u/Ok-Mushroom6586

Peter Heers is desperate for his views on compulsory rebaptism to be seen as the traditional Patristic view. As a result he has to explain away an awful lot of inconvenient evidence. One difficult piece of evidence is the Council of Constantinople of 1484 that accepted Roman Catholic converts to Orthodoxy by chrismation. 

Heers claims that Roman Catholics were still baptising by triple immersion in the 15th century. He states, “By this time, the Latins had not yet universally abandoned the practice of baptizing in three immersions, so the canonical presoppositions for the application of economy remained mostly intact among the Latins.” Peter Heers, ‘On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria,’ Orthodox Ethos, 2022, pp. 212. Thus the Council of Constantinople of 1484 is not contradicting the Oros of 1755 that demanded that the formula (trinitarian) and form (triple immersion) as BOTH needed for a valid baptism. Heers supposes that the change to baptism by pouring happened between the 16th century and the 18th century.

It is this claim that I wish to challenge in this post. 

The main problem is the lack of sources. Few Greek Orthodox texts from the 13th to 17th centuries have been published and almost none have been translated into English. For example Fr. George Dragas in his article ‘The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholics into the Orthodox Church” mentions that Patriarch Germanos II of Constantinople (in the 13th century) wrote a treatise that mentions that some Latins were baptising by pouring but this treatise has yet to be published by remains in manuscript.

I will look at two texts that show that baptism by pouring was normative for Roman Catholics in the 14th century (at the latest) and was known to Orthodox theologians. While critical of Roman Catholic baptismal practices, they were not seen to invalidate their baptisms.

A) The first text comes from the Hesychast monk Matthios Angelos Panaretos, who lived in the 14th century. He wrote a number of treatise against Roman Catholicism that have recently been translated into English,

These include:

1.Refutation of Thomas Aquinas‘ “De rationibus fidei.”

2. Against the Papacy

3. Against the Filioque

4. On the 24 Heresies of the Latins

5. On Hot Water in Divine Mysteries

6.  Against the Unleavened Bread

The work I’m interested in is ‘On the 24 Heresies of the Latins.’ In this work Panaretos shows specific knowledge that the Latins baptise by pouring. Here is the relevant passage

“XI. The Latins do not baptize by immersion in a font, but are content with washing the head alone of the one being baptized with water poured from above, neither anointing those being baptized with oil nor pouring oil three times into the font or into the poured water, as the great Dionysios says. For this reason they are not baptized with the baptism of the Lord but are merely washed with a simple washing. The divine Apostle will now instruct us for what purpose baptism is given to the faithful, and in this way we shall understand the Latin presumption and heterodoxy in this matter as well. The blessed Paul therefore says: "As many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3-4). Baptism is therefore a type of the three-day burial and the Resurrection of the Lord. For the font is a type of the tomb. The three immersions into it are a type of the burial and the three-day descent of the Lord into the earth, and the emergence and ascent out of the font is a type of the Resurrection of the Lord. How then does one who does not baptize in this way confer the baptism of the Lord, and how does he not administer baptism far from the tradition of the holy Apostles? And how will one who has not been baptized according to the death of the Lord and the apostolic tradition partake of the Resurrection of the Lord?” (pages 12-13 of the Academia translation)

Panaretos goes on to cite the Apostolic Canons and acknowledges that emergency baptisms are valid but points out that normative Roman Catholic baptisms are not emergencies, As a side note nowhere does Panaretos consider Roman Catholic baptisms to be invalid because of this. I would encourage people to read the whole work.

(15) Matthaios Angelos Panaretos: Refutation of Thomas Aquinas' De rationibus Fidei 

(15) Matthaios Angelos Panarentos: 5 Works Against the Latins 

Here is the Pinakes reference (a database of Greek manuscripts)

Pinakes | Πίνακες - Notice : Matthaeus Angelus Panaretus 

B) Saint Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonika (died c. 1429) was author of many works as can be seen by his Pinakes entry. 

Three works of St. Symeon on Thessalonika have been translated into English and published by Patristic Nectar Publications - Dialogues Against All Heresies, Letter Against the Latins and On Prayer. In these works Symeon shows complete awareness that Roman Catholics baptise by pouring.

“There is also a problem with baptism. For they do not perform it with three immersions, but with three pourings, and without chrism.” (Symeon of Thessalonika, Against All Heresies, p. 125.

“They [the Latins] baptize by pouring and without anointing, contrary to what Dionysius writes. The anointing with chrism is not given in that moment to those who are being baptized. Neither is this done in accordance with the apostolic form.” (Symeon of Thessalonika, Letter Against the Latins, p. 281)

Symeon of Thessalonika (trans. Tikhon Alexander Pino), Against All Heresies with the Discourse Against the Latins and Chapters on Prayer, Patristic Nectar Publications, 2024)

Against All Heresies: with Dialogue Against the Latins and Chapters on Prayer (PAPERBACK) 

Pinakes | Πίνακες - Notice : Symeon Thessalonicensis archiep. 

Conclusion

Both Matthios Angelos Panarentos and St. Symeon of Thessalonika know Roman Catholics baptise by pouring. St. Mark of Ephesus would have been aware of this. The bishops at the Council of Constantinople in 1484 would have been well aware of this. Yet it took until 1755 for this to be an issue. This is clear evidence that the Oros of 1755 was not some return to some Patristic norm but an angry reaction to Roman Catholic missionary aggression not a response to a recent change in Roman Catholic baptismal practices.

