Bibliography

Bibliography

Papaderos, Alexandros. Metakenosis: Griechenlands kulturelle Herausforderung durch die Aufklärung in der Sicht des Korais und des Oikonomos. Meisenheim am Glan: 1970  (also for older bibliography).

Patsavos, Lewis J. “Konstantinos Oikonomos of the Oikonomoi.” In Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical Personalities, edited by Nomikos Michael Vaporis, 69-85. Brookline,   MA: 1978.

Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos. Ελλαδικού Αυτοκεφάλου Παραλειπόμενα (Overlooked  Aspects of the Greek Autocephaly), 2nd ed. Athens: 1989, (p. 123ff).

Endnotes

Abbreviations used in the endnotes:

E  =  Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis, Επιτομή των Ιερών Κανόνων (Digest of the Sacred Canons) (unpublished).

P  =  Πηδάλιον… (The Rudder), by Hieromonk Agapios and Monk Nikodemos, 8th ed. (Athens, 1976). Cf English translation by D. Cummings (Chicago, 1957), and particularly St. Nikodemos’ footnotes and explanations of the relevant Canons. In this study all references to The Rudder are cited and translated anew from the 1976 Greek edition.

M  =  Athanasios Parios, ‘Οτι οι από Λατίνων επιστρέφοντες αναντιρρήτως. Απαραιτήτως και αναγκαίως πρέπει να βαπτίζωνται, και Επιτομή…των θείων της πίστεως δογμάτων…(That Latin converts must indisputably, indispensably and necessarily be baptized, and Digest…of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith) (Leipzig, Saxony, 1806). Excerpts in: Monk Theodoritos Hagioreitis, Μοναχισμός και Αίρεσις (Monasticism and Heresy) (Athens, 1977), pp. 263ff.

O =  Τα σωζόμενα εκκλησιαστικά συγγράμματα Κωνσταντίνου Πρεσβυτέρου και Οικονόμου του εξ Οικονόμων, εκδιδόντος Σοφ. Κ. του εξ Οικονόμων, τόμος Α’ (The extant ecclesiastical writings of Constantine Presbyter and Oikonomos of the Oikonomoi, published by Soph. C. of the Oikonomoi), vol. I (Athens, 1862), pp. 398-515.

  1.        The text presented here is a translation, with additional material from Ομολογώ εν Βάπτισμα, published by St. Paul’s Monastery on Mount Athos, Greece (“the Holy Mountain”) in 1994 of the book first published by the author in Athens in 1983.  (ISBN 960-85542-0-9.)  The online text published by the Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries (OODE) was retrieved from www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm and minimally edited by Christopher Orr.  The Greek base text made available by OODE can be retrieved from www.oodegr.com/oode/biblia/baptisma1/perieh.htm.
  2.        Wikipedia, “George Metallinos”; retrieved April 9, 2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ George_Metallinos.  For biographical and bibliographic information on Prof. Metallinos’ see http://www.phys.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/ tributes/gewrgios_metallhnos (in Greek; retrieved April 9, 2009).
  3.        For the history of the problem see I.N. Karmiris, “Πως δε δέχεσθαι τους προσιόντας τη Ορθοδοξία ετεροδόξως” (“How should non-Orthodox who come over the Orthodoxy be received”), Τα Δογματικά και Συμβολικά Μνημεία της Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας (The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church), vol. II (Athens, 1953), pp. 972-1050 (972-1025); T. Ware, Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule (Oxford, 1964), π. 65ff; Evêque Pierre l’Hullier, “Les Divers Modes de Reception des Catholiques-Romains dans l’Orthodoxie,” Le Messager Orthodoxe 1 (1962), pp. 15-23; J. I. Kotsonis, “Αιρετικών Βάπτισμα” (“Heretical Baptism”), Θρησκευτική και Ηθική Εγκυκλοπαιδεία (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) 1 (1962), col. 1092-1095; A. Christophilopoulos, “Η εις Ορθοδοξίαν προσέλευσις των αλλοθρήσκων και ετεροδόξων” (“The coming to Orthodoxy of non-Christians and non-Orthodox”), Θεολογία ΚΖ’ (1956), pp. 53-60, 196-205. In these works one may find further bibliography. See also Gerhard Podskalsky, Griechische Theologie in der Zeit der Türkenherrschaft 1453-1821, p. 35 (bibliography in n. 96); Cf. Vasileios N. Yiannopoulos, Η αποδοχή των αιρετικών κατά την Ζ’ Οικουμενικήν Σύνοδον (The Reception of Heretics according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council) (Athens, 1988) (Reprint from  Θεολογία ΝΘ’ (1988), pp. 530-579). Dorothea Wendeburg, “Taufe und Oikonomia. Zur Furge der Wiedertaufe in der Orthodoxen Kirche,” Kirchengemeinschaft – Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. Festschrift für G. Kretschmar (Stuttgart, 1986), pp. 93-116. Lothar Heiser, Die Taufe in der Orthodoxe Kirch (Geschichte, Spedung und Symbolik nach der Lehre der Väter (Trier, 1987).
  4.        On him see E. Skouvaras, “Στηλιτευτικά Κείμενα του ΙΗ’ αιώνος (Κατά Αναβαπτιστών)” (“Censorious Texts of the Eighteenth Century (Against Rebaptizers)”), Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher 20 (1970), pp. 50-227 (also in reprint); see pp. 58-60 for bibliography. Important is the article by T. A. Gritsopoulos, Θ.Η.Ε. 7 (1965), col. 1193-1197. Cf. same author, “Ο Πατριάρχης Κ/λεως Κύριλλος Ε’ ο Καράκαλλος” (“Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril V Karakallos”), Ε.Ε.Β.Σ. ΚΘ’ (1959), pp. 367-389.
  5.        Collected in the above-mentioned work by E. Skouvaras. For the synodal and theological; material see J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio 38 (Graz, 1961; Paris, 1907), col. 575-634.
  6.        Canon XCV of Penthekte is but a reiteration of it. For the text of this canon, see p. 3 or Appendix I.
  7.        See Ch. S. Tzogas, Η περί μνημοσύνων έρις εν Αγίω Όρει κατά τον ιη’ αιώνα (The Memorial-service Dispute on the Holy Mountain in the Eighteenth Century) (Thessaloniki, 1969), with extensive bibliography; C. C. Papoulidis, Το κίνημα των Κολλυβάδων (The “Kollyvades” Movement) (Athens, 1971); same author, “Nikodème l’Hagiorite” (1749-1809), Θεολογία ΛΖ’ (1966), pp. 293-313, 390-415, 576-590,  and ΛΗ’ (1967), pp. 95-118, 301-311; same author, “Περίπτωσις  πνευματικής επιδράσεως του Αγίου Όρους εις τον βαλκανικόν χώρον κατά τον ΙΗ’ αιώνα”  (“A case of spiritual influence on the Balkans by the Holy Mountain during the eighteenth century”), Μακεδονικά 9 (1969), pp. 278-294; Ch. G. Sotiropoulos, Κολλυβάδες – Αντικολλυβάδες (Kollyvades and Anti-Kollyvades) (Athens, 1981).
  8.        In the course of explaining Apostolic Canon XLVI, after a lengthy note on the validity of heretical baptism, St. Nikodemos characteristically remarks: “All this theory which we did here is not superfluous, but indeed very necessary, simply for all times, but much more today because of the big debate and great controversy going on over Latin baptism, not only between us and the Latins, but also between us and the Latinizers.” P, p. 55.
  9.        See Tzogas, pp. 16-28; Papoulidis, The “Kollyvades” Movement, pp. 30-32; Monk Theodoritos (Ioannis Mavros), Νεοφύτου Ιεροδιακόνου Καυσοκαλυβίτου, Περί της συνεχούς Μεταλήψεως, Εισαγωγή, Κείμενον ανέκδοτον, Σχόλια (Hierodeacon Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis, On Frequent Communion, Introduction, Unpublished Text, Commentary (Athens, n.d.); A. Camariano-Cioran, Les Académies princières du Bucarest et de Jassy et leurs pofesseurs (Thessaloniki, 1974), pp. 413-431.
  10.      See Tzogas, pp. 46-51; Papoulidis, The “Kollyvades” Movement, pp. 35-37; and the other works cited in n. 5 above. Also important is the monograph by Fr. Theocletos, Monk of the Monastery of Dionysiou (Holy Mountain), Άγιος Νικόδημος ο Αγιορείτης (Saint Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain) (Athens, 1959). See also George S. Bebis, “St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite,” in Post-Byzantine Ecclesiastical Personalities, pp. 1-17; Podskalsky, pp. 377-382 (with extensive bibliography); C. Cavarnos, St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite: An Account of his Life, Character and Message, together with a Comprehensive List of his Writing and Selections from Them (Belmont, MA: 1974; 2nd ed. 1979).
  11.      See Tzogas, pp. 29-43; Papoulidis, The “Kollyvades” Movement, pp. 37-39; Podskalsky, pp. 358-365 (with bibliography).
  12.      Ware, p. 90ff; Podskalsky, pp. 331-335 (bibliography).
  13.      We took into account the following works of theirs, in which their relevant teaching is presented:

Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis, Επιτομή των Ιερών Κανόνων (Digest of the Sacred Canons), Characterized by Tzogas as “famous” (p. 26), and composed of 1227 pages of unequal size. It remains yet unpublished in Ms 222 (=295) of the Academy of Bucharest, fol. 2a-1227. See C. Litzica, Catalogul Manuscriptelor Grecesti (Bucuresti, 1909), p. 150. Cf Monk Theodoritos, “Ο Νομοκάνων Νεοφύτου του Καυσοκαλυβίτου” (“The Code of Church Laws and Canons by Neophytos Kafsokalyvitis”), Κοινωνία ΙΗ’ (1975), pp. 197-206. Fr. Theodoritos has prepared the critical edition of this work, and he very kindly made available to us a section of it containing the chapters: 1) “On those coming over to Orthodoxy,” p. 126-147 xvii, and 2) “On Canon Seven of the Second Ecumenical Council and Ninety-five of the Sixth” (fol. 147xx-147xxv), and therefore we express to him our thank and gratitude. Fr. Theodoritos accepts that this work was written while the author resided on the Holy Mountain, i.e. before 1759 (see On Frequent Communion, p. 33), and he completed it with later additions until his death (1784). A part of the above-mentioned first chapter (pages 126-127 and 147-148of the work) was published in his book M (Monasticism and Heresy), pp. 254-257. It is clear from Neophytos’ work that he knew well the arguments of Cyril V’s opponents. We follow the numbering of the MS used by Fr. Theodoritos (the Greek numerals being replaced by Roman numerals).

Monk [St.] Nikodemos (Hagioritis), Πηδάλιον (The Rudder), 1st ed. (Leipzig, 1800). Herein we have in mind the 8th ed. (Athens, 1976). According to the in-depth scholar of the saint’s works, Fr. Theocletos, Monk of Dionysiou, The Rudder “is entirely the work of the Saint,” (op. cit., pp. 214-215). In many places in The Rudder, St. Nikodemos refers to Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council, particularly in the ad hoc interpretation of it and of Canon XCV of Penthekte.

Athanasios Parios, Επιτομή των θείων της πίστεως δογμάτων (Digest of the Divine Dogmas of the Faith) (Leipzig, Saxony, 1806). See a small section of this work in M. pp. 265-268. Athanasios Parios also wrote a special concise study titled, “Ότι οι από Λατίνων επιστρέφοντες αναντιρρήτως, απαραιτήτως και αναγκαίως πρέπει να βαπτίζονται” (“That Latin converts must indisputably, indispensably and necessarily be baptized”), which survives in cod. 88 of the Holy Monastery of Xenophontos, pp. 394-397, and was published by Fr. Theodoritos, M, pp. 263-265.

