the one ailing. For, the diseases called sin are not simple affairs, but, on the contrary, various and complex, and they produce many offshoots of the injury, as a result whereof the evil becomes widely diffused, and it progresses until it is checked[253] by the power of the one treating it. So that a person who is professing the science of treating ailments as a spiritual physician ought first to examine the disposition of the sinner, and ascertain whether he tends to health or on the contrary provokes the malady to attack him by his own actions; at the same time bearing in mind that he must provide against any reversion, and considering whether the patient is struggling against the physician, and whether the ulcer of the soul is being aggravated by the application of the remedy; and accordingly to mete out mercy in due proportion to the merits of the case. For all that matters to God and to the person undertaking pastoral leadership consists in the recovery of the straying sheep, and in healing the one wounded by the serpent. Accordingly, he ought not to drive the patient to the verge of despair, nor give him rein[254] to dissoluteness and contempt of life, but, on the contrary, in at least one way at any rate, either by resorting to extremer and stringent remedies, or to gentler and milder ones, to curb the disease, and to put up a fight to heal the ulcer for the one tasting the fruits of repentance, and wisely helping him on the way to the splendid rehabilitation to which the man is being invited. We must therefore be versed in both, i.e., both the requirements of accuracy and the requirements of custom. In the case of those who are obstinately opposed to extremities, we must follow the formula handed down to us, just as sacred Basil teaches us outright.
And so is the marriage bed held to be undefiled in the Canons.
As a person who is posting on this forum bearing the title of an Orthodox clergyman and who has leveled a charge of heresy against an Orthodox monastery and, it by association it would seem, on the Metropolitan in whose jurisdiction they reside, I hope this matter will be dealt with in a real way affording the parties being accused a chance to address the issue so as not to further alienate jurisdictions which are in reality one, holy, catholic and Orthodox faith. Otherwise, it seems an injustice is taking place in the form of an accusation on an internet forum and the inevitable judgement in the court of public opinion with only one side represented.
I for one, have heard a ROCOR priest and other clergy express an opinion that it is better for heterodox to be baptized into the faith. As far as I had read or heard, chrismation as it is practiced now is an economia.
Have you gone through the proper jurisdictional channels to address this?
I RESPOND; Yes I did ask my Bishop to bring the problems caused by certain monasteries up to the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan with jurisdiction over the monastery without any result. This is one of the problems these monasteries are under the Greeks and I am Antiochian. I am not in a very good mood right now, so forgive me if I am blunt. I am suffering from a kidney stone and am in so much pain that I cannot sleep. It is 2:21 AM. I am due to have a second lithothrypthy (sp) on Thursday for this kidney stone. So forgive me if I am not in a very good mood. It is hard to be in a good mood when you feel that someone is sticking a knife in your groin.
I know that you are sincere and are trying to be a good and faithful Orthodox Christian.However, you are grossly misinformed on the historical practice of the Church for the reception of converts from schismatic and heretical groups.
At the risk of committing the sin of pride, I have to inform you that I am quite familiar with this subject. When the controversy over the reception of converts began, I was put on the committee to consider this issue by Metropolitan Philip. Since I am a PhD in history, I prepared a scholarly study of the historical practice of the Church for the reception of converts. I found that the most common way to receive Catholics and Protestants Baptized with water, “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” is through profession of faith and Chrismation. The Pan Orthodox Council of Constantinople which rejected the Union of Florence made the decision to receive Catholics through Chrismation in 1485. The Pan Orthodox Council of Jerusalem Bethlehem of 1672 that condemned Protestantism, particularly Calvinism and issued the Confession of Dositheus, one of the Symbolic Books of modern Orthodoxy decreed that Protestants should also be received by profession of faith and Chrismation. Last summer, I was asked by our Antiochian Bishops to revise the guidelines for the reception of converts for our Archdiocese. I did so. It was approved by Metropolitan Philip and sent to every Priest of the Antiochian Archdiocese. Thus, I am well qualified to write on this subject. Because of the fad of so called inclusive language such as “Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier,” by some liberal Protestant groups our clergy must verify that the correct Trinitarian language was used in the non-Orthodox Baptism. If they cannot, the convert must be received by Baptism. I am also a special consultant to the Pastoral Committee of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America on Baptism and the reception of converts. I also serve as a consultant to the Committee on Ecumenical Affairs of the Bishop's Assembly which also deals with this subject. Years ago SCOBA decided that Baptized converts should be received by Chrismation.
Glancing at the second Ecumenical Council Canon 7 and sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 95, how is it determined from which group the penitent heretic hails?
I RESPOND: Actually you are making a reference to Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo which was recognized as a continuation of the 6th Ecumenical Council by the 7th Ecumenical Council. As I have already mentioned, the most common practice of the Eastern Orthodox Church as ratified by two Pan-Orthodox Councils applies Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo to allow for the reception of Catholics and Protestants who have been Baptized with water “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” by profession of faith and Chrismation. The Oros of 1755 issued by Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople which required all converts to be received by Baptism, was not universally accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Russia ignored it. Antioch rejected it as an innovation. Since 1888 even Constantinople no longer follows the Oros of 1755 which is of questionable authority since it was issued by Patriarch Cyril V without the approval of the Holy Synod of Constantinople.
On what exactly are you basing your very public charge of heresy?