As an Orthodox Christian I've always found the Roman claim to be the "Mother Church" to be strange. Jerusalem is clearly the mother church.

Rome claims to have have sent out missionaries (like the Seven Apostles of Gaul) around the West. Even this claims seems to be a bit dubious. But I'm not sure why the term "Mother Church" applies to the East.

I know that St. John Lateran in Rome has the inscription “Mother and Head of all the Churches in the City and the World” at its entrance but I'm not sure when it dates from.

It is used in Canon 4 of the Lateran Council of 1215

"4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins

Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church’s honour...Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice."

Why on earth would the people of the Byzantine Empire see Rome as 'their mother"?

What I'm interested in are the earliest usage of the term. Anyone know anything?

Anyone who has read publications from Uncut Mountain Press will quickly find they are totally obsessed with the Patriarchal Oros of 1755 that stated all baptisms done without triple Immersion are invalid.

I was reading a book called 'The Orthodox Patristic Witness Concerning Catholicism' when I found this reference to the Oros of 1755;

"However, the weight of the Oros of 1755 signed by the three Holy Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, although not always used, has remained in force and has never been revoked to to the present day." Orthodox Ethos, The Orthodox Patristic Witness Concerning Catholicism, Uncut Mountain Press, 2024, p. 277.

So there was a footnote at the end of that sentence that referenced page 78 of Kallistos Ware's book (when he was a layman named Timothy) on the rebaptism conversy (the title refers to a major participant named Eustratios Argenti).

When I looked at the page this is what it said;

"But Cyril's Definition (the Oros) remained in force, and although it was not always strictly applied, officially it was neither revoked or modified for more than a hundred years." Timothy (Kallistos) Ware, "Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church Under Turkish Rule," Oxford University Press, 1964, p. 78.

The other source (and referenced) by the Orthodox Ethos Team is the Introduction for the Critical Edition of the Oros by Vassa Kontouma. In this Introduction Kontouma makes it clear that Oros was revoked by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1875 when he gave individual bishops the authority to investigate the validity of Non-Orthodox baptisms for themselves. See page 351 of the introduction.

https://www.academia.edu/127959189/The_so_called_Synod_of_Constantinople_1755_1756_Decree_of_the_three_Patriarchs_on_Rebaptism

So the Orthodox Ethos Team is saying the opposite of its sources in some kind of attempt to "prove" that the Oros is still in force (so all new converts need to be rebaptised. Caught red handed.

Anyone else got other examples of poor scholarship from the guys at Orthodox Ethos? I'm interested.

The Byzantine Lists has been out of print for 25 years and deserves to be reprinted. Kolbaba analyses a dozen Byzantine polemical texts to look at the accusations they made against the Roman Church in the early centuries after the schism. Some of the texts are from competent theologians while others are from semi-literate ‘populists’ who are more interested in the number of differences rather than their importance (many of which are cultural differences). If you are interested in Orthodox/Roman Catholic relations during the 11th to 13th centuries then give this book a look.

These are the texts

1. Photios (text dated to early 867) - Encyclical to the Eastern Sees
2. Michael Keroularios, Patriarch of Constantinople (text dated to 1054) - Letter to Peter II, Patriarch of Antioch
3. First Anonymous (text dated after 1054) - The Things which are done and taught by the Franks contrary to the Orthodox Faith
4. John II, Metropolitan of Kiev (text dated to 1080)  Letter to Clement, Pope of Old Rome
5. Theophylact of Bulgaria (text dated to 1090) - Treatise on Those who Accuse the Latins
6. John of Claudiopolis (text dated to 1100) - On the Azymes
7. Niketas Seides - On the Many Differences Regarding the Law
8. Opusculum contra Francos (text dated before 1178)
9. Konstantinos Stilbes (text dated to 1204) - The Faults of the Latin Church, Dogma, Scriptures and Many Other Matters
10. Anonymous (text dated after 1277) - Dialogue of Panagiotes with an Azymite
11. Pseudo-Athanasius (II of Alexandria) (text dated 1276) - Letter to All Christians
12. Meletios Homologetes Galesiotes (text dated between 1266-1280) - Poem Against the Latins
13. Second Anonymous (text dated 1281) - The Heresies of the Franks and Their Neighbours

Tia Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. pp. 173-183.

