Thursday, June 16, 2011

Explaining the Preservation of Mar Saba 65 as a Result of the Anabaptist Controversies in the Eighteenth Century Greek Orthodox Church

This whole debate about the authenticity of Mar Saba 65 is so bizarre in some ways. It has most developed as a result of a few crazy books which suggest that one of the greatest scholars in the last century was at the heart of a conspiracy theory straight out of a pulp fiction novel. As a result, I fear, our understanding of why the Letter to Theodore was discovered in Isaac Voss' S. Ignatii Martyris epistolae genuinae ex Bibliothecâ Florentinâ (1646) in the library of the monastery of Saint Saba hasn't followed any sort of logical progression. The natural starting point would have been to continue where Smith's 1973 book Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark begins and ends - with the discovery of a possible handwriting match with a manuscript associated with the eighteenth century Patriarch of Constantinople, Callinicus IV (wrongly identified as Callinicus III in Smith's book).

Let's summarize how Morton Smith found the handwriting match. Smith consulted Athenian experts on Greek handwriting, including A. Angelou, C. Dimaras, M. Manousakas, and G. Kournoutos, all of whom agreed that the letter was to be dated to the eighteenth century. To be more accurate, they referred Smith to Vangélis Scouvaras, who had been studying manuscripts of that time period. Scouvaras determined that it was written in the latter half of the Eighteenth Century based on its similarity to the form used at the court of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople.

Stephen Carlson in his influential Gospel Hoax does, to his credit, make reference to the handwriting match. He notes on p 24 that:

There is also no evidence that the experts had actually compared the handwriting with other manuscripts produced at Mar Saba. In fact, the only comparison sample published by Smith was that of Callinicus III, the Patriarch of Constantinople. This person, however, hailed from Thessaly; he was not a monk from Mar Saba in the Patriarchy of Jerusalem.

And again on p. 45 he writes:

Smith's familiarity with Western-style Greek handwriting may clear up another puzzle in the hand of the Theodore. One of Smith's colleagues noticed that the hand shows a distinctly Western appearance (Clement 2). While Smith is undoubtedly correct that this does not “prove” that the scribe was from the Western part of Greece (ie the Greek mainland, since many Greeks then were still residing in what is now Turkey), it conflicts with the Eastern location of Mar Saba. Smith's suggestion of the influence of Western typography in printed books is possible, as is the scribe's having learned the hand from exemplars in the Western part of Greece. In fact, the sample autograph presented by Smith of a similar hand of Patriarch Callinicus III illustrates this point, because, as Smith did not tell us, Callinicus was himself a Western Greek.

I commend Carlson for actually having read Smith's 1973 book. It places him in a different class of hoax conspiracy theorist as opposed to the recent efforts of Tselikas who seems utterly oblivious to Smith's identification of a possible match with Callinicus IV.

What I don't understand is why someone hasn't actually tested Smith and Scouravas's original hypothesis. I mean, it was nice that Hershel Shanks shelled out the money to hire a Greek document examiner to basically disprove most of Carlson's amateur handwriting analysis in the Gospel Hoax. Yet wouldn't it have been a better use of capital to actually find out whether Callinicus is the likely author of the material?

The problem of course, as I have noted many times before here is that most of the arguments made by the authenticity side has been to debunk Carlson. As a result the great minds on this side of the debate have little imagination left to do anything else than combat the arguments laid out in the Gospel Hoax. I have been doing quite a bit of research tonight and was happy to discover that Scouravas only provided one of a number of possible handwriting samples of Callinicus IV. It turns out that Scouravas seems to have been something of a specialist in manuscripts that are now kept at the Library of Zagora, the place that Callinicus ultimately retired. It sounds like there are more than enough to prove us with all the letters and ligatures needed to do a full comparison with the Mar Saba letter.

Callinicus was after all born in Zagora in 1713 and having studied at the School of Zagora, at age fifteen he left for Istanbul to continue his studies. In 1740 he was ordained deacon and after two years was Grand Chancellor. In 1743, aged only thirty years, he was ordained Bishop Proilavou (Braila) and later in 1757 held the title of Patriarch of Constantinople. It is utterly amazing to me that Carlson could claim that because Callinicus was from the western part of Greece that this should somehow prevent us from acknowledging what is an obvious match in handwriting styles.

