Nikolaos Mannis | April 28, 2025
"...of
necessity, there takes place a change also of the law."
Hebrews 7:12
Many of the so-called G.O.C. have
the notion that when in Baptism the three full immersions have not taken place
(that is, it is a Baptism of necessity or "Clinical" as it is called,
by affusion or sprinkling), then it is categorically invalid, because, they
say, "to baptize" means "to immerse." Moreover, they
transfer the positions of Saint Nikodemos and other Fathers, which refer to the
Baptism of the Latins — heretics who have been outside the Church for centuries
— and apply them arbitrarily to the Baptism of the indicted Orthodox of the
official Churches.
We read indicatively from a text
of the "Genuine Monastery of Esphigmenou" circulating on the
internet: "if there are not three immersions, then there is NO Baptism and
the sacrament is performed anew."
This view is also agreed upon by
the authors of the "Confession of Faith" of the Romanian G.O.C.:
"Holy Baptism can only be performed with a triple immersion, invoking one
Person of the Holy Trinity at each (full) immersion. Any other manner of
'baptism' is not correct, and the 'baptism' is not valid" (https://www.manastireaslatioara.ro/stiri/marturisire-de-credinta).
This, of course, is not only the
view of many G.O.C. (fortunately not all), but also of others, such as, for
example, the old schismatics of Russia (even condemned by a Pan-Orthodox
Council), the Raskolniks, known as Old Believers. We read indicatively
on one of their websites: "If during the performance of the sacrament of
Baptism a full triple immersion does not occur, then the very meaning of this
sacrament is violated and it is not considered complete, that is, the person is
considered unbaptized"
(https://nashavera.com/publikacii/pochemu-pravilnoe-kreschenie---eto-polnoe-pogruzhenie/)
But also the current Archbishop
of the G.O.C., kyr Kallinikos, who considers himself a successor of the
Saint Chrysostomos, formerly of Florina — who, however, rejected Rebaptism even
of Papists (Letter to Fr. Akakios Pappas, June 28, 1946) — holds the same
views, since he fully agrees (as I as an ear-witness have ascertained) with the
following excerpt from a Circular of his predecessor: "The baptism of the
New Calendarists is considered invalid, because apart from the ecumenistic
mantle with which their Church has been clothed, neither is the form of the
three immersions for the most part observed, being replaced by the affusion of
the water of the font onto the one being baptized"
(https://iaathgoc.gr/index.php/94-aristera/ekklisiologika/811-enkyklios-2002)
The rejection of the validity of
Baptism without the three full immersions can also lead to terrible
absurdities, with the most characteristic being the case of Bishop Hermogenes
Dunikov of the RTOC-Tikhon (one of the groups that split from the Russian Church
Abroad). Hermogenes, baptized by affusion in the Patriarchate of Moscow in
1984, decided in 2009 (already being a bishop) to... self-rebaptize with three
full immersions! This event (although it was covered up for three years by the
Synods of RTOC-Tikhon and G.O.C.-Chrysostomos Kiousis) eventually became widely
known and led to the public repentance of the self-rebaptized and the
renunciation of his ludicrous act.
It is worth looking at in
Hermogenes’ Declaration of Repentance the reasons that led him to this act:
"It is already known that the G.O.C. maintain strict exactness regarding
the form of Orthodox Baptism at entry into the Church and do not recognize as
valid Baptism by affusion, even if it has been performed within the Church of
Christ. I was seized by anxiety regarding whether the Chrysostomite Synod of
the G.O.C. would consider it unacceptable to have communion with a cleric, much
more a bishop, who had received ordination after Baptism by affusion, which he
had once received in the Patriarchate of Moscow. I yielded to the temptation to
think that, in order to resolve the confusion, only the form of immersion into
water could be supplemented, without initially thinking of myself. I wanted,
even before my very act, to propose the establishment of a form of reception
with full immersion and the corresponding prayers during the sanctification of
the baptismal water. It seemed to me that this would be much more acceptable
for those joining the Church, compared to the requirement of a full baptism, in
which the voluntary renunciations of Satan and the dedication to Christ are
repeated, something that many did not want to do again. The Grace of my
Baptism, which worked within me after my entry in 1993 into the ROCA, I did not
question, accepting the teaching that participation in the mysteries of the
True Church supplies for the formal aspect of mysteries performed outside the
Church. Furthermore, I did not, and do not, consider Baptism by affusion to be
dogmatically heretical."
