A Response to Orthodox Church of Finland on the Reception of the Heterodox
- The Orthodox Ethos Team
- 3 hours ago
- 19 min read
We were recently made aware of a text published in a Finnish Journal by Andreas Bergman which offers a critical review of our text “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria.” Andreas Bergman was selected as part of a three person working group that prepared the base text for a 2023 “Pastoral Letter” on the reception of converts that was adopted in 2023 by the Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church of Finland. Bergman read and reviewed our text in the process of preparing this draft pastoral letter. He provided a very detailed summary of our text, which we appreciated, and now we would like to take the opportunity to respond to several quotes and comments from this critique. In this response, Andreas Bergman will be abbreviated as “AB” and the book “On the Reception of the Heterodox…” will be abbreviated as “ORH”.
AB: “The explanation for why, for example, many Russian saints have erred in their baptism stance is based on a single quote from Saint Barsanuphius the Great.”
The quote from Saint Barsanuphius the Great was presented in Chapter 4 on “The Patristic Consensus and Errors in the Writings of the Saints” because it addresses the question of how someone can be holy and still make errors. Since even saints can make mistakes, it is important to look at the consensus of the Ecumenical Councils, saints and Holy Fathers throughout the centuries on a given topic and not merely follow a few saints from a specific time and place who may have taught differently. The topic of Mysteries outside of the Church and reception of converts according to the consensus of the Councils, saints and Fathers, on one hand, versus the individual teachings of a few saints who disagreed with the patristic consensus, on the other hand, was not just addressed by one quote from St. Barsanuphius, but is the entire focus of the 400+ page book.
In this comment, and throughout the review, the history presented in ORH regarding the reception of converts into the Church is overlooked. ORH showed that after the Great Schism, Latins were received into the Orthodox Church by baptism, including in Russia prior to the mid-17th century and in Greece before and after St. Mark of Ephesus. The book demonstrated this even from Russian sources like the St. Hilarion Troitsky and ROCOR’s 1971 decree on the reception of converts as well as Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow’s “History of the Russian Church” written in the 19th century. In 1971, ROCOR reviewed the history of the reception of converts and likewise observed that, “In Russia since the time of Peter, I, the practice was introduced to accept Roman Catholics and those Protestants who taught that baptism was a sacrament (e.g., the Lutherans) through a renunciation of their heresy and chrismation (Catholics who had been confirmed were received without chrismation). Before Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece, the practice has also varied, but for most of the past three hundred years, the practice of baptizing converts from Catholicism and Protestantism was reintroduced. Those received into the Church in any other way were sometimes not even recognized in Greece as Orthodox. There were many cases of such convert children of the Russian Church not being admitted by the Greeks to Holy Communion.”1
ORH also discusses the problems with the 1666-1667 Council in Russia which officially changed the practice of reception, and how the outcome of this council was enforced through strict censorship of opposing views and persecution of those who did not accept the outcome. Clearly, the council’s decisions on reception were not afterwards considered authoritative by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem who in 1755 decreed that all converts should be received by baptism. The Pastoral Letter from Finland cited by the reviewer also erroneously claims that the 1620 Moscow Council that insisted that all converts be baptized represented a “significant deviation from the pan-Orthodox line” motivated by political rather than theological issues, despite the fact that the 1620 Moscow Council was upholding the standard practice at that time of receiving converts by baptism and did not introduce anything new. Chapter 11 of ORH is dedicated to the 1620 Moscow Council and shows that historians agree that this represented the historical practice of reception in Russia prior to the mid-17th century.
