David Nak ☦️

The 18 comments from 3devdas777 more definitively refute the assertions of the video point by point, however. I'm posting them here for anyone interested. It is impossible to claim that there are no substantive comments on the video in light of these, and ignoring them shows that it is not a serious undertaking. As of right now there are no responses to these: Comment 1 of 16) First of all, I have been studying this topic for as long as you have been alive (you mentioned in the video you were 18 four years ago) and “On the Reception of the Heterodox” (ORH) is the most comprehensive text on this topic in any language. Fr. Peter Heers has been studying this topic longer than me. Who else aside from him do you know who has a PhD in Dogmatics from Thessaloniki, who has met as many contemporary saints and elders as he, who has been to Mt. Athos as many times as he, etc.? I’m not trying to make this about him, but you should reach out to him about this topic as he is more uniquely qualified to discuss these things than perhaps anyone else you are able to know. 2 of 16) You say that the Church has “recognized” the sacraments of heretics, but you are basing this on canons which have allowed some specifically named heretics to be received by chrismation. These canons do not say anything about the sacraments of these groups and do not use the word “recognize” to refer to their sacraments. The canons do not claim that these heretical sacraments have grace, that their baptisms are true baptisms, etc. 3) Fr. George Florovsky’s “Limits of the Church” is addressed in ORH. Bishop Athanasius Yevtichof Zahumlje and Herzegovina wrote a very good response on this topic, and this is posted on the Orthodox Ethos website as well. I like a lot of Fr. George’s writings, and several of his publications are quoted positively in ORH, but “The Limits of the Church” was written very early in Fr. George’s career and he relies almost exclusively on Augustine for his ecclesiology. The Orthodox Church has not followed Augustine’s ecclesiology and the canons you cite regarding reception (Canon 7 of the 2nd and 95 of Trullo) specifically require heretics to be baptized that Augustine and Pope Stephen said should not be received by baptism (i.e. the Marcionites and Valentinians). 4) Regarding Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian, as is stated in ORH, none of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils were adopted from the writings of St. Augustine or Pope St. Stephen. But, the canon of the Council of Carthage under St. Cyprian, which required all heretics to be received by baptism, was ratified. Some say that this ratification contradicts canons which allowed some heretics to be received by chrismation (Canon 7 of the 2nd and 95 of Trullo), but these same canons that allowed specific heretics to be received by chrismation still stated that all other heretics must be received by baptism, thereby upholding baptism as the standard for receiving heretics, despite a few exceptions. 5) On Carthage 419, that Donatist sacraments are "true, holy and divine," ORH discusses this also. This council was ratified in the Greek and the Greek version does not state that Donatists had true Mysteries before being received into the Church, but rather that they received the “sanctifying gifts of the Trinity” when they were received into the Church. 6) You mention Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council that allowed some heretics to be received by chrismation and that the “obvious conclusion” is that they were considered already baptized. The canons, councils and Fathers do not support your interpretation. These canons do not say that the heretics already had received the Holy Spirit through their heretical baptisms. You also neglect to mention the quotes from the Apostolic Canons, St. Athanasios the Great and St. Ambrose of Milan that refer to the baptisms of heretics as “a pollution”, without any qualifiers regarding what kind of heretics. 7) You say that what makes baptism “real” is “correct form and correct faith”. You say that baptism in three immersions is “ideal” but that pouring and sprinkling are “accepted ways of baptizing.” Apostolic Canon 50 says that priests and bishops who fail to baptize in three full immersions should be deposed. ORH includes quotes from many Fathers on the necessity of baptism in three immersions. None of the Fathers said pouring and sprinkling are “accepted.” St. Cyprian's comment on emergency baptism is understood by the Fathers as applying only to emergencies where immersion is impossible. In 20th century Russia, St. Luke the Surgeon threatened to suspend any priests who baptized in any other form. Baptism in any form other than three immersions was unheard of in the first millennium after Christ (East and West), with the only exception being a deviation in Spain for a brief period in the 6th century. At the time of the Great Schism, Cardinal Humbert criticized the Orthodox for baptizing Latins who had only been baptized by a single immersion, because the Orthodox always taught that a single immersion (or pouring or sprinkling) cannot be considered a baptism. The Didache has always been understood as applying only to emergency baptism if a person is dying and triple immersion is impossible. Many saints and Fathers are quoted in ORH on this. 8) The canons that say the Eunomians must be received by baptism do not mention anything about their beliefs. Canon 7 of the 2nd (and 95 of Trullo) says “As for the Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion... and any other heresies... we baptize them.” The Eunomians are received by baptism specifically because they do not practice triple immersion baptism, and the canons state that those coming from “any other heresies” not mentioned in the canons should be baptized, underscoring reception