The reality is that only when we dig deeper into Callinicus's life do we see that in fact that contemporary problems over the issue of baptism interestingly enough led him to be exiled in the monastery of St. Catherines near Sinai after being deposed from the episcopal throne. As Sebastian Brock notes "links between Mar Saba and St. Catherine's were often close, as is witnessed notably by the career of the Georgian scribe John Zosimus (end of the 10th century), who was active first at Mar Saba and later at St. Catherines" [The Sabaite heritage in the Orthodox Church from the fifth century to the Present p. 204]

Indeed in doing my research tonight a discovered an interesting reference to the connection between Callinicus IV, his stay at St. Catherines and the Mar Saba document which might be interested to relate to my readers. I present the original Greek in the hopes that some of our regular readers from Greece can help improve on the Google translation of the material:

Ή κλονισμένη υγεία τοΰ Καλλινίκου και οι αλλεπάλληλες μέχρι Üδou πυλών θανάτου ασθένειες του θά απαιτούσαν και τήν ανάλογη διατροφή. Δυστυχώς σμως γιά τον "ώς έν τάφω" και βαδίζοντα "ώς τά βρέφη", "κατακείμενο και ισχυρώς όδυνόμενον" εξόριστο Πατριάρχη δεν υπάρχει τίποτα το ιδιαίτερο και το επιπλέον, καμμία παραχώρηση.Ή Μονή Σινά ακολουθεί το αυστηρό τυπικό τής Μονής τοΰ άγιου Σάββα. Ή διατροφή τοΰ Καλλινίκου είναι ομοια μέ τήν τών άλλων μοναχών. Ή διατροφή τοΰ Καλλινίκου είναι ομοια μέ τήν τών άλλων μοναχών3. Παραπονούμενος γιά τή διατροφή του ό Καλλίνικος μας περιγράφει συγχρόνως καΐ τή σκληρή ζωή τών σιναϊτών. "'Υπό τής νόσου καΐ τής ασιτίας κατεξηράνθη πάντη ή σαρξ μου". " "Αρτω λ ιτώ καΐ υδατι άποζώμεν. 'Εσθίομεν δ* ενίοτε έρεβίνθους καΐ κυάμους πολυχρονίους άνευ ελαίου· έν Τρίταις δέ καΐ Πέμπταις
μετά ελαίου· έν Σάββασι δέ καΐ Κυριακαΐς ίχθυοφαγοΰμεν.

Or fragile health Callinicus and repeated until Udou gates of death diseases would require and the appropriate diet. Unfortunately smos for "as in buried" and attending "as the babies", "decumbent and strong odynomenon" exiled Patriarch there is nothing special and in addition, no parachorisi. The Sinai Monastery follows the strict standard the Monastery of St. Saba. His diet Kallinikou is similar to the other monks. His diet of Callinicus is similar to other monkw. Complaining for food as Callinicus describes both our and the hard lives of Sinai. "'In disease and starvation katexiranthi forever or my flesh." "" Arto l ito and aqua apozomen. 'D * Esthiomen erevinthous And beans sometimes Polychroniou without oil; in tertian Patent and quintan after oil; in SAVAS Patent and Kyriakais ichthyofagoumen.[Linaritakis Emmanuel, The Oecumenicus Callinicus III (IV) and the Issue of Anabaptism, Aristotle University of Thessalonica p. 45]

I have no idea what the last sentence means but it seems to be another reference to Mar Saba. The point of course here is that Callinicus, despite being born in western Greece can certainly be placed within a few hundred kilometers of the place where the Letter to Theodore was found and within the same cultural milieu.