  1.      Our theologians were aware of Argentis’ work, Εγχειρίδιον περί βαπτίσματος (Handbook on Baptism), 1st ed. (Constantinople, 1756), and 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1757), and they even refer to it: Nikodemos, P, pp. 35-36, 55; A. Parios, M, p. 266; and O, p. 511. Neophytos cites the decision of Cyril V, E, p. 147xxv.
  2.      See Skouvaras, pp. 68-71.
  3.      Oikonomos was called upon by A. Stourzas, residing in Russia, to take a position on the problem raised by the case of the renowned Scottish deacon William Palmer, who so wearied both the Russian Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. With this opportunity he wrote the studies listed below. See O, pp. 498, 494. On Palmer see Ware, pp. 103-104 (bibliography), and Georges Florovsky, Aspects of Church History (Belmont, 1975), pp. 227-238; bibliography, pp. 305-306 (n. 23-26).
  4.      These are: 1) Notes to the anonymous dissertation “on the rite of the sacrament of Holy Baptism,” (1 March, 1850); 2) An excerpt from a letter to A. Stourzas on the same issue (2 March, 1847); and 3) A Letter to a Bishop (30 Dec. 1852). These are published in O. pp. 398-485, 486-492, and 493-515 respectively. Oikonomos also deals with the subject of the baptism of heretics in his study: Περί των τριών Ιερατικών της Εκκλησίας βαθμών Επιστολιμαία Διατριβή, εν η και περί της γνησιότητος των Αποστολικών κανόνων, υπό του Πρεσβυτέρου και Οικονόμου Κωνσταντίνου εξ Οικονόμων (Epistolary Dissertation on the Church’s three Sacerdotal Orders, and also on the authenticity of the Apostolic Canons, by Constantine Presbyter and Oikonomos of the Oikonomoi) (Nauplia, 1835), pp. 131-139, and 144-152 (on Apostolic Canons XLVI, XLVII and L). But what is said here is also included in his above-listed studies.
  5.      Oikonomos was aware of the existence of Neophytos’ Digest, and he praises the work in vol. IV of his own monumental work, Περί των Ο’ Ερμηνευτών της Π. Θείας Γραφής (On the Seventy Translators of the Old Testament), p. 821. Cf. Tzogas, p. 71. In the same work he praises Athanasios Parios and St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain (p. 822). In his above-mentioned texts, he uses The Rudder (1841 edition) and cites it by name (e.g., pp. 400, 417, 511: “…the most ascetic Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain (in The Rudder, p. 31). “He does not hesitate, though, to criticize it. E.g. on p. 460 n., he notes: “And see the inconsistent and wavering remarks in The Rudder, p. 16” (of the 2nd ed., 1841).
  6.      As for the Kollyvades, we have ascertained that they are aware of the argumentation developed in the texts of the metropolitans et al. written in opposition to the decision of Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V. See Mansi 38.
  7.      Opinions on the Kollyvades are often contradictory. One may ascertain this from studying the above-named works by Ch. Tzogas on the one hand, and the studies by Theocletos, Monk of Dionysiou, and C. Papoulidis on the other. And even Prof. P. Christou portrays St. Nikodemos as “often wavering between extreme conservatism and extreme modernism,” emphatically stating: “The canonization [of the Kollyvades] did not also impose the recognition of their views on the disputed issues.” See P. C. Christou, “Το Άγιον Όρος εν τω παρελθόντι και τω παρόντι” (“The Holy Mountain, Past and Present”), Αθωνική Πολιτεία (Thessaloniki, 1963), pp. 64-65. We believe that above scholarly opinion is the conscience of the Church at large, which holds the Kollyvades in high esteem, whereas, on the contrary, their opponents it has condemned, at least to oblivion!
  8.      P, pp. 51, 57. E, pp. 139, 142, 147 xiii-xiv (one baptism in the one Church). O, pp. 499, 485, 511.
  9.      Letters 73:21 and 69:1, 2, 10; 11 Cf. Tertullian, De baptismo 15.
  10.      See Ware, p. 82.
  11.      According to Neophytos (E, p. 132), through them speaks “the assembly of the Apostles”; cf. pp. 131, 132, 133, “the greatest of all Councils, that of the Apostles,” E, pp. 143-144. See P. pp. xxiv, 53, 55. O, pp. 399, 452-453, 480. During Oikonomos’ time, the Chancellor of the Diocese of Argos. E. Diogeneidis, attacked the authority of the Apostolic Canons. See G. D. Metallinos, Το ζήτημα της Μεταφράσεως της Αγίας Γραφής εις την Νεοελληνικήν κατά τον ΙΘ’ αιώνα (The question of the Translation of Holy Scripture into Modern Greek in the Nineteenth Century) (Athens, 1977), p. 394. Oikonomos refuted him through the special study mentioned above (On the Church’s three Sacerdotal Orders…).
  12.      P, p. 55. O, pp. 453-454.
  13.      E, pp. 128, 142. P, pp. 51, 370-371. O, p. 453. Neophytos declares: “I would sooner depart from my soul than from the incontestable order that the Council of Carchedon-Carthage laid down” (p. 142).
  14.      E, pp. 142, 147a-147b. P, p. 52. O, pp. 426, 451. M, p. 263.
  15.      P, p. 51. According to Neophytos: “Well, then, if our baptism and that of heretics is one and the same, then our faith and theirs is also one, even as there is one Lord. But in fact our faith and theirs are not one, and therefore neither is baptism, even as the Lord is not with them” E, p. 142. Cf. O, pp. 441, 454ff, 485. Oikonomos speaks about “Orthodox baptism.” Heretical sacraments are, according to him, “ineffectual” (p. 459).
  16.      Βαπτίζω, from βάπτω (Mod. Gr. βουτώ, i.e. dip, dunk). O, p. 402. Oikonomos refutes at length the arguments of his opponents (p. 398ff). Cf. pp. 436ff, 442ff. P, p. 63ff. And according to A. Parios (M, p. 266), baptism means “to submerse in water the person being baptized.”
  17.      O, pp. 399, 426. Cf. p. 413: “all-holy and true.” According to the Ecumenical Councils, “the trine immersion and emersion constitutes the conformity to the Lord’s command and signifies the triune nature of God.” John Rinne (Archbishop of Finland), Ενότης και ομοιομορφία εν τη Εκκλησία κατά το πνεύμα των Οικουμενικών Συνόδων (Unity and Uniformity in the Church, according to the Spirit of the Ecumenical Councils) (Thessaloniki, 1971), pp. 37-38.
  18.      P, p. 63f. O, p. 399.
  19.      O, p. 426. according to Neophytos: “The Church of Christ confesses one baptism: not only in that she does not baptize anyone twice, but also that she baptizes everyone with one and the same baptism, and not some with one kind of baptism and others with another” E, p. 142.
  20.      See E, p. 126; P, p. 587; O, pp. 89, 420.
  21.      E, p. 134; P, pp. 51, 55, 370; O, p. 413.
  22.      Cf. J. Kotsonis, Περί του κύρους της Ιερωσύνης των Αγγλικανών από της απόψεως του Κανονικού Δικαίου της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας (On the Validity of Anglican Orders as seen from the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church) (Athens, 1957), p. 18. According to Neophytos (E, p. 127): “the [baptism] belonging to heretics is completely rejected, while that of those in schism” is accepted, “when consecrated by the simple anointing with chrism,” on the basis of Apostolic Canons XLVII and LXVIII, Canon I of Cyprian, and XLVII of Basil the Great.
  23.      E, pp. 133, 147f. Neophytos here invokes the holy Fathers Cyprian, Athanasios the Great, Basil the Great, Canon VIII of Laodicea and the Apostolic Canons.
  24.      E, pp. 142; 135-136.
  25.      P, pp. 52-53.
  26.      E, p. 137.
  27.      P, p. 56. And according to Neophytos, “nor is simply trine immersion with the invocations in itself sufficient for the success of the sacrament,” E, p. 147 xiv. This is so because “the true baptism of Apostolic Canon XLVII should not be thought of as being simply that which is performed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and in three immersions, but also that which is performed with a sound confession of the Trinity…” E, p. 139.
  28.       “It is the same principle for both baptism and ordination,” E, p. 147 xxii. Cf. O, pp. 459, 492; E, p. 133f: “Heretics are neither Orthodox nor priests.” E, p. 137. Cf. Apostolic Canon LXVIII, and Apostolic Injunctions VI, 15.