Kolbaba also has a list of the most popular accusations by Byzantine Polemicists. Here is the list in the order that Kolbaba sets out in her book;

1. Fasting on the Sabbath
2. Eating Unclean Foods
3. They use unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist
4. Not Accepting married priests
5. Adding the filioque to the Creed
6. Not fasting properly during Lent
7. Baptising Incorrectly (mostly not having confirmation but some claiming baptism by one immersion)
8. They permit marriage within forbidden degrees
9. Their monks eat lard and meat
10. They do not chant the Alleluia during Lent
11. Bishops and priests fight in battles
12. They do not revere icons
13. Their bishops wear rings
14. They do not revere the Virgin Mary
15. They trace a cross on the ground and then walk on it
16. They make the sign of the cross incorrectly
17. They kiss people instead of giving them communion
18. They celebrate more than one Eucharist per day per altar, per church, or per priest
19. Their priests save
20. They bury people improperly
21. They have insufficient reverence for the altar and the sanctuary
22. Their clergy dress improperly
23. They sit when they should stand during the liturgy and they talk to one another even at the holiest comments

24.They do not respect the Greek Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom

25. They do not fast weekly on Wednesday, and their Friday fast is not sufficiently rigorous

26. They have added the phrase “with the Holy Spirit” to the Gloria

27. They perform the entire Mass during Lent

28. They perform the rite of ordination only four times a year

29. They practice “Judaic” purifactory rites

30. They say that God must be praised only in Hebrew, Greek and Roman

31. They do various unseemly things during the week before Easter (Holy Week)

Tia Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. pp. 189-202.

As you can see there are a wide variety of accusations. Some of them important. Some of them less important. Some of them erroneous. There were many individual treatises on the Filioque and the Aymes (unleavened Eucharistic bread). It took a while for Byzantine theologians to realise the Post-Schism Papacy was an issue so that was added in the 14th century or took the form of letter exchanges between the Pope and the Patriarchs of Constantinople (such as the Patriarch John X Camaterus and Pope Innocent III).

Three observations

1. The main criticism of Roman Catholic baptismal practice is that they don’t chrismate straight after baptism. 
2. Eight of the texts studied by Kolbaba accuse Roman Catholics of baptising with one immersion (starting with Michael Cerularius, where they all probably got it from) but none of the Byzantine polemicists ever accused the Roman Catholics of being unbaptised. Curiously enough, there is NO actual external evidence that Roman Catholics in the 11th, 12th or 13th centuries ever baptised by a single immersion and none of the authors ever claim to be an eyewitness. Scholars are still wondering where it came from. 
3. There is no criticism of baptism by pouring (it never comes up) even though evidence suggests Roman Catholics were regularly doing that in the 13th century.

You can access the book here

KOLBABA, T., Byzantine Lists, 2000 | PDF 

And here - you will need to set up an account with Internet Archive

The Byzantine lists : errors of the Latins : Kolbaba, Tia M., 1963- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive 

Before Roman Catholics get too triumphalist there are similar lists circulating among you. My favourite is from the 16th century Latin community of Cyprus that has 78 items in its list.

Anyone read it?

Any comments or thoughts? Anything you would like to add to the list?

Here are the canons on the Papacy from the Ecumenical Councils. They offer almost no support for a Papacy that operates like the Post-schism Papacy of today. The most glaring omissions are the lack of reference to the Petrine prooftexts and a total absence of the notion of ex cathedra or infallibility.

Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD)

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum02.htm

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

I know Pope Leo rejected this canon but the modern Papacy accepts it (and the East accepted it almost immediately. In subsequent Ecumenical Councils Constantinople was always ranked second)

The lack of Ecumenical validation for the Papacy means Roman Catholic apologists resort to three tactics.

1. Try to turn statements in the minutes of councils into some kind significant dogmatic statements. The most common is the short phrase "Peter has spoken through Leo" at Chalcedon. Almost always the full acclamation is never quoted. It goes like this:

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe." Acts of Chalcedon, session 2

The fuller version makes the Papacy seem less unique at the council.

The other is this statement from Philip the Presbyter (one of the Papal legates) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD

(31) Philip, presbyter and legate of the apostolic see, said: ‘It is doubtful to no one, rather it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the leader and head of the apostles, the pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of heaven from our Lord Jesus Christ the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and was given the power to bind and unloose sins,” and that he lives and performs judgement, until now and always, through his successors. In accordance with this system, his successor and representative, our holy and most blessed pope Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this council as substitutes for his presence, a council that [was convoked] by the most Christian and most philanthropic emperors, who keep in mind and always protect the catholic faith, and who have protected and protect the apostolic teaching handed down to them till this day by their most pious and most philanthropic fathers and grandfathers of holy memory.” Taking thought for the council, as we have said already, they have decreed that the catholic faith, which has been protected from ages past til this day, should continue as before, unshaken. Nestorius, the author of the new distortion and the fountain head of the evil, when summoned and cited, as we have learnt from the conciliar proceedings, scorned to come to trial according to the ordinances of the fathers and the discipline of the canons, even though he ought to have offered himself spontaneously to so great and holy an assembly, in order to receive spiritual healing and recover health. But when summoned to the holy council, as I have already said, canonically and according to the discipline of the canons, he refused to attend, since he has a cauterized conscience, [even though he was aware] that not only the extension granted by the apostolic see but many intervals of time had passed. It was therefore a secure judgement, when (regarding one who in a hostile spirit and with an impious tongue dared to blaspheme against our Lord Jesus Christ) in a decree of all the churches (since they took part together in this priestly assembly, through those present and through legates from the church in both East and West) the priests present for this reason, following the ordinances of the fathers, and the present holy council issued a decree against the rash blasphemer, and delivered a sentence to the effect that he who did not respect correction has his lot with the one of whom it was said, “His episcopacy let another take.” Therefore let Nestorius know that he is banished from the communion of the priesthood of the catholic church.’ Richard Price, The Acts of Ephesus, Liverpool University Press, 2020, p. 378.