Yet the idea that Callinicus was exiled to this part of the world specifically owing to his position on the so-called 'anabaptist' controversy makes the re-discovery of the Letter to Thedoore a lot more understandable. Callinicus took the minority position in the dispute arguing that Armenian, Coptic and Roman Christians didn't need to be rebaptized because they were 'brothers of the same faith.' The majority position at the time was aligned with his precedessor Cyril V who:

In 1755 issued an encyclical, written in colloquial Greek, probably by himself, in which he advocated rebaptism in the case of converts from the Roman and Armenian Churches. He followed this a month later by an official order, known as the Oros, in whose drafting Argenti had a hand, which insisted on canonical grounds that rebaptism should be applied in the case of every convert. The Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem countersigned the order. The Patriarch of Antioch would have done so, had he not been on an alms-seeking visit to Russia and had his throne not been snatched in his absence by a usurper.

The Oros was met with an angry outcry from the metropolitans; but, somewhat to their embarrassment, they found that they had become the allies of the envoys of the Catholic powers, who at once protested to the Porte against this insult to the Catholic Faith. It was ambassadorial pressure rather than that of the Synod which led to Cyril's deposition in January 1757. But when his successor Callinicus IV, formerly Metropolitan of Braila in Roumania, attempted to annul the Oros six months later, there were such riots that the Turks demanded his abdication. The next Patriarch, Serapheim II, was too prudent to repeat the attempt. So, though for some time to come Cyril's memory was subjected to bitter abuse, rebaptism for converts is to this day the official rule in the Orthodox Church. Whether, as some of Cyril's opponents have claimed, it was a piece of reactionary obscurantism, or, as others have claimed, an act of religious chauvinism, or whether, as is more likely, it was a result of a sincere conviction, Cyril's Oros is still regretted by many of the Orthodox and has proved a bar to any possible reunion of the Churches. [Stephen Runsiman The Great Church in captivity p. 359]

We learn from another historian that Callinicus's rise to power developed entirely as a reaction to the Oros:

A protest was raised against the Oros by Kallinikos, metropolitan of Amasia, he was ordered into exile on Mt Sinai by the synod, he fled instead to the grounds of the French embassy. There the ambassador, Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, worked for his restoration and his appointment to the patriarchate. To this end, de Vergennes' aide, Baron de Tott, obtained a large sum of money, new coins freshly minted, personally putting them into the hands of Sultan Osman III. The action had the desired effect. The grand vezir, who supported Kyrillos, was ousted along with his client in January 1757. Kyrillos was put on a barge by a company of soldiers and taken into exile. The synod voted to elect Kallinikos patriarch, and he left the security of the French embassy to take office. Baron de Tott noted that he followed his Janissary bodyguards as if they were his executioners, for he was well aware that he was very unpopular with a large segment of Istanbul's Greek community. During his enthronement shouts rang out, 'Let the Frank get out.' At the end of the service he was seized by his enemies and beaten until Turkish soldiers intervened. Six months later, his position became so untenable that he retired and a new patriarch, Seraphim II, assumed office on 27 July 1757 [Charles Frazee Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453-1923 p 162]

It should be noted that Greek researchers, having direct access to Callinicus's documents from Zagora, have actually translated a number of documents related to Callinicus's exile to Mt. Sinai. As such we know with certainty that he almost immediately ended up there immediately following his being deposed from the episcopal throne.

If consult with Linaritakis Emmanuel's study of Callinicus IV again (unfortunately using the Google translator for us to understand the information) we see that he divides the life of the Patriarch into five periods:

PERIOD A of the birth of 1713 until 1740. Childhood in Zagora and studying in Constantinople to the entrance into the ranks of the clergy.

PERIOD B from 1740 until January 1757. Kallinikos join the ranks of clergy, elected bishop Proilavou, renounces the throne and remains "suspended" in Istanbul. Actively involved in that time against the anabaptist movement. In January of 1757 was elected the Patriarch.

PERIOD C from January 1757 to the January 1761. Period of the patriarchy of Callinicus. Dethronement and exile of the first in Lemnos and then sent to the Sinai.

PERIOD D from January 1761 until October 1762. Callinicus escapes from Sinai and return to Constantinople. Acquittal of the meeting and return to Zagora.

PERIOD E from in October of 1762 until his death in 1791. The patriarch is in exile in Zagora.