(https://apologetika.eu/print.php?sid=2487)
+++
It is true, as Saint Nikodemos
the Hagiorite also states, that "two types of governance and correction
are preserved in the Church of Christ. The one type is called Exactness
(Akriveia), and the other is called Economy and Condescension, by which the
stewards of the Spirit govern the salvation of souls, sometimes with the one,
sometimes with the other" (footnote on the 46th Apostolic Canon).
It is also true that the Baptism
according to Exactness (as to the manner) is that which is performed with three
full immersions, while Baptism by other means according to Economy (e.g.,
affusion, sprinkling, etc.), within the Church, constitutes a Baptism of
necessity, which nevertheless in no way falls short in validity, since the Holy
Spirit supplies what is lacking.
In our time, the proponents of
the two great ecclesiological heresies, namely the left-wing Ecumenism and the
right-wing Extreme Zealotry, oppose and reject — the former Exactness, and the
latter Economy. The former, by continually violating, on a permanent basis and
without reasonable cause or necessity, the Baptism according to Exactness,
incur the censures of the Canons for their illegality, while the Extreme
Zealots, by rejecting the validity of the Baptism of necessity (that is,
without the three full immersions) and committing the dreadful crime of
Rebaptizing Orthodox (even if they are under indictment), oppose the teaching
and practice of the Church (it should of course be noted that we are referring
to the mass and systematic Rebaptism and not to those very special and rare
cases where it is indeed required that the Sacrament of Baptism be performed as
not having been done — in those cases there is essentially no
"Rebaptism").
INDICATIVE CASES
OF BAPTISM WITHOUT THE THREE FULL IMMERSIONS
1) The Baptism of the Good
Thief by Sprinkling
The Holy Fathers teach that the
water which flowed from the right side of our Lord on the Cross sprinkled the
Good Thief and thus became the water of his Baptism. According to the Extreme
Zealots, however, such a Baptism is not valid, and thus the Thief entered
Paradise... unbaptized.
Let us look at the teaching of
the Fathers:
a) Saint Ephraim the Syrian
writes: "The Thief received the sprinkling of the remission of sins
through the mystery of the water and the blood that gushed forth from the side
of Christ" (https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Efrem_Sirin/tolkovanija-na-chetveroevangelie/20).
b) Saint John Chrysostom even
more analytically:
"For blood and water flow
from the side of Christ, so that the handwriting of our sins might be wiped
away, and that we might be cleansed by His blood and receive Paradise. O great
mystery! The thief repented; there was need of water so that he might be
baptized; he was hanging on the cross, there was no other place for baptism, no
spring, no lake, no rain, nor was there one performing the sacrament; for all
the disciples had fled out of fear of the Jews; but Jesus was not at a loss for
streams, but even while hanging upon the Cross He became the Creator of waters.