Regarding the comment that some post-17th century Russian saints followed the 1666-1667 decision to receive Latins by chrismation, the focus of the book was on what the consensus of the Councils and Holy Fathers has been throughout time, and not just what some saints of one period of time taught. In the small booklet, “How Often Should One Commune” by Fr. Daniel Sysoev and Deacon George Maximov, they said, “Now let us examine the positive argumentation of the opposers of frequent encounters with Christ [frequent Communion]. The first thing we note is that the list of authorities cited in support of their theories is limited both geographically and chronologically, consisting of authors from Russia in the XVII-XX centuries. This approach contradicts the principle for defining Holy Tradition…” (p.51) They go on to affirm that St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and the Kollyvades Fathers were correct on the importance of frequent communion despite the fact that many post-17th century Russian saints practiced infrequent communion. While this is on a different topic than reception of converts, it is notable that even modern Russian Orthodox scholars have acknowledged that we cannot consider a practice to be representative of the tradition of the Church just because some post-17th century Russian saints taught it. For this reason, ORH examined the issue of reception looking to the consensus of the Canons, Councils, saints and Fathers throughout the Church and throughout time.
AB: “The central role of saints in the book is also indicated by the fact that the book does not mention at all that the interpretation and application of canons belongs to bishops. On the contrary, it implies that one can override a bishop and priest if they do not act according to the canons.”
Bishops are supposed to apply the canons, but bishops are also supposed to faithfully follow the Councils and Holy Fathers. The issue is, what should one do if the bishops do not follow the Councils and Fathers? The book cites the story of St. Iakovos of Evia, for instance, who received a Catholic by baptism even though the bishop said he should be received by chrismation (ORH, pp. 364-365). Many saints and elders on Mt. Athos have continued to receive all converts by baptism, unconcerned with what the Ecumenical Patriarch says on the subject. The subject of disobeying bishops is a serious one, though, and the book does not discuss the subject of the limits of obedience in detail. It would be helpful for more to be written on that topic from the standpoint of the lives and teachings of the saints and the canons.
At the end of The Pastoral Letter from Finland cited by the reviewer, St. Ignatius of Antioch is quoted in order to persuade the people to follow whatever the bishops say on the subject of reception no matter what, but St. Ignatius’s words on obedience to bishops are often misused and do not account for how the Fathers and saints have responded when a bishop’s teaching is not Orthodox. To take St. Ignatius by himself, divorced from historical context and Holy Tradition, does a disservice to the Faithful and the Church. St. Dionysius the Areopagite, a contemporary of St. Ignatius, explains the qualities of the bishops in their day and that they are to be selected from those who are purified of the passions and filled with the Holy Spirit. Those bishops St. Ignatius commands the faithful to obey are the same bishops which St. Dionysius describes. Many saints who were not bishops (like St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Symeon the New Theologian) demonstrated how to respond when bishops are not being guided by the Holy Spirit. While the bishops are supposed to apply the canons, they are also supposed to be holy, purified of the passions, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Bishops do not become infallible and are not automatically guided by the Holy Spirit just because they are bishops or just because they gather in a council. The holy and Ecumenical Councils of the past were not guided by the Holy Spirit just because there were a certain number of bishops present, but because they were guided by holy and saintly bishops who were filled with the Holy Spirit. Chapter 20 of ORH on “True and False Councils” addresses this in more detail.
Regarding the authority of St. Cyprian’s canon that all heretics and schismatics should be received by baptism, the book shows in Chapter 3 how this is in line with Apostolic Canons 46 and 47. Of course, after the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council and the 95th Canon of Trullo were adopted, which included exceptions for specifically named heretics, those two later canons prevailed. Regarding the 7th canon of the Second and 95th canon of Trullo, the main canons cited in favor of receiving converts by a form other than baptism, the review doesn’t address the points that the book raises about these canons. For instance, these canons stated that the Eunomians must be baptized because they did not practice baptism in three full immersions (and today most converts also have not been baptized using the Apostolic form). Also, after these canons specified which heretics could be received by methods other than baptism, these canons then stated that those from “all the other heresies” not named should be received by baptism, again showing reception by baptism to be the standard. So, it is true that St. Cyprian and Apostolic Canon 47 indicate that all heretics should be baptized and that later canons provide some exceptions while still upholding reception by baptism as the standard. ORH provides commentary from St. Nikodemos and other Kollyvades Fathers on why those exceptions no longer applied to the heretics of their time (mostly Roman Catholics and Protestants) and why all converts should therefore be received by baptism. The reviewer does not elaborate on why exceptions given to certain named heretics in the past should apply to the non-Orthodox of our day.