Of the above five main periods of interest are the B, C, D and E and them would insist more, because the information we referred to these periods, it is and more.

I think we also see the beginnings of why it was that Callinicus would have become interest in transcribing the Letter to Theodore - perhaps from an original discovery at St. Catherine's monastery - the single depository of manuscripts anywhere in the Greek Orthodox world and the second largest library after the Vatican. The text demonstrates that far from being uniform on their position on baptism, the early Church Fathers essentially 'agreed to disagree' about doctrine thus undermining an important plank in the position of his opponents.

It is important to remind ourselves that the Oros of Cyril V argued for the re-baptism of Christians outside of the Greek Orthodox faith based on the apostolic and Patristic writings. An example of this is provided again by Linaritakis Emmanuel. If my Greek readers can provide me with a better translation it would be much appreciated:


Το πρόβλημα σχετικά με τον τρόπο ένταξης των αιρετικών, δηλαδή των ευρισκομένων έκτος της 'Εκκλησίας, στους κόλπους της Μιας, 'Αγίας, Καθολικής καΐ Αποστολικής 'Εκκλησίας1 είναι πρόβλημα πολύ αρχαίο και σπουδαίο γι' Αυτήν.

"Εχει απασχολήσει τήν 'Εκκλησία άπο τήν εποχή των 'Αποστόλων μέχρι τήν εποχή μας και είναι πρόβλημα όχι μόνο μεταξύ των διαφόρων 'Εκκλησιών, άλλα. και μεταξύ των διαφόρων θεολόγων μιας καΐ τής αυτής 'Εκκλησίας-'.

Με τα ασα μέχρι τώρα αναφέραμε, είδαμε ότι κατά τα μέσα του IH' αιώνα το θέμα αυτό απασχόλησε σοβαρά το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο. Για να μπορέσουμε να καταλάβουμε καλύτερα τήν αντιμετώπιση του κατά τήν περίοδο αυτή, μέ τήν όποια Εχουν άμεση σχέση οι Οικουμενικοί Πατριάρχες Κύριλλος Ε' καΐ Καλλίνικος Γ', είναι ανάγκη να δούμε με ποιον τρόπο γινόταν δεκτοί οί διάφοροι αιρετικοί στην αρχαία αδιαίρετη 'Εκκλησία. Ή ανάδρομη αύτη είναι αναγκαία διότι την περίοδο αυτή έχουμε αιρετικούς οί όποιοι βαπτίστηκαν στην αρχή μέσα στην α'ίρεσή τους και έπειτα ζήτησαν νά εισέλθουν στην Καθολική 'Εκκλησία. 'Από τή στιγμή αυτή τίθεται για τήν 'Εκκλησία και το πρόβλημα: Πρώτον, αν το βάπτισμα το όποιο παρείχετο άπο τους αιρετικούς, δηλαδή άπο άτομα έκτος της 'Εκκλησίας, είναι έγκυρο καθ' εαυτό- αν δηλαδή τους παραμένοντας στην αίρεση πρέπει νά τους θεωρούν ώς άτομα βεβαπτισμένα ή ως άβάπτιστα. Δεύτερον, έάν οί υπό των αιρετικών βαπτισθέντες, σε περίπτωση κατά τήν όποια προσέρχονται στην Καθολική και 'Αποστολική 'Εκκλησία, πρέπει νά βαπτίζωνται έξ υπαρχής1.

Το θέμα αυτό γίνεται αίτια ζωηρών συζητήσεων, προβληματισμού, αμφισβητήσεων και ερίδων γιά τήν 'Εκκλησία. Οί αιρέσεις είναι διαφόρων βαθμών- έτσι άπο της εμφανίσεως του προβλήματος διαμορφώνονται δύο αντίθετα ρεύματα αντιμετωπίσεως του. Το πρώτο ξεκινά άπο τή Μ. 'Ασία και τήν 'Ανατολή, γενικά προς τήν 'Αφρική, (κατ' άλλους τανάπαλιν), και το άλλο άπο τή Ρώμη προς τή Δύση. 'Η συνάντηση καΐ σφοδρή σύγκρουση αυτών τών ρευμάτων γίνεται στην 'Αφρική καΐ μάλιστα στην Καρχηδόνα2. Παρατηρούμε δηλαδή στι συγχρόνως μέ τήν εμφάνιση αυτού τού προβλήματος και μέχρι τήν ΣΤ' (ή Ζ') Οικουμενική Σύνοδο ή πράξη της αρχαίας 'Εκκλησίας δεν υπήρξε ενιαία και
ομοιόμορφη, άλλα κυμαίνονταν μεταξύ ακριβείας και οικονομίας.

