One of the most complex and frequently debated questions in Orthodox ecclesiology concerns the recognition of sacraments performed outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church. While there is a hardline rigorist strain in contemporary discussions that attempts to present the practice of baptizing virtually all converts as THE historic Orthodox tradition, historical evidence reveals a more nuanced approach in both the Greek, and particularly within the Russian Orthodox tradition.
Early Church Foundations: The Baptismal Controversies That Influenced the Creed’s Statement About “One Baptism”
Whether heterodox baptisms performed in water in the name of the Trinity should be accepted first came up in the controversy between St. Stephen of Rome and St. Cyprian of Carthage. St. Cyprian believed all heterodox baptisms were nothing more than a bath and had no grace, so all converts to the Church should be baptized. This was a new teaching invented by St. Cyprian’s predecessor Aggripinus. St. Stephen, maintaining the apostolic tradition, believed it was wrong to rebaptize those who had been baptized in a Trinitarian way with water.
St. Vincent of Lerins summed up this third-century controversy and its result. By his time in the fifth century, the issue of whether the Orthodox Catholic Church should rebaptize those who had been baptized outside of the Church with the invocation of the Trinity was so settled, that it was believed there was great spiritual danger in accepting and teaching the view of receiving such heterodox through rebaptism as St. Cyprian had held. The full chapter covering this issue in St. Vincent’s Commonitory is well worth reading by Orthodox tempted to accept this Neo-Donatist view being popularized today:
“[15.] Great then is the example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be called to mind, and meditated upon continually by every true Catholic, who, like the seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the several rantings of error, might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity.
Nor is there anything new in this? For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.
[16.] Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine — and he was the first who held it — that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even.
When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation — nothing but what has been handed down. For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.
[17.] But it may be, the cause of innovation at that time lacked patronage. On the contrary, it had in its favor such powerful talent, such copious eloquence, such a number of partisans, so much resemblance to truth, such weighty support in Scripture (only interpreted in a novel and perverse sense), that it seems to me that that whole conspiracy could not possibly have been defeated, unless the sole cause of this extraordinary stir, the very novelty of what was so undertaken, so defended, so belauded, had proved wanting to it. In the end, what result, under God, had that same African Council or decree? None whatever. The whole affair, as though a dream, a fable, a thing of no possible account, was annulled, cancelled, and trodden underfoot.
[18.] And O marvellous revolution! The authors of this same doctrine are judged Catholics, the followers heretics; the teachers are absolved, the disciples condemned; the writers of the books will be children of the Kingdom, the defenders of them will have their portion in Hell. For who is so demented as to doubt that that blessed light among all holy bishops and martyrs, Cyprian, together with the rest of his colleagues, will reign with Christ; or, who on the other hand so sacreligious as to deny that the Donatists and those other pests, who boast the authority of that council for their iteration of baptism, will be consigned to eternal fire with the devil?” (Commonitory)
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe echoes the Church’s teaching about heterodox Trinitarian baptisms and the fear the Orthodox Catholic Church had about repeating such baptisms, “Anyone who receives the sacrament of Baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole Sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the Sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church. He must, therefore, return to the Church, not to that he might receive again the sacrament of Baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the Sacrament of Baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church.” (Rule of Faith)
The question of sacramental validity outside the visible bounds of the Church was first addressed systematically during the Donatist controversy in the 4th-5th centuries. St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Optatus of Milevis developed a theological framework that would influence Church practice for centuries to come. They argued that the efficacy of sacraments depends on Christ’s action rather than the moral character or ecclesiastical status of the minister.
