Christianity received a large influx of converts in the fourth century. At the beginning of the fourth century the Roman Empire was majority pagan but by the end it was majority Christian. At the same time, the fourth century was going through the Arian crisis. Many of the pagan converts into Christianity initially came in as Arians and became Catholic when the crisis was over. Did they have to get re-baptized? Here is what Pope Siricius said in his letter to Himerius:
And so on the first page of your letter you have indicated that very many baptized by the impious Arians are hastening to the Catholic faith and that certain of our brothers wish to baptize these same ones again. This is not allowed since the Apostle forbids it to be done(Ephesians 4:5, Hebrews 6:4) and the canons oppose it, and after the cessation of the Council of Ariminum general decrees sent to the provinces by my predecessor Liberius of venerable memory prohibit it. These together with the Novations and other heretics we join to the company of the Catholics through the sole invocation of the sevenfold Spirit by the imposition of a bishop’s hands, just as it was determined in the Synod, which, too, the whole East and West observe. It is proper that you also do not deviate from this course henceforth, if you do not wish to be separated from our company from synodal decision.
Why was an Arian baptism valid if they held to a serious Christological heresy? Because baptism doesn’t depend on the orthodoxy of the one administering it. If it came out twenty years later that the person who baptized you only believed in the spiritual resurrection of Christ, would that make it an invalid baptism? By the way, although the heresy of many people is known, some people die without ever letting their heresies be known so we don’t know if those baptisms are real. Well, let me just say that there is nothing to worry about. The person who baptizes you has zero effect on whether your baptism is valid or not. It comes down to form. To quote Pope Leo the Great:
For they who have received baptism from heretics, not having been previously baptized, are to be confirmed by imposition of hands with only the invocation of the Holy Ghost, because they have received the bare form of baptism without the power of sanctification.
– Letter 159 to Nicaetas, Bishop of Aquileia
Also, this was held by the early Protestants. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all accepted their Catholic baptisms even though they were done as a baby by a priest who would have been a member of the apostate Roman church and believed in works salvation.
Despite having a claim to being the original Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches don’t seem to know which baptisms are valid. If a Catholic or Protestant converts, some jurisdictions will accept his baptism and some will re-baptize him. In the book Russia and the Universal Church by Vladimir Soloviev he talks about a man named William Palmer:
William Palmer, a distinguished member of the Anglican Church and of the University of Oxford, wished to join the Orthodox Church. He went to Russia and Turkey to study the contemporary situation in the Christian East and to find out on what conditions he would be admitted to the communion of the Eastern Orthodox. At St. Petersburg and at Moscow he was told that he had only to abjure the errors of Protestantism before a priest, who would thereupon administer to him the sacrament of Holy Christ or Confirmation. But at Constantinople he found that he must be baptized afresh. As he knew himself to be a Christian and saw no reason to suspect the validity of his baptism(which incidentally was admitted without question by the Orthodox Russian Church), he considered a second baptism would be a sacrilege. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to accept Orthodoxy according to the local rules of the Russian Church, since he would then become Orthodox only in Russia while remaining a heathen in the eyes of the Greeks; and he had no wish to join a national Church but to join the universal Orthodox Church. No one could solve his dilemma so he became a Roman Catholic.
Many Eastern Orthodox people that I know are disturbed by this trend in their church. Some say to re-baptize everyone and some say to go back to ex opera operato which is the view held in the first millennium of the Church as testified to by St. Leo the Great and others.
Feel free to share your thoughts on this topic below.
If the personal heresies of the minister of baptism do not invalidate a baptism why has the Church determined invalid the baptisms of Mormons and other non-trinitarian sects that nevertheless utilize the Trinitarian formula? This is something that has bugged me for a while and I haven’t yet found a satisfactory answer.
They can be disqualified on form.
Isn’t the ‘form’ the Trinitarian formula? I can’t speak to every nontrinitarian baptism but I do know for a fact Mormon baptisms use it yet in 2001 the CDF responded to a dubium regarding the validity of such baptisms in the negative. Mormon converts must be baptized absolutely, and the CDF clarified that the reason is due to the LDS understanding of the persons of the Trinity being so deficient as to not count as Christian baptism. So it would appear that one’s heresy *can* in fact invalidate a sacrament if that heresy is sufficiently grave. Is it that Arianism isn’t as grave a heresy as Mormonism?
If I recall, the CDF didn’t give a reason. They just said they were invalid.