Δηλαδή άλλου μεν ή 'Εκκλησία εφάρμοζε αυστηρά τους κανόνες τους προς άκρίβειαν τεθέντας γιά το θέμα αυτό, ένώ άλλου έκανε χρήση της επιεικούς οικονομίας και συγκατάβασης. Αυτό γινόταν ανάλογα με τή δογματική διδασκαλία και τον τρόπο της τέλεσης τού βαπτίσματος, της αίρεσης ή τού σχίσματος άπο τό όποιο προέρχονταν τά διάφορα άτομα, καθώς και τις εκάστοτε τοπικές ή καιρικές ανάγκες καΐ συνθήκες καΐ σχέσεις της α'ίρεσης ή τού σχίσματος τους μέ τήν 'Εκκλησία3 και τής έπιδιωκόμενης πάντοτε εκκλησιαστικής σκοπιμότητας για τη σωτηρία του άνθρωπου1.

Δογματική πάντως αρχή της 'Εκκλησίας μας είναι ή μή επανάληψη τοΰ μυστηρίου του Βαπτίσματος. 'Από τήν εποχή του 'Αποστόλου Παύλου ή 'Εκκλησία έδίδασκε στι 'ένα μόνο βάπτισμα υπάρχει 2. Ή διδασκαλία δε αυτή περιελήφθη αργότερα και στό Σύμβολο της Πίστεως.

Ή 'Εκκλησία στηριζομένη σε σύγγραμμα τού πρεσβυτέρου της 'Εκκλησίας Αλεξανδρείας Κλήμεντα, ό όποιος αποκαλεί το βάπτισμα των αιρετικών "ουκ οίκεΐον και γνήσιον ύδωρ"3, άλλα μάλιστα καΐ σε σύγγραμμα τοΰ πρεσβυτέρου τής 'Εκκλησίας της Καρχηδόνος Τερτυλλιανου "De Baptismo", περί το 220 δημοσιευθέν 4, αμφισβήτησε το κύρος του βαπτίσματος των αιρετικών. Ό Τερτυλλιανος παίρνοντας αφορμή άπό τή Μ. 'Ασία, τήν πατρίδα πολλών αιρέσεων, τονίζει στι Ενας Κύριος υπάρχει, 'ένα βάπτισμα, μία 'Εκκλησία καΐ οι έκτος αυτής, δηλαδή οι αιρετικοί, δέν έχουν τον αυτόν Κύριον, ούτε τόν αυτόν Θεόν, ούτε τό αληθινό βάπτισμα. Δηλαδή ό Τερτυλλιανός δίχως νά κάνει καμμία διάκριση μεταξύ τών αιρετικών, άλλα άπλα και μόνο επειδή "έξήλθον τής 'Εκκλησίας" τονίζει: "Ό έν τή αίρέσει βαπτισθείς εϋναι ώσπερ ό εθνικός άβάπτιστος μή έχων τήν σφραγίδα τού Κυριου.

Μέ βάση τά ανωτέρω δύο συγγράμματα μπορούμε νά υποστηρίξουμε ότι ή 'Εκκλησία τής 'Αλεξανδρείας κατά τήν αρχή του γ'αιώνα δέν παραδέχονταν ώς έγκυρο τό βάπτισμα τών αιρετικών. Κατά τους πρώτους αιώνες ή πράξη τής 'Εκκλησίας "παρ1 άπασι σχ£<5ον τοις έπισκόποις της Μ. 'Ασίας, χής Αιγύπτου καΐ της άλλης 'Αφρικής...ήτο υπέρ τοϋ άκυρου τοΰ βαπτίσματος των αίρετικών"ι.

