The priest Fr. Lawrence Farley has brought a contribution to the discussion of receiving converts from heterodox traditions into the Church. Recently, he wrote an article which is unfortunately lacking in its helpfulness to improve the situation. First, he accepts disproven facts and denies basic historical realities (to his credit, the errors in both of these types are considered “normal” and quite pervasive) in the patristic testimony surrounding the reception the heterodox into the Church. Second and sadly, he does not make a convincing call for resolution through his offering of mere insights and opinions, which are little more than basic subjective reflections.
A quick catalog summarizing these two shortcomings will follow. The most authoritative book to date on this issue is the book published by Uncut Mountain Press: On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria (henceforth abbreviated “RH”). In it, the plain dogmatic language of all the canons pertaining to the reception of the heterodox and the choir of patristic interpretations are comprehensively analyzed in greater detail than we have found in any other publication on the topic, in any language. We are called to “follow the Holy Fathers.” No one has offered any meaningful criticism since it was published a year ago.
First, Fr. Lawrence is relying on “facts” which have been disproven and denies basic historical realities in the sources that make up this conversation.
He repeats the idea that St. Cyprian and his councils in Carthage were not ultimately followed by the Orthodox Church. This falsehood is based on ignorance of the very language of the Oecumenical Councils which “ratified” (to use the literal word [ἐπισφραγίζομεν] of the 2nd Canon of the Fifth-Sixth Council at Trullo) St. Cyprian’s Canon. This is the historical record. This is specifically analyzed in RH on pp. 80-83.
He states that St. Basil and St. Cyprian differed in their views on receiving converts. This is incorrect. This error is primarily fueled by an incorrect reading of St. Basil’s First Canon based on an incorrect translation of a key phrase in the canon, and also by ignoring his forty-seventh canon. Along with this there is a failure to recognize the harmony of these two canons. In summary, while St. Basil, in his first canon, did distinguish between schismatics, heretics and those in parasynagogues, he considered all of them to be outside of the Church. This is indisputable if one understands the Greek properly. Moreover, he commemorated Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian who grouped schismatics and heretics together and required both to be baptized, he acknowledged that some bishops received different groups at that time without baptizing them but then said we are nevertheless obliged “to serve the canons with exactitude” and receive converts by baptism. In Canon 47, St. Basil mentions the Encratites, Saccophori and Apotactites are to be baptized, acknowledging that their baptism is “forbidden” by “present-day Romans, for the sake of economy, yet we insist that our rule prevail”; i.e., they be baptized, despite the fact that they were “baptized in Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” St. Basil clearly preferred that all would be received by baptism despite the objections elsewhere and his position was adopted as a canon of the Oecumenical Councils and not the position of Rome. A detailed analysis of the canonical texts, their translation, and grammar is found in pp. 83-91 of RH.
The claim that reception was based on the varying differences heretical groups had with the Orthodox Church is put forward. This idea of proximity to the Church as a criterion for how heretics should be received is quite popular today but is not based on the teachings of the Fathers, the Oecumenical Councils, and the ancient canonists of the Church. Just scratching the surface of this theory actually reveals it to be untenable and unjustifiable historically. For example, the ancient canonist Zonaras said regarding those who must be received by baptism, “For whether they received holy baptism or not, they have not received it correctly, nor in the form and style prescribed by the Orthodox Church,” which is three full immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity according to Apostolic Canon 50. Canon 95 of Trullo and Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council state that Eunomians must be baptized because they “baptize with a single immersion” rather than in three full immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity. The 5th century Church historian Sozomen said the Eunomians were basically Arians, but while Arians were received by chrismation, Eunomians were received by baptism. Sozomen states, “Some assert that Eunomius was the first who ventured to maintain that divine baptism ought to be performed by one immersion, and to corrupt, in this manner, the apostolic tradition which has been carefully handed down to the present day.” Therefore, it is evident that the canons regarding reception of converts were not based on proximity of belief but on whether those being received into the Church already had received the Apostolic form of baptism in three full immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity. This question is analyzed in RH in the context of why Canon 7 of the Second Oecumenical Council put forward baptism as a means of reception for heretics and chrismation for other heretics (see pp. 91-99).