by baptism as the standard. Ancient canonical authorities, including Balsamon in the 12th century, specifically stated that Latins who are baptized in one immersion are like the Eunomians and must be received by triple immersion baptism. Zonaras, another 12th century canonist, said the same thing. This is all in ORH. 9) You mentioned that St. Basil sympathized with St. Cyprian in his Canon 1 but you claimed he said that schismatics are “still part of the Church” even though the Greek does not support this translation. This aside, you fail to mention that St. Basil in his Canon 1 stated regarding those who go into schism, “For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it.” This canon was ratified by the Ecumenical Councils and the Ecumenical Councils derived more canons from St. Basil than any other Father. St. Basil clearly states that those ordained as clergy in the Church and go into schism lose Apostolic Succession and cannot bestow the Holy Spirit on others through baptism or ordination. Aside from the Canon of St. Cyprian’s Council, this is the most clear canon on ecclesiology that has been adopted by the Ecumenical Councils. St. Basil would not at all agree with you that those who are outside of the Orthodox Church have true baptisms and sacramental grace. 10) You completely ignore St. Basil’s Canon 47 where he says, “As for Encratites and Saccophori and Apotactites... we rebaptize such persons. If it be objected that what we are doing is forbidden as regards this practice of rebaptism, precisely as in the case of present-day Romans, for the sake of economy, yet we insist that our rule prevail... We therefore do not admit them into the Church unless they get baptized with our baptism. For let them not say that they are baptized in Father and Son and Holy Spirit... So that if this pleases them more Bishops ought to adopt it, and thus establish as a Canon, in order that anyone following shall be in no danger, and anyone replying by citing it shall be deemed worthy of credence.” St. Basil insisted that those who Rome refused to receive by baptism must nevertheless be baptized. He hoped the bishops would adopt this as a canon despite it being opposed to the practice of Rome, and it was adopted by the Ecumenical Councils as Canon 47 of St. Basil. Furthermore, he did not care if someone was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity if they did not have an Orthodox understanding of the Holy Trinity (Latins and Protestants do not have an Orthodox view of the Trinity). 11) Apostolic Canon 46 says the baptisms of heretics must be rejected. You claimed that this applies only to Gnostics at the time of the Apostles. The Apostles did not make such distinctions and St. Raphael of Brooklyn, St. Justin Popovic (as quoted in ORH) and other saints are clear that this applies to Protestants, Latins and all heretics. You try to distinguish between heretics that accept the Holy Trinity and those that do not, yet the saints (St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Photios the Great, St. Gregory Palamas, etc.) state that Latins (and their Protestant offshoots) follow the Trinitarian heresy of the Filioque. 12) You state that baptism is unique among the sacraments in that it can be performed without a priest. You use this claim to then assert that the non-Orthodox can therefore administer baptism. However, you ignore St. Basil's Canon 1 on this and everything in ORH which shows that the saints and Fathers taught that laymen should only baptize in an emergency where a person may otherwise repose without baptism by a priest, and then only an Orthodox layman can perform such an emergency baptism. St. Raphael is again quoted in ORH as saying that Orthodox in the US at the time, in the absence of an Orthodox priest, must not receive any sacraments from Anglicans (nor other heterodox), but in an emergency “children may be baptized by some pious Orthodox layman.” Patriarch Dositheos in his Decree 16 is also quoted as saying that baptism “is performed by the Priest only, or in a case of unavoidable necessity, by another man, provided he be Orthodox...” There is no basis in the Fathers and councils for considering a baptism performed outside of the Orthodox Church to be a “true baptism.” 13) Regarding the claim that St. Mark of Ephesus said that Latins should be chrismated instead of baptized because if he insisted that they be baptized the Pope of Rome would have roused all of the military power of Western Europe to totally destroy the Orthodox; you say that you haven’t “seen evidence” for this and you “just don’t accept that.” Ok, well, this is exactly the explanation given in “the Rudder” that was written by St. Nikodemos, reviewed and approved by St. Athanasios of Paros and St. Makarios of Corinth; then ratified by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for dissemination as authoritative for the whole Church. All of the holy saints that have agreed with this interpretation should have greater weight than your personal feelings. ORH documents the fact that even after St. Mark, the Greeks continued to receive the Latins by baptism, and of course the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria in 1755 did not see St. Mark’s comment as applicable or worthy of emulation. 