<< No. What Fr. Peter Heers is saying is the Synod of each church need to change their policies as the application of leniency has gone amok.
At this point in time who is chrismated is just a policy decision based on whether the heterodox group baptises in the name of the Trinity, has some belief in the Trinity and are not hostile to Orthodoxy.>>
——
I appreciate all of your contributions and also the refined nature of the discussion and the problem.
It is true that what is widely practiced today cannot rightly be called and considered to be “
oikonomia”, which is, of course, salvific and salutary. Rather, in most cases, it is “
paranomia,” that is, not a “management of the house[hold] of Faith” but simply a departure from the law/rule/guiding hand of the Holy Canons, and, therefore, not leading us back to “akriveia,” or exactitude. And, thus, there is no doubt that the Local Churches need to return to
akriveia asap, lest the boundaries of the Church and Orthodoxy continue to be eroded and become fluid with heterodoxy.
I cannot say, however, that such a foundational matter of faith and order in the Church is “just a policy decision”. Nor can I say that it is, or rather, should be based upon “whether the heterodox group Baptises in the name of the Trinity, has some belief in the Trinity and are not hostile to Orthodoxy.” These are not, in fact, the criteria given by the Kollyvades Fathers in their analysis of the Patristic stance throughout the ages. The canons themselves almost never give clear criteria for why one group is received in one way and another in another way. There is no “aitiologia” (cause given), in order words, - except in the case of the Eunomians who diverted in terms of the FORM. And what the Kollyvades Fathers concluded was that the one consistent, in terms of what the Fathers did vis-a-vis heretics, was *the form* which was kept by them -
not the faith professed by them. In other words, if a heretical group ceased to practice the Orthodox FORM or baptism - by immersion - the Fathers insisted on baptism. That is why they can receive Arians by chrismation but Paulanists, Eunomians, Montanists, Phrygians, and Sabellians *and others* by baptism.
In this regard I highly recommend the following short analysis and new translation of the key canon on the matter, the 95th of Trullo, for a better understanding of the mind of the Fathers on the matter:
Canon 95 -Council of Trullo
In short, brothers and sisters, there are presuppositions to the mysteries and especially to the Mystery of Initiation into Christ and His Church. And, to the employment of salvific - i.e. true -
oikonomia. If the heterodox have abandoned - as almost all of them have today -
the basic form of the mystery, we should, following the Holy Fathers, employ the stance of the Church which has been to baptize and not to admit by any means of
oikonomia. This is precisely the basis of the decision of the famous synodical decree of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1755. In this case, employing
oikonomia and receiving by chrismation also undermines the
akriveia of the Church and inevitably leads to
grave laxity in terms of our own practice of baptism, as is evidenced in many places in the Church today, especially Serbia and Russia.
As for the comments of our brother “Singularity One,” it is not advised to set aside the matter of Truth in any matter, but much more in
such foundational matters of Faith and Church order and to rely solely on the opinion of any one person in the Church, even be it your spiritual father or priest or bishop. We do not practice “blind obedience” in the Church
with respect to *matters of Faith and Dogma*. The canons are very clear on this, as are the Fathers, of which an abundance of quotes can be shared. Even in the monastic life, where one could say that a kind of blind obedience is called for, this does not pertain to matters of Faith and Order, since a monk can leave his monastery and his elder if he is a heretic or if he allows women or young men to stay in the monastery (thus breaking the Patristic and monastic order of things).
Finally, let us consider the practice of the (vast majority of) Fathers on Athos Today (and for the last 50 years+ certainly) with regard to those heterodox received by chrismatation. It is not only future monks who are baptized. If even a visitor, a good-willed, inquisitive visitor, speaks to the fathers on Athos about his reception by chrismation, it is very likely that most monasteries and most abbots there (and in many places in Greece) will encourage him to
correct the error of his reception by chrismation (and given that the presuppositions mentioned above are not met, which is key). They do not reject him as Orthodox, nor all that he has lived in the Church (God forbid!) but neither do they consider it not within the
oikonomia of God
to correct the error. There have been not a few charismatic experiences of holy elders over the years to confirm this stance, which also is consistent with the Kollyvades Fathers understanding.
Brothers and sisters, we are living in an unprecedented time, with an unprecedented degree of departures from canonical norms in many aspects of our Church Life. The narrow path has gotten, and is getting every day, narrower due to wider, more egregious departures from the Way of the Holy Fathers. Let us Stand Aright! Stand with Fear! Let us Attend!