Philip makes statements that an unsuspecting observer might think are more important than they really are. For example, Philip refers to Rome as THE Apostolic See which is curious as the East was FULL of Apostolic Sees. It was commonly thought that the keys and the power to loose and bind were the same and applied to all the Apostles. Likewise all bishops were seen as protectors of the catholic faith and judges. At Ephesus 250 bishops judged Nestorius. The Papal legates came to judge but so did everyone else.

I have also been told that the bishops at Ephesus not shouting Philip the Presbyter down when he spoke means they totally accepted everything he said (and with the same meaning). I find that interpretation rather tenuous.

Interestingly, Pastor aeternus cites Philip the Presbyter's comments at the Council of Ephehus as evidence for Papal infallibility.

2. Another approach is to reject or minimise Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The letters of complaint from Pope Leo are immediately brought forward. What is often neglected is that Rome had already accepted the canons of Constantinople I in 382, including Canon 3, and that the entire East accepted Canon 28, regardless of Leo's rejection. The Eastern bishops didn't care that Leo was unhappy. In the subsequent Ecumenical Councils attended by Roman legates (Constantinople II in 553, Constantinople III in 680 and Nicaea II in 787) the Patriarchs of Constantinople were honoured with the 2nd rank as specified in Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Rome "officially" accepted Canon 28 at the Lateran Council of 1215. Conveniently, Constantinople had recently been conquered by the Latins and a Papal yes man had been installed as Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Chieti statement from 2016 from the Roman Catholic Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity makes it clear that the Pentarchy, with Constantinople in 2nd place, was normative.

This is clearly expressed in section 15. "Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition."

https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html

3. Papal Letters

The final tactic is to give Papal letters dogmatic significance. The Tome of Leo and Agatho's two letters (one to the Emperor and one to the Council) are often seen as key evidence for Papal claims.The Fathers at the councils were interested in the theological content of the letters and not anything else. The reading of Agatho's letters, for example, did not imply that they agreed with everything Agatho said. The reading was not an endorsement. Agatho can say Rome has been 100% totally consistent in defending truth but then the council can turn around and condemn Pope Honorius for heresy. Too often Roman Catholics think just because a letter was read or nobody complained it implied a total acceptance. As a side note, it is often neglected that Agatho spoke for the synod of 120 bishops who met at Rome prior to the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Conclusion

Neither the canons, the minutes or the Letters presented at Ecumenical Councils are seen as infallibility. That honour goes to the Dogmatic Decrees of the Council and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The canons do hold a certain authority too as they are corporate documents. The various letters and documents are important because many are written by saints. No one thinks the minutes have any dogmatic significance.

For Orthodoxy, the Seven Ecumenical Councils give no support for the Popes being unique divinely appointed successors of Peter with unilateral authority and infallibility.

Thoughts?

The internet is full of poor information so when I found an article on Horos of 1756 I thought I'd share it as it doesn't have many views.

It is the introduction to a critical edition of the Horos for the series Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta 861 to 1872 published by Brepols. The author of the introduction as well as editor of the Greek text of the Horos is Vassa Kontouma.

https://www.academia.edu/127959189/The_so_called_Synod_of_Constantinople_1755_1756_Decree_of_the_three_Patriarchs_on_Rebaptism

What did I learn from the introduction?

The Horos (Decree) was a reaction to aggressive Roman Catholic proselytism (such as causing the schism in Antioch in 1724) and not a return to patristic norm.

"The high clergy and the intellectuals were opposed to Rebaptism, while the people (of Constantinople) and the merchants supported it enthusiastically." (page 347)

A charismatic monk named Auxentios was instrumental in whipping up support for Rebaptism. Apparently he preached about it every day.

The holy synod of Constantinople condemned a work by a follower of Patriarch Cyril V (who advocated Rebaptism) named Christophoros Aitolos. Cyril then dismissed the holy synod and issued the Horos in his name and Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem. (If you know anything about Orthodox ecclesiology then you know it is three bishops who support the Horos not three churches). Despite the claim to the contrary the Horos was never signed by a synod of bishops.

Vassa Kontouma considers Eustratios Argenti as the real author of the Horos rather than Cyril V. See page 350 of the introduction.

The Horos was revoked by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1875 when he gave individual bishops the authority to investigate the validity of Non-Orthodox baptisms for themselves. See page 351 of the introduction.

On a personal note, if you read Timothy Ware's (bishop Kallistos when he was still a layman) book "Eustratios Argenti" and the article on the Horos by Father George Dragas you will find that when the Horos was active (1755-1875) there were still lots of exemptions issued.

I’ve been going through the Orthodox Ethos book on the Reception of the Heterodox very carefully. For the sake of convenience I will refer to Peter Heers as the author as the book is published anonymously. I suspect the book is a group effort but Heers must have had some oversight as it is published by his own publishing house.

Heers references Theodore the Studite six times. See Peter Heers, ‘On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria,’ Orthodox Ethos, 2022, pp. 10, 94-95, 136-137, 196, 402. In Chapter 6 he brings up numerous saints that reject the rites of heretics. This is what he says about Theodore the Studite.