St. Optatus of Milevus explains, “For what can be more to our purpose than your argument from the fact that there was only one Flood —-the type of Baptism? And, in maintaining that the one Circumcision availed for the salvation of the people of the Jews, you have written in defense of our doctrine, as though you were one of us. For this is our argument, who defend the Unity of Baptism conferred in [the Name of] the Trinity. It is not an argument in favor of you, who dare to repeat, against the laws, that Baptism, of which the one Flood and one Circumcision are typical. And this, although you yourselves would not deny that what has been commanded to be done once only, ought not to be repeated. But whilst you have praised with acuteness that which is worthy of all praise, you have by a quibble introduced your own persons, as if—-since it is only lawful once [to baptize]—-for you it were lawful, for others unlawful. If it be unlawful for Betrayers to baptize, it cannot be lawful for you, for we can prove that your first fathers were Betrayers. If it be unlawful for schismatics to baptize, it must therefore be unlawful for you, for you originated the Schism. If it be unlawful for sinners to baptize, we can prove from divine testimony that you are sinners also. Finally, since the validity of Baptism does not depend upon the character of the man who has been chosen to baptize, but upon an act which lawfully is done but once, for this reason we do not set right baptisms which have been administered by you, because both amongst us and amongst you the Sacrament is one. The whole nature of this Sacrament we shall set forth in our fifth book.”
St. Augustine particularly emphasized that baptism belongs to Christ, not to the Church, and therefore could be valid even when performed outside the Church’s visible boundaries. This understanding was ultimately reflected in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed’s declaration, “I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.”
The Bishop of Hippo explains the basic defect in St. Cyprian’s rationalistic thinking about baptism outside of the canonical bounds of the Church, “It appeared to some even eminent men who were bishops of Christ, among whom the blessed Cyprian was specially conspicuous, that the baptism of Christ could not exist among heretics or schismatics, this simply arose from their not distinguishing the sacrament from the effect or use of the sacrament; and because its effect and use were not found among heretics in freeing them from their sins and setting their hearts right, the sacrament itself was also thought to be wanting among them. But if we turn our eyes to the multitude of chaff within the Church, since these also who are perverse and lead an abandoned life in unity itself appear to have no power either of giving or retaining remission of sins, seeing that it is not to the wicked but the good sons that it was said, “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained,” yet that such persons both have, and give, and receive the sacrament of baptism, was sufficiently manifest to the pastors of the Catholic Church dispersed over the whole world, through whom the original custom was afterwards confirmed by the authority of a plenary Council; so that even the sheep which was straying outside, and had received the mark of the Lord from false plunderers outside, if it seek the salvation of Christian unity, is purified from error, is freed from captivity, is healed of its wound, and yet the mark of the Lord is recognized rather than rejected in it; since the mark itself is often impressed both by wolves and on wolves, who seem indeed to be within the fold, but yet are proved by the fruits of their conduct, in which they persevere even to the end, not to belong to that sheep which is one in many; because, according to the foreknowledge of God, as many sheep wander outside, so many wolves lurk treacherously within, among whom the Lord yet knoweth them that are His, which hear only the voice of the Shepherd, even when He calls by the voice of men like the Pharisees, of whom it was said, “Whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do. (The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists)
St. Isidore of Seville represents the Orthodox tradition the same as Augustine did, “Heretics also, if nevertheless they were taught to have received baptism in attestation of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, are not to be baptized again but are to be cleansed only by chrism, and therefore it is of no concern whether a heretic or a faithful one baptizes. The sacrament is so sacred that it is not defiled by a murderer ministering it. Certainly a heretic has the baptism of Christ but, because he is outside the unity of the faith, it produces nothing for him. But when he shall have come back in, immediately the baptism that he had outside toward destruction begins now to work in him toward salvation. For the fact that he received it, I approve; that he received it outside the unity of faith, I disapprove. When he comes back in, however, he is not changed; he is recognized. Since the character [given him in baptism] is of my king, I will not be sacrilegious. I correct the deserter; I do not change the character” (Book 2 De Ecclesiasticis XXV)
The Russian Orthodox Tradition
The Russian Orthodox Church maintained a notably consistent position on this matter for centuries. According to Protopresbyter Alexander Lebedeff, one of ROCOR’s most eminent clergymen, every pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox handbook for clergy, textbook on Canon Law, Comparative Theology, Liturgics, and Pastoral Theology affirmed that Roman Catholics possessed valid mysteries and true apostolic succession.
