In the life of the Church, controversies often arise that can be challenging to navigate, especially for those without access to a library filled with the writings of the Church Fathers and the rich history of the Church. One such pressing issue is how to receive converts who have been baptized in heterodox communions into the Orthodox Church. This question raises fundamental concerns: Should these individuals be baptized again? Should they be received through chrismation? Or is it sufficient for them to confess their faith, renounce their previous beliefs, and partake in the Eucharist?
Historically, the Orthodox Church has maintained the norm of receiving those baptized in the name of the Trinity and with water without rebaptizing them. This practice is rooted in the guidelines established by the Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox Councils. However, there have been instances in the Church’s history where well-meaning Orthodox leaders, particularly during certain periods, have mistakenly advocated for the rebaptism of all converts. This teaching can be traced back to St. Agripinnus of Carthage and was later perpetuated by his successor, St. Cyprian of Carthage. Cyprian held a council approving his teachings in 257 A.D. While this practice was largely confined to Cyprian’s diocese, three subsequent councils held in Carthage after his death overturned his teachings (these were in 345, 397, and 419 A.D.), reaffirming the historic Orthodox practice which had been defended by St. Stephen of Rome of not rebaptizing those who were already baptized in heterodox communions in water with the invocation of the Trinity.
Once the Church firmly rejected St. Cyprian’s sacramental theology concerning baptism in favor of the views of St. Stephen, the issue largely faded from view for over a millennium. However, it resurfaced outside the Church among the Donatists, who revered Cyprian’s teachings, and later reemerged within the Church in Russia following the Moscow Council of 1620, only to be overturned in 1666 when the Church returned to its ancient apostolic practice. A similar situation occurred in Constantinople in 1756, where the Greek Church briefly adopted this practice before reverting to the mainstream tradition within a century. Today, this teaching is largely limited some monasteries on Mt. Athos and a single jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church.
In the face of such controversies, how do we discern the correct path? St. Vincent of Lerins, a fifth-century Church father, offers a guiding principle: we should adhere to those teachings that have been held “everywhere, always, and by all.” This does not imply absolute unanimity, as the existence of disagreements within the Church is itself a matter of historical record. Rather, it suggests that we should look for teachings that have been consistently upheld throughout the Church’s history. Interestingly, St. Vincent addresses the very debate over whether to baptize the heterodox or receive them through anointing. This discussion echoes the earlier conflict between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen, where the latter defended the validity of baptisms performed by those deemed theologically or morally compromised. The Church ultimately rejected the notion that such imperfections invalidate baptism, a stance that resonates with contemporary discussions. Today, those who advocate for rebaptizing the already baptized risk creating a form of Neo-Donatism, resurrecting Cyprian’s errors which the Church has decisively rejected since the third century.
Above, I mentioned that St. Vincent has a chapter in his Commonitory devoted to the baptismal controversy between St. Stephen and St. Cyprian over whether to baptize all heterodox coming into the Church even if they have already been baptized outside the Church. He also mentions the Donatists who held to Cyprian’s teachings concerning baptism and argued that if the minister of baptism was a heretic or deeply sinful, any baptism he performed was not to be accepted. The Church rejected these positions as innovations and St. Vincent minces no words in his description of this early controversy. I would caution that his harsh words were specifically about the Donatists and I believe we should not apply them directly to today’s followers of Cyprian’s teachings who are in the Orthodox Church. At the same time, it does show both sides how very serious the error of rebaptism is and that, as faithful Orthodox who do not wish to follow theological innovation, and who truly wish to believe and follow “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”, how seriously we should avoid being caught up in anything resembling Neo-Donatism.
Here is chapter six of St. Vincent’s Commonitory; I have modernized the English to make it more accessible:
THE EXAMPLE OF POPE STEPHEN IN RESISTING THE REPETITION OF BAPTISM AS PRACTICED BY ST. CYPRIAN AND LATER THE DONATISTS
“The example of these blessed men is truly remarkable and deserves to be remembered and reflected upon by every faithful Catholic1. Like a seven-branched candlestick shining with the Holy Spirit’s light, they demonstrated to future generations how to combat the boldness of false teachings with the authority of ancient traditions.