“St.Theodore the Studite (+ 826) defended the veneration of icons and also triumphed at the Seventh Ecumenical Council. St. Theodore was very explicit that Communion received from heretics is not the body and blood of Christ but is “poison” that associates the person who receives such Communion with the devil rather than Christ.” Then follows a series of quotes from Theodore

“Communion received from heretics alienates a man from God and associates him with the devil”

“[In the Eucharist] the heretics' bread is not the Body of Christ.”

“The difference between Orthodox and heretical Communion is the same as the difference between light and darkness. The Orthodox one enlightens, the heretical one darkens; the former unites with Christ, the latter with the devil; the first revitalises the soul, the second kills it.” 

“Communion from heretical hands is poison, not simple bread.”

Peter Heers, ‘On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria,’ Orthodox Ethos, 2022, pp. 136-137.

You might wonder why Peter Heer’s quoting about the Eucharist in a book about baptism? He is trying to create the impression that if Theodore the Studite rejected the Eucharist of heretics then this same logic must apply for baptism. Curiously, Heers references Theodore the Studite’s Letter 40 on the reception of heretics but it is discussed in such an opaque way that Theodore’s real views are obscured. In Letter 40 (Migne PG 99) Theodore says he accepts heretics three ways (by a confession of faith or chrismation or baptism depending on the level of their christological error) following Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo and the Handbook on the Reception of Heretics by Timothy, presbyter of Constantinople (Minge, PG 86, col. 12-69). Most of Theodore the Studite’s Letter is about the relationship with Iconoclastic clergy not baptism so he does not discuss the form of baptism (he does bring up the formula) or the application of economia for baptism. The only time economia comes up in the letter is when Theodore allows presbyters who are Orthodox but have an Iconoclastic bishop (who they commemorate in the liturgy) to attend the singing of Psalms and communional meal in his monasteries (but not celebrate the liturgy). Once the presbyter has made an Orthodox confession (presumably to reject Iconoclasm unconditionally) then Theodore allows him to be accepted. Theodore says about the confession to ‘...be content with it’ rather than doubting or second guessing the sincerity of the presbyter.

The introduction of ‘The Reception of Heterodox’ says, “This book will examine the sources of the patristic teaching on the reception of heterodox into the Orthodox Church, discuss and examine various criticisms raised against this teaching, and present the patristic consensus and criteria regarding the reception of the heterodox into the Church.” Peter Heers, ‘On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus and Criteria,’ Orthodox Ethos, 2022, p. 21. Heers tries to present Theodore the Studite as representing his views that compulsory rebaptism was normative to stack the Church Fathers to support his view but this is not borne out by the evidence from Theodore the Studite. As with many of Peter Heers prooftexts they often follow the opposite of what he implies they follow. Ultimately, the claims in the book are only convincing to the uninformed or naive.

A number of Roman Catholic apologists (Erick Ybarra and Micheal Lofton spring to mind) criticise Orthodoxy for the divergent ways we receive converts from Roman Catholicism. Some are rebaptised, some are chrismated, while others are received by a confession of faith. They claim the consistency of Roman Catholic practice receiving Orthodox converts (by a declaration of faith) shows our need for a magisterium. Like many of the things Roman Catholics criticise us for, they are equally guilty of the same inconsistency. I have found some examples of this inconsistency. 

I would like more examples to add to my list. Let me know if you know of other examples.

There have been a number of periods where Roman Catholics have rebaptised Orthodox Christians. These come from places where Orthodox and Roman Catholics are in close contact.

14th-16th century Poland

14th-15th century Hungary

17th century Balkans, Polish-Lithuanan Commonwealth and Middle East

20th century Croatia

Text 1 - Medieval Poland

“The grouping of Russian ‘schismatics’ together with the ‘infidels’ is a characteristic feature of both papal and Polish mentality of this period and is reflected in the well-documented practice, in areas controlled by either Hungary or Poland, of rebaptising Orthodox Christians converting to the Latin Church. Such a demand was imposed - unsuccessfully, of course - upon the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologus, by King Louis and his mother, Elizabeth of Poland (sister of Casimir), during John’s visit to Buda in 1366, and the Hungarians actually baptised Prince Stracimir of Bulgaria and many of his subjects.” John Meyendorf, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century, SVS Press: Crestwood, NY, 1989, p. 66.

Text 2 - Medieval Lithuania and Poland

“In February 1386, a series of spectacular ceremonies took place in Cracow: on the 15th, although an Orthodox Christian, Jacob-Jagiello was rebaptised and received the Roman Catholic name of Ladislas (Vladislaw); on the 18th, he married Queen Jadwiga; on 4 March, he was crowned king.”John Meyendorf, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century, SVS Press: Crestwood, NY, 1989, p. 243.

Other examples of high profile individuals being baptised (who are most likely to appear in historical records) are Sophia of Halshany in 1422, the fourth wife of Jagiello. 