  29.      [1] E, p 147 xxii. According to Apostolic Canon LXVIII, heretics do not have priesthood, and consequently “the rites performed by them are profane and destitute of grace and sanctification,” P,  pp. 50, 52. “According to the Apostolic Canon, their priests are false; hence, their baptism is surely also false,” E, p 147 xiii.
  30.      E, p. 147 xiv. Correctly Neophytos adds: “For it does provide it, then they join the Church for no reason, and the heretics who do not join hear this.”
  31.      P, p. 370.
  32.      See E, p. 132.
  33.      This was “ratified” by Canon II of Penthekte. O, p. 491. For how our writers understand “acrivia” and “economia,” see pp. 31-36 of this study.
  34.      O, p. 398.
  35.      Ibid.
  36.      O, p. 485.
  37.      E, p. 147 xiv. Also according to Oikonomos, the “innovation” regarding the form of baptism “is not a heresy, i.e. not a dogmatic one according to the exact meaning of the word…It is, however, an adominable and execrable practice, not at all purifying any guilt of heresy whatsoever. It is the unholy invention of heretical men, and a falsification of the delivered form…” O, p. 485. In other words, it is the fruit of heresy!
  38.      E, p. 147 xvii. Cf. St. Basil’s Canon I, and On the Holy Spirit 27, PG 32:285Cf.
  39.      E, p. 147 xiv.
  40.      O, p. 425.
  41.      On the Holy Spirit 12, PG 32:117B. Cg. E, p. 147 xiv, 147 xvii.
  42.      O, p. 426.
  43.      O, p. 398-399. M, p. 266. Cf. Ware, p. 91ff.
  44.      P, p. 63f.
  45.      «ΣΥΝΟΔΙΚΟΝ», since Pandectae Canonum SS. Apostolorum et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Graeca receptorum, nec non canonicarum SS. Patrum epistolarum; una cum scholiis antiquorum, singulis eorum annexis, et scriptis aliis huc spectantibus; quorum plurima e bibliothecae Bodleianae aliarumque MSS. Codicibus nunc primum edita; reliqua cum lisdem MSS. Summa fide et diligentia collata. Totum opus in duos tomos divisum, Guilielmus Beveregius Ecclesiae Anglicanae presbyter, recensuit, Prolegomenis munivit et annotationibus auxit, Oxonii, e theatro Sheldoniano, sumptibus Guilielmi Wells et Roberti Scott bibliop. Lond. MDCLXXII. See vol. II, p. 98ff. Cf. Mansi 3 :563/4, n. 2. Karl Joseph Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd ed. (Freiburg i. Br. 1856), pp. 12ff, 27.
  46.      The authenticity of only the first four Canons of the Council was defended. See A. P. Christophilopoulos, Ελληνικόν Εκκλησιαστικόν Δίκαιον (Greek Ecclesiastical Law) (Athens, 1965), p. 40 Cf. Karmiris, vol. I, p. 129 n.2 D. Georgiadis, “Το βάπτισμα των αιρετικών” (“The baptism of heretics”), Νέα Σιών ΙΘ’ (1924), p. 104. Ware, p. 72.
  47.      Of course, the opposite opinion also exists. The authenticity of Canon was defended by, among others, Chrysostomos Papadopoulos in his study: “Περί του βαπτίσματος των ετεροδόξων” (“On the baptism of the non-Orthodox”), Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος 14 (1915), p. 474.
  48.      See Karmiris. See Ware, p. 72 n. 1.
  49.      St Nikodemos does not deal with this problem. See e.g. P, pp. 154, 423, 590 et al.
  50.      He devotes a special chapter of his Epitome to the problem, titled: “On Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council and XCV of the Sixth” (pp. 147 xx – 147 xxv).
  51.      He repeatedly quotes verbatim from the Jus Graecoromanum IV, pp. 290-291, and from the ΣΥΝΟΔΙΚΟΝ or Pandectae (of Beveridge). E, pp. 147 xx, 147 xxi, 147 xxii (quotes from vol. II, pp. 100, 501, 717, 748). Neophytos’ argument, which he obviously took from Beveridge’s work, is that the Canon is not found in the early translations (Latin, Arabic), nor in the Summaries of John the Scholastic and Symeon Magistros.
  52.      E, p. 147 xx.
  53.      Neophytos quotes the whole epistle (E, p. 147 xxiii-xiv), citing the Jus Graecoromanum IV, pp. 290-291, and the Pandectae, vol II, p. 100 (E, p. 147 xx-xxi).
  54.      E, pp. 147 xxi, 147 xxii.
  55.      E, p. 147 xx.
  56.      E, p. 147 xxi.
  57.       “Where is the indisputable proof that it [i.e. the ‘custom’ of Constantinople] was canonized by the Sixth Council?” E, p. 147 xxiii. Since the Canon is “verbatim,” it belongs neither to the Second nor to the Sixth. (E, p. 147 xxiv).
  58.      Photios, Nomokanon, titl. Iv, ch. Xiv. Monk Arsenios, Kanoniki Synopsis, ch. xxxv and cxxxiv. E, p. 147 xx and 147 xxv.
  59.       “And yet, these Canons are not to be entered as indisputably authentic on the grounds of this minuscule evidence alone, for they are unknown to John and Symeon who were prior to Arsenios and Photios…Hence, John might be more trustworthy being earlier than Alexios, Arsenios and Photios… for he was nearer to the Second Council than they” E, p. 147 xx.
  60.       “Hence, I think it is much better to reject Canon VII, and also Canon XCV of the Sixth Council, as having been interpolated, rather than, by reckoning them with the authentic Canons, have things that cannot be tolerated by my own conscience which is unable to reconcile what is unreconcilable, but most of all by the Lutherocalvinists who attack the catholic Church that she supposedly contradicts herself.” E, p. 147 xx.
  61.      For the writer is anonymous. E, pp 147 xx, 147 xxiii et al.
  62.      E, p. 147 xxi.
  63.      Ibid.
  64.      E, p. 147 xxi-xxii. He adds rather sharply: “The epistle seems to demand that everyone everywhere ought to follow and however Constantinople practices!” E, p. 147 xxiii. The Constantinopolitans give “the orders of the synodal Canons second place after whatsoever custom of their own” (ibid). and he concludes: “How mighty is custom, and how hard to fight against!”
  65.      E, p. 147 xxiv.
  66.  E, p. 147 xxiv-xxv.
  67.      E, p. 147 xxi.
  68.      E, pp. 140-141.
  69.      E, p. 147 xxii: “It both accepts and does not accept the heretics’ ordination, and this a contradiction.”
  70.      E, pp. 147 xxii – 147 xxiii.
  71.      E, p. 147 xxi: “At any rate, one might consider the aforesaid epistle as belonging to Akakios who came after Anatolios, for it does not mention the Acephaloi-Severians together with those whom it requires to be chrismated?”
  72.      E, p. 147 xxi: “For it does not befit a Patriarch, and indeed of Constantinople, to call the bishop of Antioch the head of the catholic Church of Christ.” Ibid.
  73.      E, p. 147 xxiv.
  74.      E, p. 147 xxii.
  75.      E, p. 147 xxiii.
  76.      Ibid.
  77.      E, p. 147 xxv.
  78.      See e.g. E, p. 127, 131, 132, 139f.
  79.      E.g. E, p. 132.
  80.      E.g. E, p. 139.
  81.      O, p. 419. Cf. P, p. 92.
  82.      P, p. 165 et al. E, throughout O, pp. 419-420, 453-454. for the texts of these Canons, see Appendix I below.
  83.      E, p. 147 xx; P, p. 165; O, pp. 419-420.
  84.      Cf. Christophilopoulos, p. 119; E, pp. 129f, 135f; and P, p. 370.
  85.      P, p. 53.
  86.      P, p. 55.
  87.   O, p. 420.
  88.   P, p. 55.
  89.   E, p. 144.
  90.   PG 137:1103.
  91.   E, p. 142: “In fact, Basil the Great and Athanasios and Cyprian and his synod were not given precedence, but rather equal standing with the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils which were in agreement with each one of them.” Cf. O, p. 488. St. Nikodemos also notes: “there is no contradiction or opposition between them” P, p. 54.
  92.   E, p. 144ff.
  93.   S. G. Papadopoulos, Patrologia, vol. I (Athens, 1977), p. 68.
  94.   E, p. 144.
  95.   Ibid. The Seventh Ecumenical Council calls Basil the Great a “Father” thereof. Cf. Canon XX of Penthekte also.
  96.   E, p. 145.
  97.   Ibid.
  98.   E, p. 147 i.
  99.   E, p. 147 ii.
  100.   P, p. 52, 119.
  101.   E, p. 147 xii.
  102.   E, p. 147 xiv.
  103.   P, p. 54. E, pp. 140, 147 xi.
  104.   P, pp. 368, 587f. Cf. Canon I of Carchedon-Carthage (“we pronounce no recent opinion or one that has only now been established, but on the contrary…that which of old was tested with all precision [Gk. acrivia] and care by our predecessors”); and Canon I of St. Basil (“it is not our responsibility to return them a favor, but to serve the precision [Gk. acrivia] of the Canons”).