By extension, as Fr. Lawrence mentions, the 95th Canon of Trullo repeats the canons before it and then expands them. However, what many ignore is that in this canon and Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council, it is stated that those belonging to “any other heresies… we baptized them.” A few specifically named groups were permitted by these two canons to be received by chrismation but both canons upheld baptism as the standard means of receiving those from “any other heresies” regardless of any “proximity” to Orthodoxy. See RH pp. 91-99 and 106- 112.
Fr. Lawrence points out the basis of receiving some into the Church is the heterodox’s “use of water for baptism and the correct baptismal formula, as well as their holding a Trinitarian theology.” Some indeed may suggest this, and it is a popular suggestion. However, it is not patristic because it lacks the most important and key characteristic. Triune immersion. This is required, too. The requirement is stated in the Apostolic teaching itself. Apostolic Canon 50 requires “three immersions.” This canon, accepted on an Oecumenical level, is quoted and analyzed in detail in RH on pp. 45-56.
Fr. Lawrence mentions the recent documents provided by the British Antiochian Church. However, at no point does the document address RH and the careful analysis of the patristic and conciliar literature on this topic. The points raised in that document are thoroughly analyzed in RH from a position of the patristic consensus and criteria, and in a larger scope historically and academically than is found in this short document. In comparing the document from the British Antiochian Church with RH, the teaching of the Holy Fathers should be evident.
Fr. Lawrence teaches that the reason why the Council of Moscow in 1667 accepted the “baptism” of “Roman Catholics” was because they had the correct baptismal formula and acceptance of the Trinity. However, this is demonstrably untrue. St. Hilarion (Troitsky) in the 20th century, and St. Hermogenes the Patriarch and Wonderworker of All Russia along with Patriarch Philaret (Romanov) of Moscow in the 17th century, as well as Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) in his 19th century History of the Russian Church, all testify that prior to the 17th century all converts were received in Russia by baptism. The 1667 Council in Moscow has been highly controversial and its anathemas have been overturned by the Moscow Patriarchate in the 20th century. The decisions of the council on the reception of Papists was mostly influenced by Patriarch Macarius of Antioch who was a secret Uniate, as the book documents. The whole of Chapter 13 in RH is devoted to that council and the surprising activity surrounding it, and Chapters 11 and 12 give the necessary background to understand the events happening, not only in Russia, but also in the rest of the Orthodox Church leading up to the Moscow Council of 1667.
Fr. Lawrence also critically fails to mention the 1755 Decree of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem which was also later adopted in Antioch; which explained why, according to the canons, all converts from the West need to be received by baptism and why the canons which allow reception by another method no longer apply to converts from Protestantism and Papalism. This authoritative and historically significant document is still officially in effect, having never been overturned. This is examined in RH in Chapter 15.
It is notable that Fr. Lawrence also ignores the extensive commentary on the subject of reception into the Orthodox Church offered by St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite in the Rudder, still the most widely accepted and authoritative compilation and commentary on the canons available in the Orthodox Church. The Rudder was endorsed by countless saints (throughout the Orthodox world) and by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for distribution throughout the whole Church. More discussion of St. Nikodemos and his commentary on the Rudder can be found in RH on pp. 300-301, 359-361 (and throughout the book).
In the concluding paragraph, Fr. Lawrence offers a false reassurance to his readers that in the matter of a convert being received without the Church’s “one baptism” (cf. the Creed), “divine grace fills up whatever is lacking.” No saint has ever taught this and this teaching is in fact a rejection of the consensus of the Holy Fathers and Oecumenical Councils. This is discussed, in passing, in RH on pp. 100-104, but really is seen throughout RH.
Second, Fr. Lawrence does not truly help in resolving the disagreements in this area because he does not align himself (on this issue) with the Tradition of the Church. Rather, he offers insights and opinions based, not on the consensus of the Oecumenical Councils and Holy Fathers, but on anecdotal musings.
In the article, Fr. Lawrence tries to understand the language of St. Basil’s canon (specifically the exact mistranslation pointed out in RH). Father Lawrence explicitly quotes the mistranslation (and who can fault him for this, since most are uninformed about it) and accepts it; however, he “suggests” a theory to understand it. So, we have a proposal based on a “suggestion” based on a mistranslation. This is not a contribution to the discussion that is helpful considering the prolonged and extensive confusion on this topic.
