WELL-MEANING HIERARCHS and PROFESSORS SEEK INFORMATION from O.T. About ‘BAPTISMATIC THEOLOGY’
“Baptismatic theology is about acceptance of heretics’ baptism/christening and, at the same time, admits abidance by heretical beliefs by each broken off group from the Body of the One Church”
by Arch. Cyrillos Kostopoulos, preacher of Patras H.M., Dr Theologist
Αfter the publication of the article by Arch. Cyrillos Kostopoulos, Dr Theologist entitled “Is baptismatic theology acceptable?”, a Theological School Professor communicated with O.T to express his concerns. During the conversation, he displayed great interest in the article and he also expressed some significant thoughts, which concern many of the Professors of the Theological Schools and Academies, even Hierarchs (Bishops), who ask: Since the Church always accepted without rebaptising those who returned from heresies which avowed the Holy Trinity, why don’t we, nowadays, accept “Baptismatic Theology” but we are discussing rebaptising Papals and Protestants?
It is known that in the Pidalion (7th Canon, 2nd Ecumenical Cοnference and 95th Canon of the Fifth-Sixth), it is determined that no rebaptising is needed in the event of invocation of the Holy Trinity in previous baptism. It is then claimed that only when the Holy Trinity has not been invoked e.g. Muslims, Jews, Jehovah’s witnesses, and some Protestants, then and only then must rebaptising take place. Such examples were Saint Meletios, Patriarch of Antiocheia (he returned from the Areians) who was not rebaptised, Saint Anatolios, Patriarch of Constantinople (he came of Μonophysite Dioscoros) was not rebaptised and was not reordained etc. In fact, there is even a quotation of Fr Epiphanios Theodoropoulos (“The Two Ends”, page 74), where the following is mentioned: “The Church accepted without baptism those coming of heretics as long as they had been baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, while the Donatists rebaptised them.”
In the O.T already (copy 2130 09/09/2016) the former Archsecretary of the Holy Community, priest-monk Damaskinos of the Holy Cell Philadelphou wrote:
“… what I refer to about the invalidity of heterodox’ mysteries, Saint Porphyrios and Saint Paisios’ convictions about them, is absolutely identified with the perennial thought of Athos as well as the perennial tradition of Athos. About this, I carried out historical scientific research resorting to the sources of Athos history, which are the archives of the Holy Monasteries, thus having found the classical minutes (or record?) of 28th September (11th October) 1979 Extraordinary Double Holy Assembly… I am making public, as a historian, what was discussed about the heterodox’ mysteries during that Extraordinary Doubly Holy Assembly… Baptising (or christening?)heterodox in Athos has gone on so far. I am selectively mentioning the baptism and ordination of priest-monk Ambrosios of H.M.Stavronikita, former Roman Catholic priest. After being baptised in the Monastery in the 1980s, he was ordained in It by the Metropolite of Kydonia Mr. Irenaios, currently Archbishop of Crete. Similarly, a few weeks ago, H.M.Pantokratoros baptised two former Roman Catholics on 7th August”.
We relegated the question to whom it was addressed, and today we are publishing the reply below.
REPLY ABOUT BAPTISMATIC THOLOGY
by ARCH. CYRILLOS KOSTOPOULOS
Baptism is one, the “baptism according to truth”(St. Apostles’ 47th), that is “according to Lord’s order, and divine Apostles and Fathers’ tradition”(Zonaras, Canon Constitution 2, 62). For this reason, whoever does not baptise those coming of heretics is disordained “as taunting the cross, and Lord’s death, and not distinguishing priests from pseudopriests”(St. Apostles’ 47th. Also see 19th canon of the 1st Ecumenical Conference).
Heretics’ baptism according to Saint Apostles’ 68th canon is invalid and does not incorporate the baptised to Church. It is considered “not having taken place” (Balsamon, Canon Constitution 2, 88).
Some of the canons render the baptism “of those coming of heretics” acceptable in certain specific cases and not in general. For instance, the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Conference orders that those who “do not differ in anything from us concerning baptism” should not be rebaptised (Zonaras, Canon Constitution 2, 188. Also see 95th of the 6th Ecumenical Conference, 1st of Vasileios the Great), that is, those who were baptised in the Name of the Holy Trinity and with triple submergence and emergence as a form of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity and the Burial and Resurrection of Man-God Lord. Vasileios the Great in his 1st canon stipulates: “The people of old judged that we should accept the baptism which does not diverge from the faith”.
It is apparent that this dispensation cannot be applied to Papals or Protestants for two reasons:
- They do not believe in an orthodox way regarding the Holy Trinity doctrine (Filioque).
- Their baptism is not in concert with the Biblical and Paterical exhortation (it is officiated by sprinkling).
Baptismatic Theology is about acceptance of heretics’ baptism and, in parallel, it accepts the abidance by heretical beliefs of every broken off group from the Body of the One Church. Therefore the content of the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Conference, which refers to the reception of those returning to Church from the heresy, cannot be applied here.
Consequently, after heretics return in repentance to the One Church, the Orthodox Church, they have to be baptised canonically, following “in everything the doctrines of the catholic Church” (8th canon 1st Ec. Conference), because, according to Vasileios the Great, “those who were not baptised in what was delivered to us were not baptised” (1st canon).
Furthermore, Papals, Protestants etc. have diverged from the Orthodox Faith and, as a result, the Apostolic Succession has been discontinued. Therefore, their Mysteries are invalid. After all, they fall into about twenty heresies including the distortion of the Mystery of the Holy Baptism (see Arch. C.Kostopoulos, Papacy is a heresy, p.90 and then).
The acceptance of heretics’ mysteries is punished with disordination (see St. Apostles 46th), because the person accepting them, according to Zonaras, clearly manifests that he holds the same views as the heresy (Canon Constitution 2,61).
As regards the Donatists, they were not repudiated, because they enforced precision regarding baptism, rejecting dispensation. According to Theodoritos, “these concerning the heresy” are similar to “those of Areios” (PG 83, 424B. See Holy Augustinos’ view, ΘΗΕ 5, 167). Τhey were then condemned primarily for their heretical views and the subsequent erroneous beliefs: They organised their own “church”, which dissociated itself in many points from the One Catholic Church, like their stricter stance towards those who were not unshakable in their christian beliefs during the persecutions, rejection of validity of the Mysteries, which were officiated by morally unfit clergymen etc. (see Skouteri, History of Doctrines, 2004, p.670, Feida, Ecclesiastical History A’, 1992, p. 306).
Based on the above, examples like Saint Meletios’ or Saint Anatolios of Constantinople’s are not valid to support the erroneous content of Baptismatic Theology. And this is because, firstly, Saint Meletios of Antiocheia (+381), who had fallen in with the movement of the moderate half-areianists Alikes (359), but later manifested his Orthodox stance (see M.O.X.E. Vol. 11, p. 312, Papadopoulou, Patrologia B’, p. 445), was not rebaptised – although in the sources, the fact that he received baptism by an areian or half-areian is not supported – according to the prevailing ecclesiastical custom, which was finally formulated with the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Conference.
In a similar way, Saint Anatolios too, even though he was at first a representative(apokriciarios) of Dioscoros of Alexandria in Constantinople (M.O.X.E. Vol. 2, 418), he never followed him in his dogmatic extremities (Christou, Gr. Patr. 4, 330). On the contrary, as Patriarch of Constantinople, though he was chosen for this position (449) “perhaps with Dioscoros’ help as well” (St. Papadopoulou, Patrologia C’, p. 690), he constitutes the 4th Ecumenical Conference (451) and condemns Dioscoros.