'Εξαιτίας τοϋ άκυρου του βαπτίσματος των αιρετικών ή 'Εκκλησία έθέσπισε κανόνες μέ τους οποίους επέβαλε τον άναβαπτισμό σε 'οσους άπο αυτούς δεν είχαν βαπτισθεί κανονικά. 'Επειδή 6ε τα μυστήρια των αιρετικών για τήν 'Εκκλησία ήταν άκυρα και ανυπόστατα, ώς στερούμενα τής θείας χάριτος2, επέβαλλε μεγάλες ποινές σε Οσους κληρικούς αναγνώριζαν και δέχονταν το βάπτισμα, καθώς και τά άλλα μυστήρια των αιρετικών.

'Αναλυτικότερα δε:

α) Με τον 'Αποστολικό κανόνα 46 επιβάλλει καθαίρεση σε οποίον επίσκοπο ή πρεσβύτερο αναγνώριζε ώς έγκυρο το βάπτισμα τών αιρετικών καθ1 εαυτό. Διότι, 'όπως το δικαιλογεΐ ό κανών "Τις γαρ συμφώνησις Χριστώ προς Βελίαλ; ή τΙς μερίς πιστώ μετά άπιστου"

β) Με τον 'Αποστολικό κανόνα 47 καθαιρεί οποίον επίσκοπο ή πρεσβύτερο αναβαπτίσει οποίον έχει κανονικό βάπτισμα, ή έαν δεν βαπτίσει τον "μεμολυσμένον παρά τών άσεβων", δηλαδή τον παρά τών αιρετικών βαπτισθέντα "ώς γελών τον σταυρόν, και τον τοϋ Κυρίου θάνατον, και μή διακρίνων ιερέας ψευδοϊερέων" * .

γ) Μέ τον 'Αποστολικό κανόνα 49, στηριζόμενον στους λόγους του Κυρίου προς τους μαθητές του "Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τά έθνη, βαπτίζοντες αυτούς είς τό όνομα του Πατρός και τοϋ Υίοϋ και τοϋ άγιου Πνεύματος", (Ματ. ΚΗ' 19), επάγεται καθαίρεση κατά τοϋ μή βαπτίζοντος είς τήν παναγία Τριάδα κληρικού5.

δ) Σχετικός με τήν τριττή κατάδυση είναι καΐ ò 50°? 'Αποστολικός κανόνας. "EC τις 'Επίσκοπος ή περβύτερος μη τρία βαπτίσματα μιας μυήσεως επιτέλεση, άλλ ' 'Εν βάπτισμα, το είς τον θάνατον τοΰ Κυρίου διδόμενον, καθαιρείσθω..."

ε) Τέλος μέ τον 68"' 'Αποστολικό κανόνα δέν τους δέχεται οϋτε σαν πιστούς, ούτε σάν κληρικούς, σσοι βαπτίστηκαν ή χειροτονήθηκαν άπο τους αιρετικούς. "Ούτε γάρ βάπτισμα αιρετικών δύναται τίνα ποιήσαι Χριστιανόν, ούτε χειροτονία τούτων κληρικον έργάσαιτο αν", ερμηνεύει ό Ζωναράς2. Με τους 'Αποστολικούς κανόνες 46, 47, 49, 50 και 68 πού αναφέραμε, βλέπουμε 'ότι "κατ' άκρίβειαν" το βάπτισμα των αιρετικών καθ' εαυτό απορρίπτεται ώς ακυρον, επειδή δε δεν υπάρχει γι' αυτούς καμμία διάταξη έστω καΐ "κατ' οίκονομίαν", ή όποια νά αναγνωρίζει το βάπτισμα τών αιρετικών καθ' εαυτό ώς έγκυρο, 'έπεται στι καΐ "κατ" οίκονομίαν" απορρίπτεται τούτο άπο τους ανωτέρω κανόνες ώς άκυρο3. OÌ 'Αποστολικές Διαταγές επίσης αρνούνται το βάπτισμα τών αιρετικών. "Οσοι δέ το έλαβαν, τους θεωρεί μεμολυσμένους και δέν έχουν λάβει άφεση αμαρτιών*. Στο πνεύμα τών 'Αποστολικών κανόνων βασισμένη και ή Σύνοδος της Καρχηδόνας περί το 251 μέ τον άγιο Κυπριανό απέρριψε τελείως το βάπτισμα όλων ανεξαιρέτως τών αιρετικών.