Fr. Lawrence continues to speculate on where grace might be found and in what degrees. This reads very anecdotally and not based on any solid nor any enduring spiritual realities or patristic teachings. However, in RH, the teaching of the Holy Fathers is discussed in detail on exactly where grace is found and where it is not. The book even goes into detail about the differing types of divine energies and on what basis, according to the Fathers, they are active. To very briefly summarize the patristic teaching on this subject, the Holy Spirit is “everywhere present and fillest all things,” and while the grace of God works generally throughout all creation, the Holy Spirit only works through the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church for the purification, illumination and glorification of man. The whole of Chapter 19 in RH is devoted to this point, since much ignorance surrounds the presuppositions necessary for Holy Mysteries to be present and operative.
Fr. Lawrence suggests the “elephants in the room” regarding the criteria for the means of reception are “liberalism” and “anti-sacramentalism.” He muses further that such criteria (as foreign and sometimes abhorrent as they are) means “we should receive… by baptism.” We can applaud this conclusion, but the foundation and framing that got him to this point is merely built on sand. It will not endure. He raises anachronistic hypotheticals and support from the error-riddled and short-sighted document from the British Antiochian Church. This is not how we “follow the Holy Fathers.” For an education on the timelessness of Church teaching (that applies to even local and pan-Orthodox synods, whether true and false) and the necessity of a charismatic presence (i.e., the Holy Spirit) characterizing those councils, in order for the faithful to accept them across subsequent generations, RH dedicates Chapter 20 to explain those criteria.
Fr. Lawrence instructs the reader, in the final sentence of his article to “eschew a sacramental legalism which would give insufficient room for the boundless grace of God.” This may sound nice to the reader. However, the Holy Fathers do not treat the matter in such terms and with such ideas; they provide a different paradigm. Sadly, Fr. Lawrence does not understand the criteria and nuances of the patristic witness regarding grace outside the Church and grace within the Church. These keys, which Farley lacks, lead him to erroneous conclusions. We know there is grace outside the Church (e.g., the prayer to the Holy Spirit says He is “everywhere present and fillest all things” and as St. Paul quotes in Acts that “in him we live, and move, and have our being”) but the grace of the Mysteries is found in the Mystery of the Body, Christ giving and being given in each and every one (see explanation by St. Irenaeus of Lyons on p. 124 of RH). Our synergy with this grace is the presupposition for participating in the Mysteries. The acquisition of this grace and the ability to grow in it cannot exist apart from Church for the Mysteries unite man to Christ and the Church is Christ’s Body. The Mysteries pour forth from His Body, as the Fathers interpret the pouring out of blood and water when Christ was pierced with a lance on the Cross. The patristic witness to this teaching is presented throughout RH (especially pp. 145-146). Also, Apostolic Canon 50 decrees that priests and bishops who fail to baptize in three full immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity should be deposed. Were the Apostles (and the Oecumenical Councils, which adopted these canons) being too legalistic?
We commend Fr. Lawrence for wanting to contribute a solution to this extremely lamentable disorder which has come into the Church. His pastoral concern comes out magnificently and manifests that he has given much thought and consideration to the issues before us. However, we have the deposit of our Sacred Tradition. We have the witness of the Holy Fathers. We have the revelation of God given to His illumined, Spirit-filled saints. The solution is available and in comparison, we regret to observe that Fr. Lawrence’s contribution does not advance the conversation on the reception of the heterodox into the Church. A great effort was made to compile all the relevant canons and teachings of the saints and Fathers on this topic in the book On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria. The purpose of this book was to provide clarity on a topic that has been plagued by tremendous confusion for many years. Sadly, as we see in this article, when the patristic wisdom referenced in this book is ignored, the result is not more clarity but the further spread of misinformation and confusion. For this reason, we hope that Fr. Lawrence, and any who are interested in this topic, first consider the patristic witness contained in this book and then directly address whatever they believe to be unclear or incorrect in advancing a solution on this all-important topic.