What is “CDF” and what is “dubium” ?
I can guess that “dubium” means “doubts”, but why not use English instead of so much Latin?
The Roman Catholic Church sometimes seem to use too much Latin to hide and obscure things, like the way Muslims say, “You don’t understand the deep meaning of the Arabic word here”, etc.
CDF means Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. They didn’t give a reason so we don’t know why it’s disqualified. So Ken, you believe that baptism simply depends on the orthodoxy and holiness of the one doing the baptism? Okay. Just call Augustine a heretic and Donatus a hero.
“This is what the RC and historical churches did from the State Church period onward, combined with looking to the rituals – water baptism, infant baptism, Eucharist, priestly words and forms, penances of ascetic works of satisfaction, etc. – from the 600s onward with hideous doctrine of Purgatory and treasury of merit and trafficking in relics and praying to statues and icons – these forms and rituals are empty and vain, as Jesus says in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 – “the traditions of man”.”
Ken, you have no idea what historical Christianity was like. I know you’re reading Bede who is technically post 600 but if you actually wanted to read the early Church writings and chronicles I could tell you where to start. Bede has relics. Heck even Augustine talks about venerating relics. Just admit that the Church was apostate from 100 to 1517 and to be honest later than that. The Gates of Hell never overcame Christ’s Church. For three quarters of Christian history we’ve survived without you guys. We’ll continue without the looting operation.
So it would appear that one’s heresy *can* in fact invalidate a sacrament if that heresy is sufficiently grave. Is it that Arianism isn’t as grave a heresy as Mormonism?
Good point David!
It shows that the bare form is wrong. The bare form without repentance and faith does nothing!!
The prophets constantly rebuked the Jews in the OT for just going through the bare forms of sacrifices and yet, the sacrifices were important to teach something about atonement and God’s wrath vs. sin and entering into His presence; yet the rituals can be abused without heart conversion and internal reality. (repentance and faith)
Isaiah 1:11-15
Hosea 6:6 (Jesus quotes this in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7)
Amos 4:4-5; 5:21-25
Jeremiah 7:21-24
The external form can be abused into something that corrupts the whole purpose of the form.
This is what the RC and historical churches did from the State Church period onward, combined with looking to the rituals – water baptism, infant baptism, Eucharist, priestly words and forms, penances of ascetic works of satisfaction, etc. – from the 600s onward with hideous doctrine of Purgatory and treasury of merit and trafficking in relics and praying to statues and icons – these forms and rituals are empty and vain, as Jesus says in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 – “the traditions of man”.
Soloviev is not recognized as a valid authority by Orthodox Christians, at least on most theological matters, this one included. The man has spent a big chunk of his life polluting his soul with some occultic practices and unclean mysticism, not to mention him being a fan of heretical teachings about the Sophia. Thankfully, he came to his senses in the end of his life and rejoined the Orthodox Church. As of the Orthodox position on baptism of non-Orthodox believers, true, there is much confusion among the Orthodox concerning this issue, but it’s grounded in the overall ignorance of the teachings of the Orthodox Church (expressed in the writings of St.Basil the Great, Alexios Aristenos, Theodore Balsamon, John Zonaras, etc.) Only baptism done within the Eastern Orthodox Church is deemed legitimate, HOWEVER, for the sake of pastoral oikonomia, Roman Catholics and Protestants who want to join Eastern Ortodoxy are required to go only through Chrismation.
Hello Orangehunter;
I agree with you that Soloviev is weird. In a way he reminds me of Dostoyevsky’s view on religion; though obviously with a much more positive view of the Catholic Church since Dostoyevsky absolutely hated the Catholic Church. I didn’t quote his theological opinion though, I quoted a story about William Palmer that he narrated. Do you think this story isn’t true? I thought it was but I could be wrong.
As far as I know St. Mark of Ephesus, the only bishop to stand up for the Eastern Orthodox Church at Florence said that Catholics aren’t to be re-baptized if they convert. I believe that this position is the majority position though there is a significant chunk who favour re-baptism. Probably 70-30 if I were to put a number on it, the most prominent re-baptism proponents being the Mount Athos monks who carry a lot of authority.
God bless,
Allan
You are correct that St. Mark of Ephesus forbade the rebaptism of Latins. I’ve written an extensive review of the Orthodox perspective of this topic on my website: https://ancientinsights.wordpress.com/2020/08/05/sacramental-validity-according-to-sts-basil-and-augustine/