AB: “While the chrismation stance is explained in the book as a Western influence, the 1755 decree of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which required baptizing all received into the church, is seen as a victory for Orthodoxy. The book's one-sidedness is indicated by the fact that it does not mention at all that the Holy Synod of Constantinople, the highest clergy, and scholars were sharply against the patriarch's stance.”
The 1755 decree of the three patriarchs has not been revoked and the fact that some disagreed with it does not make it incorrect. Even if some bishops and scholars at the time disagreed with it, the decision to receive all converts by baptism was defended by countless saints afterwards, not just St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite but St. Makarios of Corinth, St. Athanasios Parios, St. Paisius Velichkovsky and all of the Kollyvades Fathers and their spiritual successors.
ORH intentionally stayed out of the political chaos that the office of the Patriarchate of Constantinople experienced in this time. This is excellently treated in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s book Eustratios Argenti. It is true many in the synod disagreed with this 1755 decision. However, the historical record shows just how treacherous, compromised, and unpopular those bishops were at the time. They are not the positive witness one would want to have in this century. To bring up this point would have distracted from the important point that the 1755 decree still remains authoritative. Furthermore, Eustratius Argenti, one of the most renowned scholars and theologians at that time, did agree with and defend the 1755 Decree.
In his recent book “The Orthodox Church and the Rest of the Christian World: The ‘Holy and Great Council’ in Crete in 2016”, Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos provides a detailed critique of the history of this council and its documents in the context of the Ecumenical Councils and the teachings of the Fathers. One unfortunate aspect of this council (among others), according to Metropolitan Hierotheos, is that the topic of the reception of converts was taken off the agenda and not discussed. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan examines it in his book “The Council of the Three Patriarchs in 1756 and Contemporary ‘Baptismal Theology’”. After examining the decision of the Three Patriarchs, Met. Hierotheos concludes, “When the [1755/1756] announcement of the decision on rebaptising Latins coming into the Orthodox Church is placed in the historical and social context of that time, Patriarch Cyril V and the other Patriarchs who signed the decision are vindicated. If we consider that the practice of rebaptism ‘continued to be followed later on as well’, and up until our own day on the Holy Mountain, it is obvious that this was, and is, a serious matter from every point of view, and no one should underestimate it.”2
AB: “The immense significance of the Pedalion in the book is explained by the holiness of Saint Nicodemus and other ascetics aligned with the book. It is seen as a guarantee of the book's reliability. Therefore, it is sadly amusing that modern research has shown that the teaching on reception into the church that ended up in the Pedalion is not actually in line with Nicodemus's own thinking. Saint Nicodemus himself supported three ways of reception into the church, and this was originally reflected in the Pedalion. However, the then secretary of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Dorotheos Voulismas, did not grant publication permission for the Pedalion without changing the original text to support baptizing all. Eventually, Saint Nicodemus yielded to editing his work. This research finding poses an enormous problem for the baptism line of On the Reception of the Heterodox, but it is lightly dismissed in the book by referring to Peter Heers's YouTube video and a book from a Greek nunnery on Saint Nicodemus's correspondence, which aligns differently from the scholarly edition based on the best manuscripts.”