Text 3 - Medieval Lithuania

“Vitovt, later Grand-prince of Lithuania, was until his death in 1430, the main champion of Lithuania’s independence and nourished vast projects of expansion…in 1386, he was rebaptised, together with Jagiello, into Roman Catholicism.” John Meyendorf, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A study of Byzantino-Russian Relations in the Fourteenth Century, SVS Press: Crestwood, NY, 1989, p. 244-45)

Text 4 - Medieval Bulgaria

“It should be mentioned in passing that the Greeks were not the only ones to practice rebaptism. In the middle of the fourteenth century, for example, when the Byzantine Emperor John V Cantacuzene went to Hungary to negotiate an alliance, King Louis of Hungary demanded as a preliminary condition that the Emperor and his suite should undergo Baptism at the hands of Roman clergy. And when Louis conquered large tracts of Bulgaria, Latin missionaries proceeded systematically to rebaptise the Orthodox there: it is said that eight Franciscan friars administered Baptism to no less than 200,000 persons in the course of fifth days. Similar instances, on a less spectacular scale, seem to have occurred in the eastern Mediterranean during the seventeenth century: Nektarios, Patriarch of Jerusalem, describes a strange case in which (so he alleges) an Orthodox priest was rebaptised by the Franciscans in the Holy City.” Timothy Ware,  Eustratios Argenti: A Study of the Greek Church under Turkish Rule, Oxford, 1964, pp. 67-68.

Text 5 - Medieval Bulgaria

“Louis of Hungary seems to have believed that it was more important that the Orthodox should be converted and rebaptised than that they should be given encouragement to  drive back the Turks. The army that he sent into Bulgaria was quickly followed by Franscian missionaries who conducted mass baptisms of the humiliated schismatics. John V, however, retained a naive hope that the King of Hungary might still be moved to help him. He was the nearest Catholic neighbour of Byzantium and he had, after all, been willing to take the Cross against the infidel.”  Donald M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1972, pp. 275.

The next three extracts come from the following article Emese Muntan, ‘In the Name of the Holy Spirit(s)—Contested Baptisms between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in 17th-century Northern Ottoman Europe,’ 2025, pp. 223-246. The article can be found at Academia.

Text 6 - 17th Century Balkans

“For their part, papal authorities but most of all missionaries on the ground tried to impose similar restrictive measures when it came to receiving the Orthodox into the Catholic fold. Concerning the Bosnian Franciscans, it was apparently common among certain friars to conditionally rebaptize the Orthodox. In this respect, it is important to note that since the territory of the Franciscan province of Bosna Argentina to a large extent overlapped with the area under the control of the Patriarchate of Peć (and it even extended into areas under the control of the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople), Serbian Orthodox priests (pops) and bishops (vladikas) became the greatest competitions for the Bosnian Franciscans.”

“In 1627, the bishop of Mostar in Bosnia claimed that in his diocese the Bosnian Franciscans rebaptized those Orthodox girls who wanted to marry Catholic men and with this act, the friars caused a great scandal. e bishop proposed to the Propaganda as well as to the Holy Office the complete prohibition of Catholic–Orthodox marriages to avoid similar errors. In 1640, a certain Matej Milatić in a letter to Francesco Leonardi archdeacon of Traú/Trogir in Croatia accused the Bosnian Franciscans of not admitting to communion and to the Catholic rite those Orthodox individuals who had abandoned the ‘schism’, unless they were first rebaptized sub conditione.”

“ In a report from 1648, the Bosnian friar Ivan Dežmanić claimed that he converted many Orthodox Christians to Catholicism, including an entire village near Carașova (today Romania). According to his record of baptisms that he composed between April 1641 and July 1647, he baptized around 103 adults, among whom there were several Orthodox. Thus, in this case, the friar apparently decided to rebaptize these people, since it is rather unlikely that they had not been previously baptized according to the Orthodox rite. In the case of Orthodox children, on the other hand, it is more difficult to assess whether they had been also baptized by an Orthodox priest prior to their Catholic baptism.”

Serbian Orthodox in World War Two

Over 200,000 Serbian Orthodox Christians in the fascist Independent State of Croatia were forcibly rebaptised and made to join the Roman Catholic Church in 1941. Many were subsequently killed. The Archbishop of Zagreb, Aloysius Stepinac, was found guilty by the Communist government for complicity in the forced conversions and mass murder of civilians but he is seriously being considered for canonisation by the Roman Catholic Church.

Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 

(12) Serbian Ortodox Church in the Independent State Croatia 

Text 7 - Fascist Croatia

The term "pokrštavanje - Christianisation" is in the spirit of the Serbian language, although, at first glance, it is Croatism. The most accurate and appropriate term for the religious actions that the Ustashas and the Roman Catholic Church carried out together towards the

Orthodox Serbs is the term "prekrštavanje – rebaptism (to another denomination)", which means "baptism of a person who has already been baptised (in the church of another Christian denomination)" And the term "rimokatoličenje - converting into Roman Catholicism" is correct, but much less used in speech and text. The Roman Catholic Church and the Croatian authorities converted the Orthodox Serbs in the spirit of the centuries-old aspiration of the Vatican Roman Catholicism towards Orthodoxy. Conversion to Roman Catholicism in the Independent State of Croatia essentially represents the most severe form of spiritual terror against the Serbian people. That act humiliated individual and national dignity. From the state's perspective, conversion i.e., the Croatisation of the Serbs was not in accordance with the theory of one political nation with multiple religions. From the point of view of the Roman Catholic Church, it is the movement of the "Christian bulwarks to the East" in order to implement the theories of the early Middle Ages about the creation of one church organisation for all Christians in the world. The interpretations of members of the Roman Catholic Church about "dissidents", that is, apostates from Christianity, should also be understood in this context. That doctrine was brutally implemented in the Croatian Ustasha state for four years. And Ustasha Croatia was marked as "antemurale cristianitatis" - the bulwarks of Christianity, as a holy warring Croatia. Veljko Duric Misina, The Serbian Orthodox Church in the Independent State of Croatia 1941-1945, Chapter 2 - The Obliteration of Serbian National Identity, 2025, pp. 41-42,

My sources come from Orthodox scholars or secular Byzantinists. Roman Catholics are reluctant to acknowledge that these things happened as it is embarrassing. Please assist me in adding to my sources.