Στην απόφαση αυτής της Συνόδου βλέπουμε οτι "παρά δέ τοις αίρετικοϊς, όπου 'Εκκλησία ούκ Εστίν, αδύνατον αφεσιν αμαρτιών λαβείν. 'Άγιάσαι δέ έλαιον ou δύναται ό αιρετικός" καΐ " έξω ων, Πνεύμα άγιον ούκ έχει, ού δύναται τον έρχόμενον βαπτίσαι, ενός οντος τού βαπτίσματος και ενός οντος τοΰ άγιου Πνεύματος και μιας 'Εκκλησίας ύπο Χριστού τού Κυρίου ημών...

καΐ διά τούτο τά ύπ' αυτών γινόμενα, ψευδή και κενά υπάρχοντα, πάντα εστίν αδόκιμα "5 . Ό ί'διος κανών θεωρεί γενικά τους αιρετικούς εχθρούς τού Κυρίου και αντίχριστους και κατά συνέπεια ώς μή δυναμένους νά μεταδώσουν τήν Χάριν τού Κυρίου.

The problem of how integration of heretics, that is located outside of the Church, within the One, 'Holy, Catholic and Apostolic' Ekklisias1 problem is very ancient and important for her.

"He occupied the 'Church since the' Apostles until today and is a problem not only among different 'Churches, other. And between theologians of the same' Church-'.

With SMR hitherto mentioned, we saw that in mid-IH 'century this issue seriously preoccupied by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. To help you better understand the response during this period, which directly related the Ecumenical Patriarchs Cyril V and Callinicos Third, we need to see how it was accepted by the various heretics in the ancient undivided 'Church. Backward is necessary because this time we heretics who were baptized at the beginning in the a'iresi and then asked to enter the Catholic 'Church. 'From the moment this is the' Church of the problem: First, if the baptism which was provided by the heretics, that is from people outside of the Church, is valid in itself, ie whether the remaining in sect should be considered As individuals baptized or unbaptized. Secondly, if the subject of heretics baptized in cases where Catholic and come to the 'Apostolic Church, MUST vaptizontai Out yparchis1.

This issue is cause lively discussion, debate, dispute and contention for the 'Church. The sects are different grades-so from the onset of the problem are two instead of dealing with the currents. The first starts from the Middle-Asia and the East generally to the 'Africa (others vice versa), and the other from Rome to the West. "The meeting and a battle between these currents is in" Africa and indeed the Karchidona2. On seeing that simultaneously with the appearance of this problem and by F (or G ') Ecumenical Council or an act of ancient "Church was not uniform and uniform, but varies between precision and economy.

That is another true or 'Church strictly applied the rules to akriveian tethentas on this issue, while others made use of the leniency of the economy and condescension. This was done according to the doctrine and how the celebration of baptism, of heresy or schism from which the various subjects, and the current weather or local needs and conditions and relations a'iresis or schism with the 'Ekklisia3 and always sought ecclesiastical expediency to save anthropou1.

However dogmatic authority of the Church or not we are repeating the sacrament of Baptism. 'Since the' Apostle Paul 'or' On Church taught only one baptism is 2. Teaching and was included later and the Creed.

Or 'Church building on the oldest book of the Church of Alexandria Clement, who is called the baptism of heretics "quite a familiar and original water" 3 but even in the oldest book of the Church of Carthage Tertullian "De Baptismo", on the 220 published 4, questioned the validity of the baptism of heretics. Tertullian taking occasion from the Middle-Asia, home to many sects Stresses On One Lord is, 'one baptism, a 'Church and outside it, that heretics do not have this Lord, nor that God or the true baptism. That Tertullian without making any distinction among the heretics, but simply because they "came out of the Church" said: "That the sect baptized evnai osper the national unbaptized non-owner the seal of the Lord."