This isn’t a new issue; throughout the history of the Church, those deeply rooted in their faith have consistently opposed innovations. There are countless examples of this, but let’s highlight one from the Apostolic See to clearly show how passionately the successors of the apostles have defended the integrity of the faith they received.
At one point, Agripinnus, the bishop of Carthage, proposed the idea that baptism should be repeated, which went against divine law, the universal Church’s teachings, and the customs of our ancestors. This new doctrine caused significant harm, setting a bad example for heretics and leading some Catholics into error.
When this innovation was challenged, and the priesthood opposed it with great zeal, Pope Stephen, a blessed leader of the Apostolic See, took a stand. He believed it was right that, as the authority of his position was greater than others, so too should his commitment to his faith be .2 In a letter sent to Africa, he established a clear guideline: there should be no new practices, only those that have been passed down through the generations. This wise and holy man understood that true piety has no other standard than faithfully transmitting what we have received from our forebears to future generations. Our duty is not to shape religion according to our preferences but to follow the path that religion lays out for us. It is essential to preserve what we have received rather than impose our own beliefs on those who come after us. Ultimately, the outcome was as expected: the ancient practices were upheld, while the new ideas were rejected.3
It may be that the cause of this innovation lacked support at the time. In fact, it had powerful advocates, persuasive speakers, and many followers, all claiming to align with the truth and backed by Scripture, albeit interpreted in a misleading way. It seems impossible that such a movement could have been defeated without the novelty of its claims being its own downfall. In the end, what did the African Council achieve? Nothing at all. The entire matter was dismissed as if it were just a dream or a fable.4
What a remarkable turn of events! The proponents of this doctrine are now seen as Catholics, while their followers are labeled heretics. The teachers are absolved, while their students are condemned. The authors of the writings are welcomed into the Kingdom, while their defenders face eternal punishment. Who could doubt that the blessed Cyprian, along with his fellow bishops and martyrs, will reign with Christ? Conversely, who could deny that the Donatists and others who misuse the authority of that council to justify the repetition of baptism will face eternal damnation?5”
And, finally, I will add to what St. Vincent said regarding the great St. Cyprian, what St. Augustine said in his work “On Baptism”:
“Cease, then, to bring forward against us the authority of Cyprian in favor of repeating baptism6, but cling with us to the example of Cyprian for the preservation of unity.7 For this question of baptism had not been as yet completely worked out, but yet the church observed the most wholesome custom of correcting what was wrong, not repeating what was already given, even in the case of schismatics and heretics. She healed the wounded part but did not meddle with what was whole (that is, their baptism received in heterodoxy).”
- Before the Great Schism, patristic writings used the words “Catholic” and “Orthodox” interchangeably to refer to the Church and her members. ↩︎
- The early baptismal controversies were primarily an issue in the Western Church, As the sole Apostolic See in the West, the Bishop of Rome was the Patriarch of the West so his view was particularly weighty. ↩︎
- The Church upheld St. Stephen’s position of not baptizing heterodox who came to the Church already baptized in water and with the invocation of the Trinity. The Church rejected the position of St. Cyprian and the North African Church that denied those baptisms as not being baptisms and to baptize them anew before accepting them into the Church. ↩︎
- St. Vincent is saying that the new position concerning the reception of converts had very powerful advocates (think of Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian), and it had seemingly persuasive arguments. But its novelty was its downfall and the truth proclaimed by St. Stephen so thoroughly won the day that the controversy seemed like it had been a dream. ↩︎
- In this paragraph, St. Vincent says that while we fully accept as Orthodox Catholics the originators of this error, those who later revived Cyprian’s position (the Donatists) were considered heretics. When Sts. Cyprian and Firmilian were arguing their position, even though it was an innovation, the manner of receiving heterodox was still an open question. Now that the Church has decided Pope Stephen’s position was correct, and that the position of those who battled the Donatists was correct (e.g. Sts. Augustine and Optatus), there is no excuse for following this error now. ↩︎
- Modern Orthodox rigorists do not believe they are practicing rebaptism, but Cyprian’s position of baptizing heterodox who had received a Trinitarian baptism in water at the hands of heterodox ministers is precisely what the Fathers and Councils were referring to when they spoke of rebaptism. This practice is what they rejected. ↩︎
- St. Cyprian was most famous for his writings about baptism; and his writings concerning the unity of the Church. ↩︎