Thanks

As a lifelong Orthodox Christian I have become increasingly concerned with the growing idea (and online advocacy) that total compulsory rebaptism is normative for all converts. I would like to share some thoughts on the issue.

First, let me clarify this. 

1. Non-trinitarians such as JWs, Moonies, Christadelphians, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals have no true baptism due to their corrupt doctrines. They are not rebaptised on entering the Orthodox Church. They are simply baptised. This is perfectly in accord with the Ecumencal Canons for the reception of heretics.
2. The loss of documents such as a baptismal certificate or the lack of witnesses leaving doubt is enough to warrant a ‘corrective’ baptism. Many Evangelical churches in America simply do not give any documentation. Many baptised in infancy in mainline churches lose their documentation. The advent of liberal denominations who baptise in the name of the ‘creator, redeemer, sanctifier’ also causes issues as to the validity of a baptism. It is well within the pastoral discretion of a bishop to recommend another baptism. Orthodoxy doesn’t use the term ‘corrective’ baptism but this is what it is. This is not compulsory rebaptism.

 

Here are my points

1. Being a saint does not make you infallible. The rebaptisers bring up saints to support their views (suggesting they represent the Patristic Consensus). Saint Cyprian of Carthage, Saint Firmilian of Cappadocia, Saint Nikodemus the Hagorite, Saint Hilarion Troitsky and Saint Paisius the Athonite are the most often cited. However, these saints are mistaken in thinking that total compulsory rebaptism is normative.

Examples of Saints who made errors. 

I haven’t bothered putting “saint” in front of their names. I’m not being disrespectful.

Polycarp was a Quartrodeciman

Irenaeus of Lyons was a Premillennialist

Gregory of Nyssa supported apokatastasis

Jerome claimed James the Just was Jesus’s cousin rather than his half-brother (the son of Joseph from a previous marriage) to advocate Joseph as a lifelong virgin

Augustine supported predestination, the filioque and total depravity

Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees from the canon of Scripture

Gregory the Great allowed Spanish Catholics to baptise with one immersion

Patriarch Paul IV of Constantinople made a vow not to restore icons

Pope Stephen V (and many subsequent pre-schism Orthodox Popes) banned the use of the Slavonic liturgy

Nilus Sorksy thought that monks should own no land, including monasteries and that all monks should be hermits.

Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople supported the execution of heretics

Metropolitan Philaret Drozdov heavily persecuted Old Believers including confiscating their churches, burning their books and sending police to break up their meetings. He made this state policy.

Numerous western saints thought that compulsory clerical celibacy was Apostolic

Numerous western saints support the filioque including Caesarius of Arles

The stance that the saints support compulsory rebaptism so it must be true strikes me as naive.

2. What is normative is shown by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. Council of Nicaea in 325 - 318 bishops accept the baptism of the Novatians. Council of Constantinople in 381 - 150 bishops including St. Gregory of Nazianus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Meletius of Antioch accepted the baptisms of Arians, Macedonians and Apollinarians. (see Canon 7 of that council). The Council of Trullo in 692 - 215 bishops accepted the baptisms of Arians, Macedonians and Apollinarians. The council also accepted the baptisms and chrismations of Nestorians and Monophysites as they could be received into Orthodoxy by a statement of faith. (see Canon 95 of that council). Council of Nicaea in 787 - 350 bishops ratified the canons of Trullo, including Canon 95. (see Canon 1 of that council)

3. NONE of the 14 Autocephalus Orthodox Churches (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, Czech and Slovak Lands) have a policy of compulsory rebaptism. Some groups within these churches such as ROCOR and some Athonite monks take it upon themselves to engage in compulsory rebaptism. (and Peter Heers, who even ROCOR didn’t want to claim)

4. Compulsory rebaptism has reared its head a few times in history. Under Cyprian in North Africa and Firmilian in Cappadocia in the 250s. In Russia in 1620. It was fully rescinded in 1666. In Constantinople, Alexandra and Jerusalem from 1755 with the Oros of Patriarch Cyril V. His own synod refused to ratify the Oros. It was fully rescinded in the 1890s. Compulsory rebaptism has only ever been a regional aberration in times of crisis.

5. Compulsory rebaptism was introduced into ROCOR by a notorious homosexual pseudo-abbot named Panteleimon Metropoulos (founder of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Massachusetts). He joined ROCOR in the 1960s to escape investigation from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America for his depravity but claimed he was escaping “ecumenism.” He caused chaos in ROCOR for 20 years but left in 1986 when ROCOR bishops launched an investigation into his depravity. He joined a series of old calendarist groups until he set up his own under the name of Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA). Converts to ROCOR from trinitarian denominations before the advent of Panteleimon Metropoulos such as Fr. Lazarus Moore, Archbishop Mark Arndt and Fr. Seraphim Rose were received by chrismation.