14) You quote Patriarch Macarius III of Antioch who pressured the Russians to stop baptizing the Latins (as they had previously done) in the 17th century. Patriarch Macarius claimed at the Moscow Council of 1666-1667 that the Latins are not heretics but schismatics and therefore should be received by chrismation, and referenced St. Mark of Ephesus (and ignoring the issue of proper form). However, St. Mark clearly taught that the Latins are heretics. You also neglected to reference any of the scholarship in ORH showing that reception of the Latins and other heretics was the standard after the Great Schism. St. Hilarion Troitsky is quoted as providing many examples of Latins and Protestants being required to be received by baptism in Russia before the 17th century. Patriarch Ignatius of Moscow in 1612 was deposed for receiving a couple of Latins by chrismation, since it was understood that they must be baptized. His successor, Patriarch St. Hermogenes, the Wonderworker of All Russia, instructed his successor, Patriarch Philaret (Romanov), on the application of the canons, and Patriarch Philaret convened the 1620 Council to officially reiterate that Latins must be received by baptism as has always been the case in Russia. Even in Serbia, as St. Nikolai of Zica says, Stefan Nemanja, the Grand Prince of Serbia, who later became St. Symeon the Myrrh-Streamer, in the 12th century was first baptized by the Latins and afterwards was baptized by the Orthodox. 15) You state that the 1755 Decree of the three Patriarchs requiring all heretics to be received by baptism is “dubious”, though it has been followed by some of the greatest saints from 1755 until now, including St. Paisius Velichkovsky who was from Ukraine but then fled to Mt. Athos and diligently studied the canons and Fathers. From his diligent study he concluded that all converts must be received by baptism, and he did not see the 1666-1667 Moscow Council’s decision as authoritative. He single-handedly inspired the patristic and hesychastic revival in Russia and the Slavic lands. You quote St. Philaret of Moscow as not understanding or agreeing that all converts must be baptized, yet he is the one who gave approval for Optina to begin publishing edifying texts at a time when private publishing houses were banned, and the first book Optina published was the life of St. Paisius Velichkovsky which said that he baptized everyone coming from heresies and schisms. You cannot compare a comment on the canons from someone like St. Philaret to the teachings of saints like St. Paisius Velichkovsky and St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite who diligently studied the canons night and day, and discussed them constantly in detail with other saints during their life. ORH discusses how and why Russia began to deviate from a patristic understanding of these things in the 17th century. 16) Regarding what you call the “dubious” Decree of 1755, you claim that only a few saints follow this teaching that all converts must be received by baptism. You neglect the fact that St. Sophrony of Essex (a Russian) sent the French Uniate Abbot Placide (Deseille) to Elder Aimilianos to be received by baptism. Fr. Placide’s reception is covered in the book “The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain.” There are also accounts published of a heterodox convert who St. Sophrony sent to St. Porphyrios to baptize, since St. Sophrony at that time in England was being pressured to not baptize converts. St. Paisios the Athonite also informed people that were chrismated that they were still in need of baptism. Elder Ephraim of Arizona could look at a person and tell whether they were received by chrismation or baptism, and to those received by chrismation he would say they still needed baptism. This was revealed by God to such saints, and we ignore them to our own peril. Many of these saints only reposed a few years ago, and if we did not have the blessing to meet them and discuss these matters with them directly, we have the ability to get to know their faithful disciples and meet those who did visit them and discuss such matters with them. Orthodoxy is a living faith transmitted by those who embody the Faith. We cannot approach the Faith in a Protestant “text only” manner. We also cannot claim ignorance of these things while making no effort to learn from the living transmitters of holy tradition. 17) You say the following quote from Pope St. Gregory the Great does not support the belief that heretics have an “empty form” of baptism, but you don’t explain how this quote does not support this belief. St. Gregory clearly says that Arians, for example, “receive the Holy Spirit” only when they are received into the Church, meaning that they did not receive the Holy Spirit through their baptisms performed outside of the Church: “The Monophysites and others are accepted only through the confession of the true faith, since the holy baptism, which they received from the heretics, then receives the power of purification in them, when they (Arians) receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, and these (Monophysites) unite with the bosom of The Holy Ecumenical Church through the confession of the true faith.” 18) You do not seem to understand the significance of the 1971 ROCOR decree that all converts should be received by baptism. Before 1971, most Russians followed the innovation of 1666-1667 of receiving Latins by means other than baptism. Controversy in ROCOR developed over the issue of reception after the mid-1960s when ROCOR received many traditional Greeks who were scandalized by the “lifting of anathemas” against the Latins by Patriarch Athenagoras. These Greeks followed “the Rudder” and insisted all converts be baptized. The Synod eventually examined this issue in the context of the canons and Church history. The Synod acknowledged that “Before Peter [the Tsar in the late 17th to early 18th century], Catholics were baptized in Russia”, and agreed that reception of all converts by baptism is the traditional practice of the Church. St. Hilarion (Troitsky) provided many historical examples of reception of heterodox by baptism in Russia in his “The Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christian Communities” and this contradicts your claim that reception by means other than baptism has been the historical norm. Nobody has yet shown St. Hilarion’s scholarship on this to be inaccurate.