Fr. George Metallinos, in his scholarly work “I Confess One Baptism,” notes that this position was not unique to Russia but represented “the prevailing view” of the Orthodox Church following the 1054 schism. The Orthodox Church “recognized the validity of the Latin sacraments,” receiving converts through Chrismation rather than rebaptism.
Official Synodal Decisions
While today’s rigorists often point to Cyprian’s Council of 257 to support their view that there is no grace in any heterodox sacraments, what they fail to realize is that the three councils of Carthage following Cyprian’s death overturned that council’s decisions as having been in error. The Council of Carthage in 419 (given ecumenical authority at Trullo), at which St. Augustine was present, said, “Canon 57: For in coming to faith they [those who were baptized by Donatists, i.e. heretical schismatics] thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: One God, one faith, one baptism, and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation.”
Now, while Cyprian’s Council was also accepted at Trullo, our greatest sainted canon lawyers (e.g. Zonaras, Balsamon, Nicodim Milash point out that it was accepted, but not as literally understood. Zonaras explained around 1100 AD, “Thus, the opinions of the Fathers gathered at the council with the great Cyprian do not refer to all heretics and all schismatics. Because the Second Ecumenical Council, as we just pointed out, makes an exception for certain heretics and grants its sanction for their reception without repeating the baptism, demanding only their anointing with the Holy Chrism provided that they renounced their own heresies and all other heresies.”
The 1484 Council of Constantinople, which included all four Eastern Patriarchs, officially ratified this practice, saying, “the Latin converts to Orthodoxy should be received into the Church only by Chrismation and by signing an appropriate Libellus of faith which would include denunciation of Latin errors…”. It also created a special service for receiving converts through Chrismation after a written profession of faith.
This position was later reaffirmed by the Russian Church Council of 1667 (which had previously consulted all ancient Patriarchs on the matter) when it overturned the illegitimate Moscow Council of 1620, which had decreed a new teaching that Roman Catholics should be baptized when coming to Orthodoxy.
Archimandrite Ambrosius Pogodin wrote about the 1667 Council overturning the theological innovation of the 1620 council in his essay On The Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, “The Council fathers carefully reviewed Patriarch Philaret Nikitich’s statute and came to the conclusion that the laws were incorrectly interpreted and applied to the Latins. They then referred to earlier Council statutes whereby it was forbidden to re-baptize even Arians and Macedonians in the event of their coming into Orthodoxy, and even more so, the fathers said, Latins must not be re-baptized. They referred to the Council of the four Eastern Patriarchs held in Constantinople in 1484, which decreed not to re-baptize Latins upon their coming into Orthodoxy, but only to anoint them with Chrism, and which even composed the actual rite for their reception into the Church. They referred to the wise Mark of Ephesus who, in his epistle addressed to all Orthodox, offers the same teaching. [These decisions were ratified by another Synod in +1718 and applied to Protestants.]”
The Council of Moldova, a Pan-Orthodox Council with ecumenical authority, said, “This mystery [of baptism] once received is not again to be repeated, provided the person who provided the baptism believed orthodoxly in three Persons in one God and accurately, without alteration, pronounced the aforementioned words: namely, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
Another Pan-Orthodox Council accepted dogmatically by the whole Orthodox Church was held in Jerusalem (1672) and it had decreed, “Moreover, we reject as something abominable and pernicious the notion that when faith is weak the integrity of the Mystery is impaired. For heretics who renounce their heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptized.”