I RESPOND: It is heresy to deny the power of Chrismation to correct whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism because Chrismation completes whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism. That is why Canon 95 of Trullo could allow converts from various heretical groups to enter the Church through profession of faith and Chrismation.
My baptismal certificate from the Greek Archdiocese is signed by the Priest who performed the Sacrament of Baptism, the sponsor and approved by the Metropolitan. Are you saying that the presiding Metropolitan did not approve those baptisms, or that there is something amiss that should be brought to the attention of the Metropolitan?
I RESPOND: The official guidelines for the reception of converts into the Greek Archdiocese mandates the reception of a Baptized convert by Chrismation. Actually the official guidelines of every canonical Eastern Orthodox jurisdiction in America allows for the reception of converts by Chrismation. Even ROCOR which routinely receives converts by Baptism, allows a Bishop to receive a baptized Catholic or Protestant by Chrismation as an act of economy. No recognized authority on this subject denies that a convert Baptized outside of the Church can become Orthodox through Chrismation. Even Fr. George D. Metallinos admits this in his book “I Confess One Baptism.”
Is it correct protocol to bring these charges on an internet forum, without having the Metropolitan in charge of that monastery present, or possibly not even informed of what has taken place?
I RESPOND: I do not believe that any Metropolitan of the Greek Archdiocese would sanction the practice of so called corrective baptism. Actually, I have not accused anyone of heresy by name. I have simply stated that the practice of so called corrective Baptism is heretical. There was a case years ago in Atlanta in the OCA in which Archbishop Demetri suspended a Priest who submitted to a “corrective baptism.” Once in a private conversation Fr. Alexander Schmemann told me that it is “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit,” to Baptize someone who was received by Chrismation
Here are the only relevant Canons I could find, and which have given me great pause when considering your post:
Second Ecumenical Canon 6: I RESPOND: Have you had a course in Eastern Orthodox canon law from an accreditedited Eastern Orthodox Seminary? Nothing is more dangerous than for a person without the proper training in the principles of Eastern Orthodox Canon Law to pick up a copy of The Rudder and start quoting canons. You simply are not qualified to interpret the canon law without proper training in the principles of Eastern Orthodox Canon Law.
Did the standing Bishops of the Americas not just have a meeting to begin to address these jurisdictional issues in real and tangible ways? Was this issue brought up before the Bishops in that meeting?
I RESPOND: Not yet, because the Pastoral Committee has not completed its report which deals not only with the reception of converts, but marriage, funerals and several other matters. However, the Pastoral Committee of the Assembly of Bishops met in LA in May. I prepared the report for the meeting on the reception of converts and everyone there agreed with my conclusions. I am also a consultant to the Committee on Ecumenical Affairs of the Bishop's Assembly which also deals with this issue and agrees with my conclusions on this matter.
Did you perchance wear any non-clerical garb in the week preceding chrismation?
I RESPOND: I wear what my Bishops requires me to wear when I am carrying out my clerical duties and almost always when I leave my home. What I wear at home or even when I am carrying our my Priestly duties is none of your business. It is not your place to judge me or anyone else by what I wear. I wear black pants and a black clerical shirt with a clerical collar, because that is what my Bishop has instructed me to wear. The canons require clergy to dress as clergy, but does not specify exactly what they should wear. That is because these things have changed through the centuries. In Greece married Priests like myself only began to wear cassocks outside of the Church grounds or a monastery during the 19th century. Before that they dressed as an ordinary layman, but in darker colors. In the 19th century the Holy Synod of Russia decreed that clergy serving outside of Orthodox lands should dress as a proper gentleman. Even St. Tikhon wore a businessman's suite while serving in America.
And so is the marriage bed held to be undefiled in the Canons.
I RESPOND: The official guidelines published by the Holy Synod of Russia for Confessors during the 19th century forbids a Priest hearing a Confession from asking too many personal questions about the intimate sexual relations between a husband and a wife. When I was told that a monk asked one of my spiritual children questions about the intimate sexual relations with their husband, I asked my Bishop if that is proper and was told that the monk was completely out of line to ask such personal questions of a married woman.
As a person who is posting on this forum bearing the title of an Orthodox clergyman and who has leveled a charge of heresy against an Orthodox monastery and, it by association it would seem, on the Metropolitan in whose jurisdiction they reside, I hope this matter will be dealt with in a real way affording the parties being accused a chance to address the issue so as not to further alienate jurisdictions which are in reality one, holy, catholic and Orthodox faith. Otherwise, it seems an injustice is taking place in the form of an accusation on an internet forum and the inevitable judgement in the court of public opinion with only one side represented.
I RESPOND: I was very careful how I expressed myself. I did not name any monastery or accuse anyone of heresy. I wrote that the practice of “corrective Baptism” is heretical. The practice of “corrective baptism” of someone who was received by Chrismation and has received Communion in the Church is against the teaching of the Holy Fathers. Read Canon I of the 1st Canonical Epistle of St. Basil the Great. In it he expresses disagreement with the decision of an unnamed Bishop in Asia to receive by Chrismation someone he believes should be received by Baptism, but recognizes the authority of the Asian Bishops to make decisions how to receive converts in their own diocese, writing, “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;”
Since you list yourself as Antiochian, you should show proper respect for the decision of our Antiochian Bishops which is to receive Baptized converts by Chrismation.
Archpriest John W Morris, PhD