The claim that the words ascribed to St. Nikodemos in the Pedalion regarding the reception of converts do not reflect St. Nikodemos’ actual beliefs has been shown to be based on dubious scholarship. As the reviewer notes, ORH cited a presentation by Fr. Peter Heers3 examining the details of this allegation and cites a book in Greek titled, The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas: The Case of the Examination of the Pedalion and the Canonikon.4 The text The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas… is over 1,000 pages and contains the complete correspondence that is relevant to this topic. It was only after some scholars made this claim that St. Nikodemos didn’t really believe that all converts should be received by baptism, that the full correspondence was published to put this false claim to rest once and for all. The reviewer does not engage with the contents of the presentation from Fr. Peter Heers nor with the extensive correspondence in Greek which refutes this claim, but rather dismisses both without examination. Furthermore, the reviewer, in an effort to denigrate the authority of the Pedalion, ignores the fact that when the Pedalion was completed, it was not only reviewed and authorized by several saints (including St. Makarios of Corinth) but it was also approved and authorized by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and was ordered to be distributed throughout the Orthodox world as an authoritative and reliable collection and commentary on the canons and councils of the Church. This is all documented in ORH (p. 360) but ignored and dismissed in the present review.
AB: “After historical perspectives, we return to ecclesiology and ecumenism. The book quotes ecumenical documents, which it sees as heretical in ecclesiology. Against the ecumenical line, the book appeals to numerous excerpts quoted from saints, where the Orthodox Church is seen as the only Christian community where one can be saved. Ultimately, guarding the church's boundaries appears as a central motive for the rigoristic baptism teaching, although limiting salvation to the church does not even require baptizing all received into the church. For example, Saint Augustine believed that salvation is only in the canonical church, although he recognized the validity of schismatics' sacraments.”
ORH dealt extensively with St. Augustine’s teachings on baptism (pp.167-180) and demonstrated that his teachings were not in line with the consensus of the Holy Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. Chapter 19 dealt entirely with the operation of the Holy Spirit outside of the Orthodox Church. ORH does not deny that God can save whoever he wants, but shows that, according to the consensus of the councils and Fathers, the Holy Spirit only works through the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church for man’s purification, illumination and theosis. In 1971, when the Synod of ROCOR decided to receive all converts by baptism, they also acknowledged that many at that time in the Ecumenical Movement were discouraging reception of converts by baptism precisely in order to assert false teachings regarding the boundaries of the Church. We see this blurring of the lines in the following statement of the bishops of the Orthodox Church of Finland:
“According to Orthodox understanding, the validity of the baptism of other Christian denominations stems from the fact that they still have some connection to the Church and they baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Baptisms performed by other Christians are ‘Orthodox baptisms’ because there is no other baptism than the one that the Lord has entrusted to his church. To deny their baptism is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit, it is to deny the tradition of the Church.”
Whence does such an “Orthodox understanding” derive? None of the canons which allowed heretics to be received by a means other than baptism asserted that these heretics were in some way already connected to the Church or that the Holy Spirit already worked in some way through their non-Orthodox baptisms. None of the canons which allowed certain heretics to be received by a means other than baptism included language forbidding the reception of these same heretics by baptism. We find no language in the canons and Fathers (outside of Augustine or Pope Stephen) that ascribe any sacred character at all to sacraments performed outside of the Orthodox Church. Instead, as chapter 1 of ORH demonstrates, baptisms of heretics are commonly referred to by the Fathers as a “pollution”. Apostolic Canon 46 clearly refers to those baptized by heretics as “polluted by the ungodly” and St. Justin Popovic says about this canon, “It is obvious even to those who have no eyes that this decree specifically orders us not to recognize any of the heretics’ holy mysteries, to consider them invalid and devoid of grace” (ORH, p.42). St. Basil’s Canon 1 states of those who go into schism from the Church that, “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 to either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it” (ORH, p.43). It is puzzling how those Orthodox involved in the Ecumenical Movement today so easily disregard countless Holy Fathers in favor of Augustine’s unique teachings which were not followed by the Ecumenical Councils or the Fathers in the East.
If even bishops and priests who were baptized and ordained in the Orthodox Church lose the grace of the Holy Spirit and cannot impart this grace to others through baptism or any of the Mysteries if they depart in schism; how do Papists, Protestants and other heretics serve true and grace-filled Mysteries who were never baptized nor ordained in the Church and when they belong to groups that have been cut off from the Church for centuries? Most Protestants today do not even believe that the Holy Spirit works through their own baptisms but consider baptism to be only an external symbol. The letter from the Church in Finland only confirms the problem of using reception by chrismation to promote a false ecclesiology, stating that “To deny their [heterodox] baptism is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit, it is to deny the tradition of the Church.” Augustine is not “the tradition of the Church” and the consensus of the Fathers and Councils is against such an assertion.