Professor Fr. Andrei Psarev, who teaches Russian Church History at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, confirms that this recognition of Catholic sacraments represents the historical tradition of the Russian Church. The Holy Governing Synod of Russia explicitly stated this position to the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1903:
“As regards our relations towards the two great ramifications of Christianity, the Latins and the Protestants, the Russian Church, together with all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, every prayers, awaits, and fervently desires that those who in times of old were children of Mother Church and sheep of the one flock of Christ, but who now have been torn away by the envy of the foe and are wandering astray, “should repent and come to the knowledge of the truth,” that they should once more return to the bosom of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, to their one Shepherd. We believe in the sincerity of their faith in the All-Holy and Life-originating Trinity, and on that account we accept the baptism of both one and the other. We respect the Apostolical Succession of the Latin hierarchy, and those of their clergy who join our Church we accept in the Orders which they then possess, just as we do in the case of Armenians, Copts, Nestorians, and other bodies that have not lost the Apostolic Succession.”
Notable Orthodox Testimonies
The view that there can be valid sacraments outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church which ought not to be repeated when converts join Orthodoxy has always been widespread and held by our greatest teachers and saints. Consider the following examples:
– St. Philaret of Moscow affirmed the validity of Roman Catholic episcopal succession and sacraments: “Mark you, I do not presume to call false any Church which believes that Jesus is the Christ. The Christian Church can only be either purely true, confessing the true and saving divine teaching without the false admixtures and pernicious opinions of men, or not purely true, mixing with the true and saving teaching of faith in Christ the false and pernicious opinions of men… but I just simply look upon them; in part I see how the Head and Lord of the Church heals the many deep wounds of the old serpent in all the parts and limbs of his Body, applying now gentle, now strong, remedies, even fire and iron, in order to soften hardness, to draw out poison, to clean wounds, to separate out malignant growths, to restore spirit and life in the numbed and half-dead members. In this way I attest my faith that, in the end, the power of God will triumph openly over human weakness, good over evil, unity over division, life over death.” St. Philaret also said, “Anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Trinity is a Christian, no matter what confession he belongs to. There is one True faith—Orthodoxy; but all Christian beliefs—through the Lord’s longsuffering—hold.”
-Patriarch Macarius of Antioch (1667) said, “the Latins must not be re-baptized: they have the seven sacraments and all seven Councils, and they are all baptized correctly in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit with an invocation of the Holy Trinity. We must recognize their baptism. They are only schismatics, and schism does not make a man unfaithful and unbaptized. It only separates him from the Church. Mark of Ephesus himself, who opposed the Latins, never demanded their re-baptism and accepted their baptism as a correct one.”
-Russian Archbishop Benjamin: “All heretics are divided into three types. To the first belong those who do not believe in the Holy Consubstantial Trinity and do not perform baptism by triple immersion into water; these, along with pagans and Muhammadans are to be baptized as directed by Canon 19 of the First Ecumenical Council. Heretics of the second type are those who believe in the One God in the Trinity and are baptized by triple immersion, but have their own delusions and heresies and with the exception of baptism either do not recognize other sacraments or, in performing other sacraments improperly, reject chrismation. They are not to be baptized because they are baptized, but, following the repudiation of their heresies and confession of the Orthodox Faith, are to be united to the Church by way of the sacrament of Chrismation, as is prescribed by Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council. The third type of heretics, called dissidents, maintain all the seven sacraments including chrismation, but, having separated from the unity of the Orthodox Church, dare to add to the pure confession of faith their own delusions, which are contrary to the ancient teachings of the Apostles and Fathers of the Church, and introduce many pernicious views into the church and, in rejecting ancient pious rites of the Church, introduce new traditions, which are contrary to the spirit of piety. These we do not baptize for the second time nor do we anoint them with the Holy Chrism. After the repudiation of their delusion and repentance from their sins, they confess the Orthodox Symbol of Faith and are cleansed from their sins by the prayers and hierarchical absolution.”