  105.   P, p. 53.
  106.   P, p. 370.
  107.   P, p. 53.
  108.   Ibid.
  109.   Ibid.
  110.   E, p. 147 xi.
  111.   E, p. 131.
  112.   E, p. 147 xxiv. Cf. E, p. 147 iv.
  113.   E, p. 147 v.
  114.   Against heresies III, 1,  PG 42:448A.
  115.   On the holy Spirit 3, PG 32:76.
  116.   E, p. 127. Cf. E, p. 141. Cf. O, p. 475.
  117.   E, p. 131. “And in a word, the baptism belonging to heretics is to be completely rejected, while that of schismatics is to be accepted when it is consecrated by mere anointing with chrism.” E, p. 127.
  118.   P, p. 370.
  119.   O, pp. 488, 491. Cf. Ch. Androutsos, Δογματική της Ορθοδόξου Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας (Dogmatics of the Orthodox Eastern Church) (Athens, 1956), p. 301f.
  120.   O, p. 421: “Such was the baptism of those who baptized into three unoriginates, or three sons, or three paracletes.”
  121.   O, p. 421.
  122.   O, p. 423.
  123.   P, pp. 164 and 55. Cf. P, p. 587f.; M, p. 263; O, p. 490 (“they had no baptism whatsoever, wherefore the Church prescribed to baptize them as well”).
  124.   Cf. Kotsonis, (On the validity…), p. 26.
  125.   O, p. 422.
  126.   O, pp. 422-423, 424, 488-489.
  127.   O, pp. 433, 434 (and n. 1). Cf. Evlogios of Alexandria, PG 103:953.
  128.   O, p. 421.
  129.   O, p. 488.
  130.   According to Ch. Androutsos, Συμβολική εξ επόψεως ορθοδόξου (Symbology from an Orthodox Point of View), 3rd ed. (Thessaloniki, 1963), pp. 30-304: economia is “a deviation from what is in principle correct and true.” Cf. A. Alivizatos, Η οικονομία κατά το Κανονικόν Δίκαιον της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας (Dispensation according to Canon Law of the Orthodox Church) (Athens, 1949), p. 21. J. Kotsonis, Προβλήματα της “Εκκλησιαστικής Οικονομίας” (Problems in “Ecclesiastical Dispensation”) (Athens, 1957), p. 207f. P. Boumis, Η εκκλησιαστική οικονομία κατά το Κανονικόν Δίκαιον (Ecclesiastical Dispensation according to Canon Law) (Athens, 1971), p. 7.
  131.   The practice to which Canon I of Carthedon-Carthage attests was applied throughout the entire fourth century, as this is shown from Canons XIX of the First Council, VIII of Laodicae, I and XLVII of St. Basil, and XLVI and LXVIII Apostolic.
  132.   Likewise, Canon XII of Penthekte applies a solution “by economia.” See P. I. Boumis, Το έγγαμον των Επισκόπων (The Marriage of Bishops) (Athens, 1981), p. 10.
  133.   Cf. the opinion of J. Kotsonis: “Wherever in previous Canons something is ordered contrary to this holy Canon (i.e. XCV of Penthekte), that which is ordered by this Canon prevails.” Article in Θ.Η.Ε., vol. 2 (1963), col. 1093. Same author, (Problems…), 187, n. 571. Cf. A. Christophilopoulos, “Η εις την Ορθοδοξίαν προσέλευσις…” (“The coming over to Orthodoxy…”), Θεολογία ΚΖ’ (1956), p. 59.
  134.   See Kotsonis, (Problems…), pp. 91-93. Same author, (On the validity…), p. 27.
  135.   P, p. 371. That is why in his footnote to Canon XX of St. Basil (P, p. 605) he points out: “See how according to this Canon the Church does not receive heretics without baptizing them, even if Canon VII of the Second Ecumenical Council by economia receives certain heretics without baptism.”
  136.   O, p. 488. Cf. E, p. 147 xi: “If  the acrivia of the Canons receives by baptism those whom custom chrismates, then he who rather follows acrivia on those who accept it would not err, for he will have done not contrary to custom, but more than the custom.”
  137.   E, p. 132.
  138.   Kotsonis, (Problems…), p. 201ff. St. Nikodemos typically comments: “Hence, if St. Basil rejects the baptismal rite of schismatics because they lacked the grace to accomplish sacraments, then it is superfluous even to ask if we should baptize heretics” (P, p. 52).
  139.   See V. I. Pheides, Ιστορικοκανονικαί και εκκλησιολογικαί προϋποθέσεις ερμηνείας των ιερών κανόνων (Historico-canonical and ecclesiological presuppositions for an interpretation of the Sacred Canons) (Athens, 1972), p. 44.
  140.   Cf. Zonaras and Valsamon in: G. A. Rallis and M. Potlis, Σύνταγμα των θείων και ιερών κανόνων (Collection of the divine and sacred Canons), vol. II (Athens, 1852), pp. 189, 191. Cf. Rinne, p. 38 (and n. 6).
  141.   O, p. 490. He clearly specifies what he means: “For either they did not obtain divine baptism, or if they did, it was not done correctly or according to the ritual of the Orthodox Church.”
  142.   See Karmiris, vol. II, pp. 972ff, 979f; Metropolitan Germanos of Ainos, “Περί του κύρους του βαπτίσματος των αιρετικών” (“On the validity of heretical baptism”), Ορθοδοξία ΚΖ’ (1952), p. 301ff.
  143.   It is sufficient to read the “censorious” texts “against the rebaptizers” of the eighteenth century that this issue gave rise to. See Skouvaras, pp. 94ff, 122ff; Cf. Metropolitan Germanos of Ainos, p. 314.
  144.   See, in this regard, the very comprehensive chapter: “Greeks and Latins: Hostility and Friendship,” in Ware, p. 16ff.
  145.   P, pp. 55, 56.
  146.   P, p. 55.
  147.   E, p. 147 ix.
  148.   One may see the importance and the dimensions of the Latin “filioque” dogma in the studies by Prof. Fr. John Romanides, Δογματική και Συμβολική Θεολογία της Ορθοδόξου Καθολικής Εκκλησίας (Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church), vol. 1 (Thessaloniki, 1973), pp. 289ff, 342ff, 379ff. “The Filioque,” (Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions) (Athens, 1978).
  149.   E, p. 147 ix.
  150.   E, p. 127. “Just short of being pious…they are not pious at all.” E, p. 147 viii.
  151.   M, pp. 263, 265.
  152.   O, p. 459.
  153.   O, p. 445.
  154.   O, p. 485.
  155.   E, p. 147 vi.. Cf. O, p. 450ff. See V. I. Pheidas, Θεολογικός διάλογος Ορθοδόξου και Ρωμαιοκαθολικής Εκκλησίας από του σχίσματος μέχρι της Αλώσεως (Theological and Dialogue of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches from the Schism to the Fall) (Athens, 1975).
  156.   P, p. 56. Cf. P, pp. 509, 605.
  157.   E, p. 139.
  158.   E, p. 145.
  159.   E, p. 142.
  160.   P, p. 55. This is the position of E. Argentis. See Ware, p. 93.
  161.   E, p. 127.
  162.   M, pp. 263f, 265f. The Latins “are altogether unbaptized and worse than the Eunomians. Even if the latter did not in fact baptize with three immersions…yet they did baptize with at least one.”
  163.   O, p. 441 (n. 1).
  164.   O, pp. 445f, 457. Cf. E. Simantirakis, Η παρά τοις Ρωμαιοκαθολικοίς τελεσιουργία των μυστηρίων του Βαπτίσματος, του Χρίσματος και της Θ. Ευχαριστίας (The Roman Catholic Ceremony of the Sacrament of Baptism, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist) (Athens, 1979), p. 141.
  165.   O, p. 398.
  166.   O, p. 436.
  167.   O, p. 430.
  168.   Athanasios the Great, whether speaking literally or metaphorically, was the first to condemn heretical “aspersion.” Discourse II, Against the Arians 43, PG 26:237B: “…so that he who is sprinkled by them is defiled in impiety rather than redeemed.” Oikonomos comments: “In making this declaration, did not the divine Father with such foresight manifestly anticipate and likewise condemn the Latin aspersion as being invalid?” O, p. 424. for the views of other Fathers, see O, p. 425ff. Cf. P, p. 52ff.
  169.   O, p. 398. It is the fruit of the “papal arbitrariness.” O, p. 449.
  170.   O, pp. 424, 450-451.
  171.   O, pp. 448f, 452.
  172.   E, p. 147 xx. It is contrary not only to the Church’s tradition (Acts ch. 8; Canons VII of the Second Ecumenical Council and XIX of the First, etc.), but above all to “Christ’s dual baptism, the one in the Jordan,” and “the one by the cross,” as well as to “the burial in the tomb, the figure of which is baptism by three immersions.”
  173.   O, pp. 424, 485. According to Neophytos, affusion is “accursed,” while aspersion is “defiled.” E, p. 147 xviii.
  174.   O, p. 454.
  175.   P, pp. 55, 56.
  176.   O, pp. 401f, 406ff, where the arguments of the opposite view are found.
  177.   O, p. 456. In a detailed analysis, Oikonomos states the differences between “one who is baptized” and “one who is sprinkled”:

The former “is buried, as one dead, in a grave,” and “again rises,” in “imitation of the Lord.” The latter, “when he is poured upon, stands erect,” and “neither goes down nor comes up again…as from a grave”;

The former, “with his own body, depicts the three-day burial and resurrection.” The latter “does not himself depict the mystery at all, “since he does not participate in the actual event. And by aspersion, he undergoes “a strange and unnatural…burial”;

The former “has the grave…into which…he descemds.” The latter “carries the grave, as it were, hanging over his head, and from there going down to his feet. And what could be more counterfeit than this?” True, Oikonomos cannot escape the criticism that in making these distinctions he is being scholastic. Yet, what he is seeking to do is to make the following truth perfectly clear: “And simply speaking, the affusion bears no likeness whatsoever to Christ’s death, nor is he who is poured upon planted together with Him.” O, p. 482f (n.).

  1.   P, p. 56.
  2.   E, p. 147 xvi.
  3.   On Ecclesiastical Hierarchies 2, viii. PG 3:397B.
  4.   P, p. 65.
  5.   O, p. 438. Cf. O, p. 424.
  6.   P, p. 65.
  7.   E, p. 147 xvi.
  8.   O, p. 482f.
  9.   O, p. 482 n.
  10.   E, p. 147xiii.
  11.   An earlier reference has been found in Cyprian, Epist. 76, 12-13. Ad Magnum. PL 3:1195/6.
  12.   See Theocletos Stragkas, Εκκλησίας Ελλάδος Ιστορία εκ πηγών αψευδών (History of the Church of Greece from Reliable Sources), vol. IV (Athens, 1972), pp. 1844-1847. For a critique of this decision, see Kotsonis, (Problems…), pp. 191-192.
  13.    (Greek Ecclesiastical Law), p. 114 and n. 2.
  14.   See Canons XII of Neocaesarea, and XLVII of Laodicea. O, p. 415f.
  15.   E, p. 147 xvi.
  16.   E, pp. 147 xvi, 147 xix.
  17.   O, p. 414f; Cf. St. Cyprian, Epist. 76, Ad Magnum.
  18.   O, p. 414.
  19.   O, p. 416.
  20.   O, p. 417.
  21.   Ibid.
  22.   E, p. 147 ix. Cf. P, p. 89f; O, p. 492: ‚’If economia is also exercised towards them, then I suppose their ordination must also be accepted…” For, according to Neophytos, “together with the acceptability of the heretical baptism admittedly also comes he who baptized, as one who has been ordained.” E, p. 147 xxii.
  23.   E, p. 145.
  24.   P, p. 55. “The Latins’ baptism is falsely called baptism, and therefore neither according to the principle of acrivia nor according to that of economia is it acceptable.” Oikonomos, too, agrees: “How shall we receive them who were never baptized at all?” O, p. 489. Cf. A. Parios, M, p. 263. This is also the position of E. Argentis. See Ware, p. 90. O, pp. 424, 449, 499. Cf. Neophytos, E, pp. 147 xiv, 147 xvii.
  25.   E, p. 147 xvii.
  26.   O, p. 457. St. Nikodemos also writes something similar. P, p. 304f.
  27.   O, p. 491. Cf. A. Parios, p. 264: “With what conscience does the Eastern [Orthodox] receive as though baptized him who by the authority of the Spirit is judged to be wholly unbaptized?”
  28.   O, p. 491. Cf. A. Parios, p. 264: “With what conscience does the Eastern [Orthodox] receive as though baptized him who by the authority of the Spirit is judged to be wholly unbaptized?”
  29.   O, p. 455. Cf. A. Parios, M, p. 264.
  30.   See Simantirakis, p. 134.
  31.   E, p. 147 vii; cf. p. 131.
  32.   O, p. 445.
  33.   M, p. 265.
  34.   M, p. 263. Cf Neophytos, E, pp. 127, 143. P, pp. 589, 605.
  35.   O, p. 425; cf. p. 486. E. Argentis, too, affirms the same. See Ware, p. 97.
  36.   E, pp. 128, 143.
  37.   P, p. 58.
  38.   O, p. 426. The term “rebaptize” is often misused, observes Oikonomos; “that is, in respect to the heretics’ own self-styled baptism, albeit spurious and false and not even baptism in the literal sense.” Hence more correct is the term “baptize,” “there being but one true baptism which we believe in, and which is never repeated a second time.” O, p. 420 n. 1.
  39.   See Karmiris, vol. II, pp. 972-973. Cf. Ware, p. 66ff.
  40.   Karmiris, p. 979.
  41.   Ibid.
  42.   Ibid., p. 980.
  43.   Ibid., pp. 981-982, 987-989.
  44.   Ibid., p. 979.
  45.   Ibid., p. 984.
  46.   Androutsos, (Symbology…), p. 321. Papadopoulos, p. 447. Christophilopoulos, article in Θεολογία, pp. 203-204; cf. pp. 120-121. Gritsopoulos, Θ.Η.Ε. 7 (1965), col. 1196.
  47.   See, in this regard, Skouvaras, p. 52ff. Cf. Metropolitan Germanos, p. 309ff.
  48.   According to Kotsonis (Problems…, pp. 189-190), “as far as the Patriarchate of Constantinople is concerned…until 1756 [write 1755], it recognized ‘by acrivia’ the validity of the baptism of those coming over from the Western Church, whereas through the Oros of 1756 [write 1755], it rejected it.” On the other hand, in the Russian Church, “until 1441, what prevailed as acrivia was that those coming over from the Western Church were to be baptized anew. But from 1666/7 and to this day, the Russian Church ‘by acrivia’ recognizes the validity of their baptism.”
  49.   In this list Oikonomos includes, among others, Photios the Great (pp. 421f, 450f – he condemned the “single-immersion” baptism), Michael Cerularius (p. 460), Th. Valsamon (p. 463), Germanos II Patr. Of Const. (p. 465), St. Meletios the Confessor (p. 466), Matthew Vlastaris (p. 467), St. Mark of Ephesus (p. 470), Manuel the Rhetor (p. 474), Patriarch Jeremias II (475), Dositheos Patriarch of Jerusalem (p. 476), and Patriarch Jeremias III (p. 476).
  50.   On this point, Sergios Makraios is presented as a witness by Cyril’s opponents. In his History, he declares that “…from the time of the schism until the year of our Lord 1750, that is both before and after the fall of Constantinople, they used to anoint converts with chrism according to the Definition enacted under Patriarch Symeon. Before [1750], the Eastern Church did not accuse the Western Church of rejecting the baptism instituted by the Lord and His Apostles, neither at that Council in Florence, nor afterwards.” In, “Υπομνήματα εκκλησιαστικής ιστορίας” (“Records of Church History”) by C. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη, vol. III (Venice, 1872), p. 403. We shall return below, however; for Makraios’ text here was abridged! (See n. 312 below.)
  51.   Karmiris, vol. I, p. 342.
  52.   O, pp. 460-461.
  53.   O, p. 498. Cf. E, p. 147 ix.
  54.   O, pp. 462-463. P, p. 56. E, p. 147 vii.
  55.   O, pp. 463, 498-499.
  56.    “Orthodox, that is,” clarifies Oikonomos (p. 464).
  57.   O, pp. 463-464.
  58.   O, p. 464.
  59.   O, p. 466.
  60.   O, p. 467.
  61.   This would be Makarios of Ancyra. See O, p. 468 n. 1 (the note is by the editor Soph. Oikonomos).
  62.   O, pp. 467-468, 502f.
  63.   O, pp. 469, 499.
  64.    “The evil was occasional and local. The Western Church had not yet adopted this or made it law by proclamation.” O, p. 469.
  65.   E, p. 147 viii.
  66.   E, p. 147 vii.
  67.   Karmiris, vol. II, p. 981.
  68.   E, pp. 146, 147 viii. O, pp. 468, 499f. Cf. Karmiris, vol. I, p. 422: “two baptisms, one performed by trine immersion, and the other by pouring water over the head…”
  69.   O, pp. 503, 504.
  70.   For the Acts of this questionable Council, see Dositheos, Τόμος Καταλλαγής (Jassy, 1692), p. 457ff. Cf. Archim. V. C. Stephanidis, Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία, 2nd ed. (Athens, 1959), pp. 395-396.
  71.   E, p. 147 viii.
  72.   In the Acts we find the phrase: “Nor is the chrism immediately applied to the head of the baptized,” without, however, there being any previous mention of baptism. “How could the innovation on baptism have been passed over in silence, it being such and so?” asks Oikonomos (p. 471).
  73.   E, p. 147 viii.
  74.   Karmiris, vol. II, pp. 981f, 987f. O, p. 473f. The decision of this Council, with some exceptions to be sure, was in force until 1755. Ware, p. 67.
  75.   O, p. 505.
  76.   Oikonomos sagaciously observes (pp. 473-4, n. 2), that in the Service published by the Council, baptism is not even listed among the differences, because the innovation had not yet become official.
  77.   O, p. 474. Oikonomos relies on an anti-Latin work by Manuel the Rhetor of the Great Church (1550).
  78.   O, pp. 505-506.
  79.   O, p. 506. And he adds: “Also all our most ancient monasteries, such as those of Athos, etc., uphold this same conviction.”
  80.   E, p. 146. Cf. also what was said by Sylvester Syropoulos: “We are people enslaved to the Latins, and what we say will find no acceptance.” Vera Historia, ch. 6:11. In V. Laurent, Les “Memoires” de Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence (Paris, 1971), pp. 534-536.
  81.   P, p. 56.
  82.   Ibid.
  83.   P, p. 57.
  84.   P, p. 56.
  85.   P, p. 57.
  86.   M, pp. 267-268. Of course, the opposite opinion has also been stated. E.g. Ware writes in this connection: “Neither of these Councils [i.e. Constantinople, 1484, and Moscow, 1667] was exposed to foreign pressure or acted from fear of Papist reprisals; why then did they reach conclusions so different from those of Argenti?” (p. 95). Is this certain? And even if there were no immediate dangers, was the prevailing situation, at least in the Balkans, of no consequence? See below Oikonomos’ explanation of this case also.
  87.   O, pp. 474-475.
  88.   O, pp. 476, 507.
  89.   O, pp. 507-509.
  90.   O, p. 509. “For they who (without necessary cause) are not baptized with three emersions and immersions are in danger of being unbaptized. Wherefore the Latins, who perform baptism by aspersion, commit mortal sin.” Dodekavivlos, p. 525; in O, p. 509.
  91.   O, pp. 509-510.