Again, Chapter 19 of ORH shows how the Fathers spoke of the activity of the Spirit outside of the Church despite there being no true Mysteries outside of the Orthodox Church.
AB: “The book completely leaves unaddressed the enormous ecclesiological problem caused by its baptism line of triple immersion as the sacrament of reception into the church. If one is not baptized, one does not belong to the church. If one does not belong to the church, one naturally cannot be a bishop or priest. However, in the Orthodox Church, there are numerous bishops and priests who have been baptized otherwise than by triple immersion. These are not just "converts," but in many local churches, it is customary to baptize otherwise than by triple immersion. Since we do not know how each bishop or priest has been baptized, we cannot know who are true bishops or priests. Thus, we have ended up in a situation where at least from an epistemological perspective, the church's visible and invisible boundaries have diverged. Strict adherence to the form of baptism thus ends up undermining the book's central thesis: Christ's church has clear visible boundaries, and we can know where they are.”
Apostolic Canon 50 says priests and bishops who do not baptize in three full immersions should be deposed. In ORH, pp. 45-56 include a multitude of examples from the teachings of the saints and Fathers from the earliest century to today who emphasized the necessity of baptizing in three full immersions. Baptizing in three full immersions was practiced universally in the East and West before the Great Schism, and only around the time of the Schism did departure from this practice begin in the West. Only in the past few centuries did some Orthodox begin to copy the Papists by “baptizing” using pouring rather than immersion. ORH, with many historical references, shows triple immersion baptism to be an absolute requirement, with the only exception being dire emergencies where immersion in water is impossible and a person is at risk of dying unbaptized. Rather than continuing the error of using pouring and other means to receive people rather than immersion, the bishops could decide to return to the teachings of the Apostles, Councils and Fathers and insist that baptism be done in three full immersions. In the 20th century, St. Luke of Simferopol made an effort to eradicate incorrect forms of baptism by threatening with suspension any priests who did not baptize in three full immersions (ORH, pp.51-52) and before him, the 1620 Moscow Council ordered that those who were not baptized in three full immersions should be baptized again correctly (ORH, p. 226).
Regarding the implications for ecclesiology of the fact that some people have not been received correctly into the Church, it is possible for those received into the Church by an incorrect method to still be part of the Church despite being deficient spiritually as a result. Elder Ephraim of Arizona, Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetra and others were known for having the gift of clairvoyance and could observe when a person hadn’t been received by baptism or were not immersed fully three times, without people even bringing up the issue with these elders. They would ask such people, “where is your guardian angel?” and insist those who had been received by chrismation were still in need of baptism. Just because something has been done wrongly in the past (failing to receive a person correctly) doesn’t mean the wrong practice should be perpetuated. The conclusion of ORH addresses this concern with the quote from St. Cyprian:
“But someone says, ‘What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?’ The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep. Nevertheless it does not follow that, because there was error at one time, there must always be error; since it is more fitting for wise and God-fearing men, gladly and without delay to obey the truth when laid open and perceived, than pertinaciously and obstinately to struggle against brethren and fellow-priests on behalf of heretics.”