For since it was not possible for the thief to enter the Kingdom without
baptism, and it was necessary that the one who had repented should not be
deprived of baptism, the Savior caused water and blood to flow from His pierced
side, so that He might both free the thief from the evils hanging over him, and
show that His blood had become the ransom for those placing their hopes in
Him" (137 P.G. 50, 822-823). And elsewhere: "The Savior promised
salvation; but the time was not appropriate, nor was it permitted for the thief
to believe and be illuminated; for the Savior had declared: Unless one is born
of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The
thief found neither opportunity nor boldness, he had no time to be baptized;
for he was hanging upon the cross. Therefore the Savior finds a way in a
hopeless situation. Since the one worn out by sins believed in the Savior and
needed to be cleansed, Christ arranged after His Passion for the soldier to
pierce His side with a spear, and blood and water gushed forth; for from His
side, says the Evangelist, there came forth blood and water, truly for the
fallen one, as a type of the mysteries. And the blood and the water did not
flow forth simply as a gentle stream, but with a gush, so that it might
sprinkle the body of the thief; for that which is sent forth with a gush
sprinkles, but that which flows gently merely runs, as it comes. But the blood
and water came forth from the side with a gush, so that by sprinkling the thief
it might baptize him, as the Apostle also says: We have come to Mount Zion and
to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel"
(P.G. 59, 552-553).
2) Saints who were baptized by
rain
Saint Gobdelaas (September 29):
Saint Philemon (December 14):
Saints Hypatos and Theodoulos
(June 18):
3) Baptism by Affusion
(the cases of Saint Lawrence and Saint Hermogenes)
In the life of Saint Lawrence we
read:
"Hippolytos took Saint
Laurence to his home, where he instructed and baptized the jailer and all his
household, consisting of nineteen persons. Soon afterward, Hippolytos was
ordered to bring the Archdeacon to Emperor Valerian. Seeing that the Saint had
not agreed to offer sacrifice, he ordered that Saint Laurence be tortured.
Still, the Archdeacon refused to sacrifice to the idols. As the Martyr endured
these torments, a soldier named Romanus cried, 'Laurence, I see a radiant youth
standing by you, and wiping your wounds. Entreat Christ, Who has sent His Angel
to you, not to abandon me.' Then Valerian commanded Hippolytos to return the
Saint to prison. Romanus brought a pitcher of water and asked the Martyr to
baptize him. Immediately after the soldier was baptized, he was seized by other
soldiers and taken to the Emperor. Before anyone could question him, Romanus
shouted, 'I am a Christian.'"
Thus, we see that while the Saint
baptized normally when he was free, during his imprisonment he out of necessity
baptized by affusion ("with the jug," as today's Rebaptizers would
mockingly say). He applied exactly what the Didache of the Apostles prescribed
(chapter 7): "But concerning baptism, thus baptize: having said all these
things beforehand, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit in living water. But if you do not have living water, baptize
into other water; and if you cannot in cold, then in warm. But if you have
neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
And if anyone objects that all
the above were special cases because it would not have been possible — due to
the fact that they were in martyrdom or in prison — to perform Baptism with
three full immersions, then this is exactly what we also are saying, and this
is precisely sufficient to overturn the false argument that "ONLY Baptism
with three full immersions is valid."
But let us also bear in mind the
case of Saint Hermogenes the Prefect (December 10). He was baptized (not at the
time of martyrdom or in prison, but freely) by affusion ("bowing his
head," as the Synaxarists write), and afterward he was even ordained
Bishop! Was this Saint also "unbaptized"?