Based on the above two books can argue that the 'Church of' Alexandria at the beginning of g'aiona not accept as valid the baptism of heretics.
During the first centuries of practice of the 'Church' par1 employ Figure £ <5th per episkopois of M. 'Asian chis Egypt and the other' ... Africa was in favor of the void of the baptism of heretics "j.

'Because of the invalid baptism of heretics or' Church ethespise rules they imposed the anavaptismo to 'those of them had baptized properly. 'Because 6e the mysteries of the heretics' Church was invalid and non-existent, as having the divine charitos2, impose large penalties on clerics who recognize and accept baptism and other sacraments of heretics.

"Specifically to:

a) With the 'Apostolic rule 46 requires deposing a bishop or presbyter whom recognize as valid the baptism of heretics kath1 yourself. Because, "as the canon as dikailogei" The gar symfonisis Christ with Belial? Or sides appropriations
after unbelievers "3.

b) With the 'Apostolic rule 47 which dismiss bishop or presbyter anavaptisei is normally baptism or no baptism "memolysmenon despite the ungodly", that the only heretical baptized "as gels the cross, and the Lord's death, and indistinguishable priest psefdoiereon "*.

c) With the 'Apostolic Rule 49, relying on the Lord's words to his disciples "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Mat. KH-19), induced dismissal against the non baptizing into the Most Holy Trinity klirikou.

d) Related to trittys diving is ò 50 °? 'Apostolic rule. "EC to 'Bishop or three baptisms pervyteros non-initiation of a performance, but" In baptism, into death of the Lord given is, kathaireistho ... "1.

e) Finally the 68 "'' Apostolic rule not accept them even as believers, nor the clergy, ssoi baptized or ordained by heretics." Neither gar baptized heretics may Whom poiisai Christians or ordained clergy ergasaito Against this though, "explains everything Zonaras2. In the 'Apostolic Canons 46, 47, 49, 50 and 68 mentioned, seeing' that 'in akriveian "the baptism of heretics itself rejected as void because it was not there for them no provision even" in oikonomian "which recognizes the baptism of heretics itself as valid, 'followed by On and "flat" economy; "rejected it by the above rules as akyro3. OÌ' Apostolic Constitutions also deny the baptism of
heretics. "Anyone But that did them as memolysmenous and have not received absolution *. In the spirit of 'rules-based Apostolic and the Synod of Carthage around 251 by Saint Cyprian completely rejected the baptism of the entire heretical.

The decision of this session we see that "not only per heretics, where 'Church owc Estin, forgiveness of sins can not take." Agiasai ou may no oil as a heretic "and" outside term, Holy Spirit has owc, ordination may next vaptisai, a works price of Baptism and a being the Holy Spirit and a 'Church under Christ our Lord ...

And for this, documents these together, false and empty possessions, always Estin adokima "5. i'dios Everything canon generally considered heretical enemies of the Lord and the Antichrist and therefore as not to convey the grace of the Lord. [ibid. 247 - 250]

The point again is that the Letter to Theodore clearly undermines the appeal to Clement of Alexandria with respect to the 'baptism of heretics' from Stromata 1.375. The letter clearly makes manifest that Alexandrian tradition was rooted in the authority of St. Mark rather than St. Peter. Clement, rather than being a stalwart of orthodoxy and one universal rule demonstrates that the early Church was composed of a number of traditions that somehow managed to get along. The fact that the letter was transcribed into a book of obvious non-Greek origin also seems to be very significant. Could it be that it was brought to Callinicus by his French allies in Constantinople? We will never know for certain, nevertheless the fact that the man who transcribed the Letter to Theodore into a foreign book in this particular era of Greek history seems to imply that he was on Callinicus's side if not Callinicus himself.

Again, I am utterly amazed that no one has ever looked into this before. They have all too busy fighting Stephen Carlson I guess ...

Email with comments or questions.

Stephan Huller's Observations by Stephan Huller
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.