The reviewer criticizes ORH for being “pastorally thin,” but neither the reviewer nor the Synod of the Church of Finland, nor anyone else who opposes receiving converts by baptism provides an explanation for how it is better pastorally to receive converts by chrismation instead. How is it more profitable spiritually for a person to be received by chrismation and not by baptism (followed by chrismation)? We have had many saints and elders who have insisted that those received by chrismation are still in need of an Orthodox baptism, but no cases where a person received by baptism has been told that it would have been better for them to be received by chrismation. Often people received by chrismation are bothered by this fact afterwards and wonder whether they are lacking in some way by not being baptized, but it never happens that a person received by baptism afterwards wonders whether he is lacking anything by not being received by chrismation. It would seem more pastoral to insist that all converts be baptized in three full immersions in order to avoid such questions and in order to make sure everything is done properly and in accordance with the canons and Fathers. If baptism by triple immersion was not necessary, why would Apostolic Canon 50 call for the deposition of priests and bishops who fail to baptize in this manner and why would Canon 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council and 95 of Trullo state that Eunomians could not be received by chrismation because they did not practice baptism in three full immersions? These issues are left unaddressed by the reviewer and by the Synod of Finland.
As noted above, the major issue raised in this review and in the pastoral letter from Finland are the limits of obedience when bishops teach what is contrary to the consensus of the canons and Fathers and contrary to the teachings of holy elders who are guided by the Holy Spirit. Quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch alone on obedience to bishops fails to account for how these matters of obedience were dealt with by St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Paisios the Athonite, St. Iakovos of Evia, Elder Ephraim of Arizona, and countless others. For example, St. Theodore the Studite wrote, “Hierarchs are in no wise granted authority over every transgression of the canons, except only to keep in line with what has been decreed and to follow those that came before” (PG 985ABC). St. Daniel of Katounakia stated, “A Christian must not give the least hearing to these ravagers, even if they are thrust forward by Priests and Hierarchs, teachers and spiritual fathers, who interpose and teach things against Orthodox thought and sacred tradition by obvious sophistries, but he must persist steadfastly in such things as he received from the Orthodox Church” (Contemporary Ascetics of Mount Athos, Vol. 1. 318). Fr. Theodore Zisis has written “Blessed Disobedience or Evil Obedience” on this topic and hopefully more will be written addressing this sensitive and important aspect of ecclesiology in the future.
While we appreciate the opportunity to read and respond to the detailed summary and critique of Andreas Bergman on our book, On the Reception of the Heterodox… and the Orthodox Church of Finland’s “Pastoral Letter” on the reception of converts, both of these texts were ultimately very disappointing. In over 400 pages and 700 footnotes, ORH presented the history of the reception of converts and all of the relevant canons, Councils, and patristic teachings with countless quotes and commentaries from authoritative canonists and saints. However, everything presented in ORH was casually dismissed if it failed to support Augustinian ecclesiology and the belief that all converts who formerly received a trinitarian baptism should be received by chrismation. The review did not provide additional patristic quotes, canons, or canonical commentaries which show ORH to be incorrect or missing important sources and testimonies. Where ORH identified many errors in how this topic is discussed in contemporary times, the reviewer and Pastoral Letter simply doubled down in reiterating these same errors, ignoring all evidence in ORH to the contrary.
The subject of the reception of converts remains very important today and we hope that there will be more discussion within and between the local Orthodox churches on this critical topic, but with more serious consideration of the historical, canonical and patristic teaching conveyed in ORH; and with regard to the testament of the Kollyvades Fathers and the teachings of the hesychastic saints of our time who faithfully follow their teaching.
ENDNOTES:
Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. “Resolution of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (1971).” Orthodox Life, vol. 29, no. 2, 1979, pp. 35-43. Accessed 20 Feb. 2026.
Vlachos, Hierotheos, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Agios Vlasios. The Orthodox Church and the Rest of the Christian World: The ‘Holy and Great Council’ in Crete in 2016. Translated by Sister Pelagia Selfe. Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 2025. p. 85.
Heers, Fr. Peter “St. Nikodemos, the Rudder and the Reception of Converts into the Orthodox Church: A Look at the Correspondence Between the Kollyvades Fathers & Dorotheos Voulismas.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CkYHymiSgU
Holy Monastery of Panagia Chrysopodaritissa of Nezeron. The Kollyvades and Dorotheos Voulismas: The Case of the Examination of the Pedalion and the Canonikon [in Greek]. Holy Monastery of Panagia Chrysopodaritissa of Nezeron, 2020.
Comments