  92.   O, pp. 477ff, 510ff. The “Oros” of this Council (July 1755) was generally dated 1756, for that is when it was first published in print in the work, Ραντισμού Στηλίτευσις (A Denunciation of Sprinkling) (pp. clxxiii – clxxvi). (Reprinted in Mansi 38:617-622. See also Appendix II below.) The work, A Denunciation of Sprinkling, was formerly considered to have been written by E. Argentis (e.g. see O, pp. 477, 511), but it is rather the work of Christophoros Aitolos. See Ware, p. 99.
  93.   S. Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity (Oxford, 1968), p. 359. Runciman calls the Oros “a result of a sincere conviction.”
  94.   E, p. 147 xxv.
  95.   Karmiris, vol. II, p. 984 n. 4.
  96.   Ibid, p. 981 n.
  97.   Runciman, pp. 355-356.
  98.   Ibid., p. 356.
  99.   Ibid., pp. 356-357. The same thing is observed in the case of Cyril V. The best theologians of the time (e.g. E. Argentis, and E. Voulgaris), the populace, and the monks unreservedly sided with him.
  100.   Ibid., pp.356-357.
  101.   It is sufficient to study the work by P. Grigoriou, Σχέσεις Καθολικών και Ορθοδόξων (Catholic-Orthodox Relations) (Athens, 1958). Thus, e.g. Joseph Doxas, Metropolitan of Sevasteia and President of Paronaxia, by a written document of his entrusted (in 1671) the duties of spiritual father(!) and itinerant preacher(!) to Capuchin monks! (pp. 11-12). For more on this subject, see G. D. Metallinos, Vikentios Damodos, Θεολογία Δογματική κατά συντομίαν ή τε Συνταγμάτιον Θεολογικόν (Athens, 1980), p. 36ff.
  102.   See O, p. 477. Metropolitan Germanos, p. 310. Skouvaras, p. 52. For a detailed exposition of the matter, see the work by Philaretos Vapheidis, Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία, vol. Iii 2 (Alexandria, 1928), p. 146ff.
  103.   Runciman, p. 357. Extremely significant is the description of the Patriarch given by Sergios Makraios. According to him, Cyril “was…straightforward in opinion; simple in manner, even if to some he seemed intricate, diversely opposing as he did the many schemes of his enemies; fond of virtue; benevolent; lenient; fond of learning, devoted as he was to reading the divine books. Having chosen for himself the more perfect life-style, he therefore kept longer vigils and more protracted fasts, and he was fond of longer church services. And all in all, he seemed brave, sharp in regard to what needed to be done, vehement in reference to what was decreed, immovable and fearless in the face of resistance. Hence, he was known as a fervent zealot of Orthodox dogmas, and he was talked about and exceptionally loved by the entire populace, charming and drawing to himself the souls of all by the splendor of his personal virtues, even if detractors variously contrived to cover the true zeal of the man, calling him cunning, even as the heretics defamed as a heretic him who was most Orthodox…” See Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία by C. Sathas, Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη (Venice, 1872), pp. 206-207. In other words, the celebrated Patriarch had all the marks of the “traditional” churchman, who followed the hesychastic tradition of  the Kollyvades.
  104.   Runciman, p. 358.
  105.    “…and published under the pressure of the rabble,” notes Karmiris, vol. II, p. 984. The historian-philologist T.A. Gritsopoulos writes: “In the anti-papist struggle, the religious took part, not the frenzied rabble.” See the article, “Κύριλλος Ε”’ in Θ.Η.Ε.7 (1965), col. 1195. The opponents of Cyril and of (re)baptism were the first who rushed to characterize the populace as rabble (“rabble and a mod of people…” writes the versifier of “Planosparaktes”). See Skouvaras, p. 95.
  106.   Ware (p. 77) calls Cyril a “victim of an alliance between Latins and Orthodox.” And S. Makraios likewise observes (p. 221): “Thus the hierarchs and the gentry of the nation wavered, being tossed about by the force of winds from without!”
  107.   Runciman, pp. 358-359. And even Skouvaras accepts that the reaction of the hierarchs occurred because “the matter was stirred by Cyril inopportunely and thoughtlessly, without foreseeing its unfavorable effects on the relations of the Orthodox with the Christian world of the West, from which they always hoped to receive help and national recovery” (p. 54).
  108.   Runciman, p. 358. Ware (p. 76) also accepts that the Patriarch of Antioch refused to sign, “not because he disagreed with the Definition as such, but because Cyril lacked the support of his Metropolitans.”
  109.   Runciman, p. 357.
  110.   It is sufficient to look at the position on this issue of but two writers, non-theologians: on the one hand, that of E. Skouvaras, who was influenced by Cyril’s opponents; and on the other, that of T. A. Gritsopoulos, Θ.Η.Ε. 7 (1965), col. 1193-1197, and Ε.Ε.Β.Σ., vol. 29 (1959), pp. 367-389.
  111.   See above page 24. Cf. Mansi 38:607C. Just the fact that the question was raised concerning the (re)baptism of the “Latins of Galatas” proves that there was a problem of alteration of the sacrament in the West. The historian Sergios Makraios also affirms this: “…for a time it seemed to the priests in Galatas worthy of wonder and discussion, whether to anoint with chrism the Latins joining Christ’s blameless Church, or to baptize them, as having wholly rejected the Lord’s baptism and preferred the inventions of their own priests” (p. 203; cf. pp. 220, 408f.).
  112.   Skouvaras, pp.161, 194-195, 197, et al.
  113.   Mansi 38:601.
  114.   Ibid., col. 602.
  115.   Decretum Synodale… from 28 April 1755, in Mansi 38:611A f. Skouvaras, judging the attacks against Cyril, also accepts that “the Latins and Uniates saw this as a ‘disturbance of the smooth social relations,’ and ‘an insult launched against their faith.”’ The ambassadors of the Western kings were troubled. “They correctly perceived that with this spreading and becoming established, their interests within the borders of the Ottoman empire are in many ways harmed. Hence they tried to counter-act it, both openly and behind the scenes.” They fought Cyril, “cleverly rousing against him the Ottomans in power,” while on the other hand, they “threatened to proceed with economic reprisals and to take religious countermeasures against the numerous Greek diaspora” (p. 53).
  116.   Mansi 38:611A – 613A.
  117.   Mansi 38:615AB. Apparently this book by Christophoros Aitolos circulated in manuscript form before its publication in 1756.
  118.   Mansi 38:613CD.
  119.   Skouvaras, p. 52.
  120.   Ibid.
  121.   Ibid., p. 53.
  122.   Cf. Vapheidis, p. 59. That Cyril’s aim was to guard the Orthodox flock from proselytism by revealing the difference in the baptism is also repeatedly noted by the historian of Cyril’s time, Sergios Makraios, p. 214f. And specifically he writes that Cyril “spoke against their innovation from the throne, and he permitted those who wished to censure the Latins’ new inventions against the correct faith, and their strange beliefs, to speak out and to write without fear, correctly judging hollow friendship more harmful than overt enmity. For what evil, small or great, did they not do, fabricating friendship and pretending Christianity?” (p. 217).
  123.   Runciman accepts something to the same effect (p. 357).
  124.   Here we must return to Sergios Makraios’ exposition (see above n. 238). He continues: “…for they preserved the ancient and God-given baptism; but even if something of this sort did occur in some places, i.e. affusion or aspersion which later became prevalent, it was not common or known to all. Actually, it was reported that something of this sort was being practiced in some places; it was an occasional error, not a crime of the Church at large. But because during the eighteenth ecclesiastical century the ill-introduced aspersion overflowed and abounded in the West, and the God-given baptism was rather neglected, or was converted into affusions and aspersions, she [i.e. the Church through Cyril] pronounced those who were thus sprinkled unbaptized, as not having received the God-given baptism, and urged that such converts be baptized. But she had not as yet issued an inviolable definition on this, hoping for the conversion and correction of the West, and for the purging of their faulty and irreconcilable ritual…, hence, it is necessary to baptize those who come over to the Orthodox Church, some as being unbaptized, and others as being questionable because of the confusion regarding the ritual. So it was from this time on [i.e. the 18th cen.] that the Eastern Church began to cry out against the Western Church, accusing the latter of having rejected the Lord’s baptism…and accordingly she pronounced those who had undergone affusion or aspersion unbaptized, and permitted her priests to baptize converts…” (pp. 408-409). So, in explaining the reason for Patriarch Cyril’s decision and motives, S. Makraios accepts that it was then that “for the first time” an official decision was taken concerning (re)baptism of Western converts. And this is true. What is significant here, however, is that he describes these things in exactly the same way as our writers do, and indeed C. Oikonomos, who was aware of Makraios’ text. Makraios does not condemn Cyril’s decision in any way, but as an historian he is interested in showing why the East was forced to take such a decision, and when this occurred.
  125.   O, p. 513; cf. p. 486f.
  126.   Ibid.
  127.   O, p. 514.
  128.   He was receiving a lifetime pension from Russia.
  129.   O, pp. 486-487.