SAINT CYPRIAN OF
CARTHAGE AND THE COUNCILS OF NEOCAESAREA AND LAODICEA ON BAPTISM WITHOUT THE
THREE IMMERSIONS
Many Fathers have referred to the
so-called Clinical Baptism, but Saint Cyprian of Carthage (indeed one of the
favorite Saints of the Extreme Zealots) has analyzed the issue more than all
others in the famous Letter to Magnus, from which we translate the relevant
excerpt:
"You have asked also,
dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and
weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they
are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water. In this point, my
diffidence and modesty prejudges none, so as to prevent any from feeling what
he thinks right, and from doing what he feels to be right. As far as my poor
understanding conceives it, I think that the divine benefits can in no respect
be mutilated and weakened; nor can anything less occur in that case, where,
with full and entire faith both of the giver and receiver, is accepted what is
drawn from the divine gifts. For in the sacrament of salvation the contagion of
sins is not in such wise washed away, as the filth of the skin and of the body
is washed away in the carnal and ordinary washing, as that there should be need
of saltpetre and other appliances also, and a bath and a basin wherewith this
vile body must be washed and purified. Otherwise is the breast of the believer
washed; otherwise is the mind of man purified by the merit of faith. In the
sacraments of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the
divine methods confer the whole benefit on believers; nor ought it to trouble
any one that sick people seem to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the
Lord's grace, when Holy Scripture speaks by the mouth of the prophet Ezekiel,
and says, 'Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean:
from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. And I will
give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you.' (Ezekiel
36:25-26) Also in Numbers: 'And the man that shall be unclean until the evening
shall be purified on the third day, and on the seventh day shall be clean: but
if he shall not be purified on the third day, on the seventh day he shall not
be clean. And that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of
sprinkling has not been sprinkled upon him.' And again: 'And the Lord spoke
unto Moses saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and
cleanse them. And thus shall you do unto them, to cleanse them: you shall
sprinkle them with the water of purification.' (Numbers 8:5-7) And again: 'The
water of sprinkling is a purification.' (Numbers 19:9) Whence it appears that
the sprinkling also of water prevails equally with the washing of salvation;
and that when this is done in the Church, where the faith both of receiver and
giver is sound, all things hold and may be consummated and perfected by the
majesty of the Lord and by the truth of faith."
(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm)
In contrast, however, to what
Saint Cyprian writes so conclusively, some consider clinical Baptism as
"incomplete," and to support their opinion they refer to the 12th
Canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, saying that it forbids the ordination of
those who have been baptized without the three full immersions. Yet a simple
reading of that Canon refutes their interpretation: "If someone is
illuminated while being sick, he cannot be brought to the presbyterate, for his
faith is not from choice but from necessity, unless perhaps afterward he shows
zeal and faith and because of a scarcity of men." As we see, it does not
forbid their ordination because the Baptism is supposedly incomplete, but
because, by having delayed the time of their Baptism while they were healthy
and rushing to be baptized when they became ill, there is the possibility that
this act of theirs indicates that their faith was out of necessity and not from
free choice; but to secure the opposite possibility, it allows for their
ordination under two conditions: if afterward they have shown zeal and true
faith, and if there is a shortage of priests. As we see, the validity of their
Baptism is not at all questioned.
This is also agreed upon by the
other Council that dealt with the matter — likewise vested with ecumenical
authority — namely, that of Laodicea, which clearly states in its 47th Canon:
"That those who receive illumination while sick, and afterward recover,
must learn the faith thoroughly and recognize that they have been deemed worthy
of a divine gift." Therefore, those who received the Baptism of necessity
were deemed worthy of a divine gift, and not, supposedly, of an incomplete
Baptism...
RECAPITULATION –
CONCLUSIONS – OBSERVATIONS
1. The Canonical and according to
Exactness (as to the manner) Baptism is that which is performed with three full
immersions; this is the divine institution, and "things done out of
necessity never invalidate the divine institutions" (Konstantinos
Oikonomos, The Preserved Writings A', p. 414).
2. The validity of Baptism
without the three full immersions for reasons of necessity (that is, either due
to a lack of sufficient quantity of water, or danger of death of the one being
baptized, or ignorance or negligence of the priests, or fear of the parents,
etc.) is recognized by the Church, despite the fact that it is not recommended.
The greatest dogmatic theologian of the Russian Church Abroad, Fr. Michael
Pomazansky (+1988), characteristically states: "The Church recognizes
Baptism by affusion, but does not approve of it, as it is not Canonical" (Orthodox
Dogmatic Theology, On Baptism).