– St. Theophan the Recluse wrote explicitly accepting Catholic baptism, priesthood, and other mysteries: “Our Church has condescension toward Catholics and accepts not only Catholic baptism and other sacraments, but even the priesthood, which is very significant. Only we must hold to one thing—that we must not convert to Catholicism, for they have certain parts in their form of confessing ecclesiastical rites that have been corrupted and changed since their departure from the ancient form. I can’t say anything more than this.”
– Fr. George Florovsky, in his essay “The Limits of the Church,” provided theological justification for the Russian practice of recognizing Catholic sacraments: “If beyond the canonical limits of the Church the wilderness without grace begins immediately, if schismatics have not been baptized and still abide in the darkness that precedes baptism, then perfect clarity, strictness, and firmness are even more indispensable in the acts and judgements of the Church. Here no ‘forbearance’ is appropriate or even possible; no concessions are permissible. Is it in fact conceivable that the Church should receive sectarians or heretics into her own body not by way of baptism simply in order thereby to make their decisive step easy? … One may ask who gave the Church this right not merely to change, but simply to abolish the external act of baptism, performing it in such cases only mentally, by implication or by intention at the celebration of the ‘second sacrament’ (i.e. chrismation) over the unbaptized. Admittedly, in special and exceptional cases the ‘external act’, the ‘form’, may indeed be abolished; such is the martyr’s baptism in blood, or even the so-called baptisma flaminis. But this is admissible only in casu necessitatis… For in the Church herself the conviction has arisen among the majority that sacraments are performed even among schismatics, that even in the sects there is a valid, although forbidden, hierarchy. The true intention of the Church in her acts and rules would appear to be too difficult to discern, and from this point of view as well the ‘economic’ explanation of these rules cannot be regarded as convincing.” (The Limits of the Church).
Practical Implementation
The Russian Orthodox Church’s position had concrete pastoral implications:
1. Orthodox priests were explicitly forbidden to “re-baptize” Roman Catholics
2. Roman Catholic priests converting to Orthodoxy were received through Confession of Faith and vesting, without rebaptism, chrismation, or reordination
3. The Church even issued a decree allowing Roman Catholic Uniates to receive Holy Communion from Orthodox priests when Uniate priests were unavailable
4. From 1969 to 1986, during the Soviet period, the Russian Church permitted Catholics to receive confession and communion due to their recognition of Catholic sacraments
The Question of Anglican Orders
The practical implications of this theological position are illustrated in Bulgakov’s “Handbook for Priests,” which discusses whether Anglican clergy could be received in the same manner as Roman Catholic clergy. The key question centered on whether Anglicans had preserved valid apostolic succession “as had the Catholics” – taking the validity of Catholic orders as an established fact.
A Change in Practice
While this represented the consistent position for centuries, a significant shift occurred in 1755 when Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople issued a Tomos requiring the (re)baptism of all Western converts. However, as Fr. Metallinos notes, this decision never gained wide acceptance. The Russian Church particularly continued to follow the 1484 Council of Constantinople’s directives, having confirmed this position at its 1667 Council. Apart from some of the monasteries on Mt. Athos, the Greek Church itself did not even follow this innovation for more than a few decades.
Contemporary Implications
This historical evidence suggests that the question of sacramental validity outside the Orthodox Church’s canonical boundaries is more complex than often presented. The Pan-Orthodox, and especially the Russian Orthodox Church’s centuries-long recognition of Roman Catholic and Oriental Orthodox sacraments, supported by both conciliar decisions and notable saints, provides an important perspective for contemporary theological dialogue.
The historical record demonstrates that accepting the validity of certain non-Orthodox sacraments while maintaining Orthodox ecclesiological principles has precedent in Orthodox tradition. As noted by Fr. George Metallinos, this recognition did not imply a diminishment of Orthodox identity but rather reflected a nuanced understanding of how divine grace operates beyond visible ecclesiastical boundaries.
This historical perspective may offer valuable insights for contemporary Orthodox-Catholic dialogue and practical pastoral care, while remaining faithful to Orthodox theological principles and tradition.