  130.   O, p. 489.
  131.   O, p. 480f. Oikonomos maintained that if economia be deemed necessary by an “Ecumenical Council,” “in any case, the Church of Christ shall do what is deemed right.” And he continues: “The individual servants and ministers of the Church… speaking what befits sound doctrine…shall not act unjustly towards the most sacred rules of our Fathers on account of the reconciliation of those who had been separated, by spinning flax and wool together, and by accepting what is vainly propounded by the heterodox in defense and justification of the unlawful innovations which have been dared by them… And when they, who from heresies wish to come over to Orthodoxy, for one reason or another request the concession and economia regarding baptism, to them the approved and unashamed laborer of God shall unadulteratedly teach aright the word of truth when he catechizes them, gently instructing and reminding them that it is not arrogance which prescribes the divine laws and resolves the restitution by rejection.”
  132.   See P, pp. 53, 56-57. O, p. 511. And Neophytos (E, p. 147 xi), relying on Canon CII of Penthekte, also notes: “For it says we need to know both, the ways of acrivia and the ways of custom, and to follow the delivered form, i.e. the custom, and acrivia proportionately, not only for the penitent, but also, as has been shown, for those who convert from heresy.”
  133.   O, p. 515.
  134.   O, p. 511. Likewise, according to St. Nikodemos: “With economia passed, the Apostolic Canons should resume their place” P, p. 57.
  135.   Indicative of this are St. Nikodemos’ remarks: “The erroneous beliefs and unlawful customs of the Latins and the other heretics we ought to abhor and shun. But if there be something in them that is correct and verified by the Canons of the holy Councils, this we ought not to abhor.” Eortodromion (Venice, 1836), p. 584 n. Cf. Theocletos, Monk of Dionysiou, pp. 190-202, 287.
  136.   O, pp. 481, 484-485.
  137.    “And if the reception of non-Orthodox by concession becomes generally formalized, then the genuine baptism will be in danger of being abandoned by the very Orthodox themselves (there being, unhappily, no one defending it)!” O, p. 514. There is evidence that, already in the United States of America, the Latin aspersion is also used by the Orthodox, and not canonical baptism! See Chrysostomos Stratman, Orthodox Baptism and Economy (Chicago, n.d.), p. 29.
  138.    “Economia, too, has its limits, and its measure of things, and its times, preserving the Church continually calm and unagitated and whole, lest by using too much economia she violate the law, and present her seasonal concessions and condescensions as being regular and of equal force with the acrivia of the divine laws from which she condescended” O, p. 433.
  139.   As early as Aug. 9, 1755, Ephraim Athenaios, later Patriarch of Jerusalem, in reaction to the Cyril V business, writes: “Since things are leading the Church to a great schism, a supreme high Council is necessary to order these matters in truth, with prayers and entreaties” (Mansi 38:631C; cf. 633B).
  140.   See Karmiris, vol. II, p. 978. The fact speaks for itself that from that time on, to the students of the Theological School of Halki were assigned scholarly “theses” (and “dissertations”) with the subject of the “baptism” of the non-Orthodox. Such are (in Greek): 1876, Nikephoros Zervos, “That the Orthodox and valid baptism is that which is performed by three immersions and the same number of emersions”; 1878, Anastasios Hatzipanayiotou, “Which is the valid baptism”; 1887, Amvrosios Galanakis, “That aspersion is an innovation”; 1913, Demetrios Karayiannidis, “The validity of heretical baptism”; 1917, George Garophalidis, “The validity of heretical baptism” (published); 1922, Gerasimos Kalokairinos, “What makes baptism valid”; 1937, Ioakeim Loukas, “The validity of heretical baptism”; 1947, Demetrios Demetriadis, “The place of the baptism of Catholics and Protestants who come over to Orthodoxy.” (See V. Th. Stavridis, Η Ιερά Θεολογική Σχολή της Χάλκης (The Sacred Theological School of Halki), vol. I (1844-1923), Athens, 1970, and vol. II (1923 until today), Athens, 1968). A comparative study of these works would reveal the development of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position and theology regarding non-Orthodox.
  141.   See Androutsos, (Dogmatic…), p. 308. Same author, (Symbology…), p.306. Karmiris, vol. II, p. 975.
  142.   E, p. 145. Cf. Athanasios the Great, Letter on the Councils 6, 1. PG 26:689AB.
  143.   An obvious allusion to Latin aspersion.
  144.   O, p. 480.
  145.   Ibid.
  146.   O, p. 480.
  147.   O, p. 515.
  148.   John 3:5.
  149.   PG 59:153.
  150.   Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, PG 46:585.
  151.   Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, PG 73:245.
  152.   Matthew 28:19.
  153.   Apostolic Canon L (50).
  154.   On Ecclesiastical Hierarchies II, 7. PG 3:396.
  155.   Canon VII (7).
  156.   Canon XCV (95).
  157.   S. C. Papageorgiou, Ιστορία της Εκκλησίας της Κερκύρας (History of the Church of Kerkyra) (Kerkyra, 1920), pp. 131-137.
  158.   Historical Archives of Kerkyra, Metropolitan’s File no. 57, fol. 6-7-.
  159.   On him, see Elias Tsitselis, Κεφαλληνιακά Σύμμικτα (Cephalonian Miscellany), vol. II (Athens, 1960), pp. 570-573.
  160.   P.R.O., C.O. 136/313. fol. 29-39, no. 104. Bathurst’s document to F. Adam dated 14 Oct. 1826 (cf C.O. 136/188, fol. 296-304).
  161.   The English “Patronage” took upon itself to guarantee the vested interests of the Churches and religious minorities.
  162.   C.O. 136/313, fol. 36b. Bathurst’s following comment is indicative of the prevailing climate: “As I observe, however, that it is at the same time admitted, that this second baptism is not performed publicly, but with the doors of the church closed, it is to be hoped that this has not by any means become a general practice, and that you will, therefore, have the less difficulty in suppressing it!” (fol. 36b-37a). It is true indeed tat, under Western (Roman Catholic and Protestant) occupation, baptisms of Western converts demanded great heroism; hence they were rare, or they were performed in secret and therefore remained unknown. A typical example is the case of the English Lord Frederick North-Guilford (1766-1827). In Jan. 1791, the English noble, the son of a Prime Minister, became Orthodox, by canonical baptism, according to his own demand. For, as he states in his own handwritten “Confession,” he had not received this as an Anglican, and he believed Orthodoxy to be the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,” outside of which there are no sacraments. He took the name Demetrios. On this, see the study by Kallistos Ware (Bishop of Diokleia), “The Fifth Earl of Guilford (1766-1827) and his Secret Conversion to the Orthodox Church,” The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. D. Baker (Studies in Church History, vol. 13) (Oxford, 1976), pp. 247-256. Guilford is the most significant proof that baptisms of Western converts occurred even during the Venetia rule of the Ionian Islands, but they were kept secret for obvious reasons. And for years, Guilford, too, maintained absolute secrecy on this matter. See G. D. Metallinos, “Οι Τρεις Ιεράρχαι ‘Προστάται’ της Ιονίου Ακαδημίας” (“The Three Hierarch ‘Patrons’ of the Ionian Academy”), Αντίδωρον Πνευματικόν (volume in honor of G. I. Konidaris) (Athens, 1981), pp. 287-288; same author “Η Ιόνιος Ακαδημία – Κριτική παρουσίαση του ομώνυμου βιβλίου το E. P. Henderson” (“The Ionian Academy – A critical presentation of E. P. Henderson’s book by the same title”), Παρνασσός ΚΓ’ (1981), p. 332ff.
  163.   Fol. 44f.
  164.   As stated in a Report by Roman Catholics of Kerkyra sent to the Vatican and communicated to London: “That schismatic bishop impudently boasts that 136 Catholics have gone over to the Greek religion since he held his high office” (1824), fol. 63b-64a.
  165.   See P. Grigoriou, (Catholic-Orthodox Relations) (Athens, 1958). From the Orthodox side, see Papageorgiou, p. 45ff, and particularly the special study by A. Ch. Tsitsas, Η Εκκλησία της Κερκύρας κατά την Λατινοκρατίαν 1267-1795 (The Church of Kerkyra during the Latin Rule 1267-1795) (Kerkyra, 1969). The prevailing conditions on the Ionian Islands and in the other areas under Latin rule are presupposed and depicted in the study by J. Kotsonis (ex-Archbishop of Athens),  Η από κανονικής απόψεως αξία της μυστηριακής επικοινωνίας Ανατολικών και Δυτικών επί Φραγκοκρατίας και Ενετοκρατίας (The Merit of Sacramental Intercourse of Easterns and Westerns during the Frankish and Venetian Rules from a Canonical Point of View) (Thessaloniki, 1957).
  166.   Fol. 66a. The criteria under which the Roman Catholics viewed the issue of the (re)baptisms are exhibited in the following questions which they submitted to the Vatican: “Is not this an affront to the Catholic and Roman Church? And what an insult to the Catholics residing in Corfu?” Ibid. The spiritual, traditional and theological criteria were, already by that time, completely inert!
  167.   P.R.O., C.O. 136/38, fol. 13. Report by F. Adam to Bathurst from Kerkyra, 16 Jan. 1827.
  168.   Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments…, vol. II, p. 991ff.
  169.   Μικρόν Ευχολόγιον ή Αγιασματάριον, 11th ed. (Athens: Apostolike Diakonia of the Church of Greece, 1992), pp. 110-113.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published.