3) The Church in various places,
in mass cases of Baptism performed in such a manner, "did not force the
annulment, employing in this not Exactness, but Economy and Condescension, so
as not to bring the pious there into despair, schism, and division, by
declaring that both they and their deceased fathers and ancestors are all
unbaptized, although it herself knew that, during the performance of the
sacrament, under the hand of the priest, within the font, even if it was done
by triple affusion, the form of Baptism — that is, the invocations — was
preserved" (from the Life and Writings of Patriarch Constantius I
of Constantinople, formerly of Sinai [by Theodore Aristocles], Constantinople,
1866, p. 165).
4) But even the possible
nonobservance of the canonical form of Baptism without necessity has
consequences only for the cleric who performed the baptism, and not for the one
being baptized (especially when years have already passed since it and the
baptized person is already a communicant of the divine Mysteries of the
Church), so as to affect the validity of the Baptism. It is not possible,
therefore, for the irresponsibly baptized infants to be deprived of the gifts
of the Holy Spirit bestowed by holy Baptism because of the absence of full
immersions (due, for example, to the fear of their parents that "they
might drown" or the negligence of the priest in properly performing the
rite), since "the children shall not die for the fathers; each shall die
for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16).
5) It must be understood how
pagan and antichristian it is for someone to believe that the validity of
Baptism depends on the amount of water that came into contact with the body...
If it were true that the lack of contact of part of the body with the water
renders the baptized person "unbaptized," then we are all
"unbaptized," because the water of Baptism did not come into contact
with our heart, our lungs, our liver, and generally with the entire interior of
our body (organs, muscles, bones, veins, etc.), which is quantitatively much
greater compared to our external covering. But behold how Saint Cyril Loukaris
responds to the Water-worshipers: "Our Baptism cleanses the soul; for
although the water touches the body, it is the acting Spirit, passing through
even to the marrow and bones, that is the one which cleanses, my
Christians" (MPT 427, f. 65).
6) Many individuals agreed to
receive a second Baptism for various reasons. Some because they requested it,
considering that their Christian life was defective, not because of their sins,
but because they had been "baptized 'incorrectly.'" Others because
their Rebaptizer Spiritual Fathers convinced them that they were
"unbaptized," since they had not undergone the three full immersions.
I have recorded (also with the
help of reliable witnesses) several cases of such persons who were rebaptized
and afterward not only was their life not corrected in the slightest, but it
was completely ruined with great falls, especially among the married with an
enormous percentage of divorces, confirming that the second baptism does not
beget sons of God, but sons of perdition, as Elder John Malinovsky (+1849) — a
former Raskolnik who returned to the Church — pointed out, emphasizing
even that the Schismatic Old Believers with the Rebaptism they perform (despite
the full immersions) essentially "do not rebaptize, but unbaptize"!
Of course — glory be to God —
there is Repentance, and only through it can redemption and healing come about.
Thus, the Rebaptizer cleric can hope in the mercy of God if he resigns from the
Priesthood, and the Rebaptized person if he has now repented for his action and
has confessed it to an Orthodox Spiritual Father. However, there is yet another
case where some, finding themselves in a desperate situation, were rebaptized
because they were promised a "miracle"... I have in mind (and it is
known to many) the case of the late sister in Christ A.S., who was suffering
from cancer, whom the well-known Rebaptizer clerics A.K.S., Fr. M.P., Fr. N.D.,
and Fr. P.K. persuaded to be rebaptized, telling her that she would be healed
from cancer. A. indeed was persuaded (and few would not have been in her
situation), but instead of being healed, she reposed shortly thereafter,
proving powerless and devoid of Divine Grace the Rebaptism of the Extreme
Zealots...
7) To avoid misunderstanding, I
declare once again that there also exist those very special and rare cases
where there were actual reasons (not merely because there were not full
immersions), which indeed required the proper performance of Baptism, essentially
as if it had never truly taken place. It is understood that the condemnation of
Rebaptism in the present publication does not concern such cases, in which
moreover the benevolent and wondrous effects of Divine Grace upon the baptized
are manifest.
Greek source:
https://krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.com/2025/04/blog-post_28.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.