6. The Didache (ancient church order probably as old as the Gospels), chapter 7 accepts baptism by pouring. No one ever considered baptisms by pouring to be invalid until the Oros of 1755.

7. While it is normative for deacons, priests and bishops to baptise in the Orthodox Church, it is not essential. Lay people can perform a valid baptism.

8. Cyprian of Carthage accepted the validity of baptism by pouring. (See Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 75.13)

9. Pope Stephen I (who is an Orthodox saint and martyr) opposed Cyprian’s policy of compulsory rebaptism. He accused Cyprian of innovation and claimed that compulsory rebaptism had only been introduced by bishop Agrippinus in the 230s. Cyprian did not dispute this.

10. St Basil and the Apostolic Canons define ‘heresy’ slightly differently from us. For Basil “heresy" means a non-trinitarian heresy, “schismatic” means a trinitarian heretic and “parasynagogue” means our schismatics.

11. St Basil wrote his canonical letter on the reception of heretics before the Council of Constantinople in 381 (Basil died in 379). The Council of Constantinople established universal rules for the reception of heretics. Basil did not have the benefit of that ruling. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils override the views of any single Church Father.

12. Vincent of Lerins calls the Council of Carthage of 257 under Cyprian as being “annulled, cancelled, trodden underfoot.” (Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory 6.17). Byzantine canonists such as Theodore Balsalmon support the annulment of the council as do the actual canons for the reception of heretics from the Ecumenical Councils.

13. Apostolic Canon 50 on triple immersion is an internal Orthodox document. It states what is normative in the Orthodox Church, not what is acceptable outside the Orthodox Church. The attack on single immersion is tied to the change of baptismal formula into the “death of Christ.” This was the practice of the Eunomians. The single immersion did not invalidate the baptism but its use with the changed formula did.

14. The shallow Roman Catholic fonts evidenced between the 11th to 13th centuries (and after) show that immersion baptism was no longer normative in the West by the 14th century yet the Council of Constantinople in 1484 ruled that Roman Catholics should be accepted by chrismation on conversion to Orthodoxy.

15. Peter Heers and friends try to paint Peter Moghila’s Catechism with its three modes of the reception of heretics (either a confession of faith, chrismation or baptism) into the Orthodox Church as an intrusion of ‘Latin Scholastic Theology.’  They point to crypto Catholics such as Patriarch Macarius III of Antioch and Paisius Ligarides who attended the Council of 1666 (see pages 245- 276) as prime movers abolishing the decrees of 1620. However, it is never explained that Peter Moghila’s system just applies Canon 95 of Trullo to contemporary heresies (17th century) or why Russia has retained the decisions of 1666 for the last 350 years. When Greek theologians examined Peter Moghila’s Confession in 1642 at the Council of Jassy they found fault in some of his Latinising theology but not his views on the reception of heretics. 

16. The rebaptisers exaggerate the extent of compulsory rebaptism throughout history and the extent to which it is carried out within modern Orthodoxy. They love to circulate stories of monks who can mystically spot converts received by chrismation and then demand the convert to be rebaptised. While some incidents of this are authentic most are not.

17. Peter Heers in his book “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus” is clearly embarrassed that such a great saint as Mark of Ephesus clearly advocated chrismation. He writes, “Such as application of economy was made by St. Mark of Ephesus and the 1484 Council at the time, as St. Nikodemus explains, because the Orthodox feared Latin aggression if Latins were required to be received by baptism in large numbers, considering the military power of the Latins during this period, their violence towards the Orthodox in the Fourth Crusade, and the continued aggression of the Latins after the Fourth Crusade.” (page 214) Chapter 10 on Mark of Ephesus is one of the poorest in Heer’s book. Firstly, the idea that Mark of Ephesus advocated chrismation due to fear is a ridiculous idea. The Latins were always going to be aggressive no matter what way Orthodox received converts. Those Roman Catholics just loved their Crusading at that time. The Council of 1484 was safely within the (expanding) Ottoman Empire so they didn’t have a lot to fear from Crusaders yet they still advocated chrismation. The claim in the book that Roman Catholics still practiced triple immersion in the 15th century is not borne out by evidence. Finally, the claim that the chrismation was only aimed at returning unionist Greeks is unconvincing as the Acts of Constantinople of 1484 are still extant and they don’t mention this. The union was 45 years earlier (in 1439) so 1484 is dealing with people born into heresy and not simply Orthodox apostates.

18. Peter Heers in his book “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus" (written while Peter Heers was in schism from every Orthodox Church) writes in his conclusion “Canons of Ecumenical Councils which allowed for specifically named heretics to be received by chrismation “by chrismation” were based on the needs of the times and presupposed that the heterodox person had already received the apostolic form of baptism in three immersions in the name of the Holy Trinity. The canons which have permitted the use of economy in specific cases nevertheless affirmed that the reception of heretics by baptism is the rule (akriveia). The application of economy is a temporary deviation from the rule due to necessity on the basis of certain presuppositions and does not replace the rule established by the Lord and His Apostles to baptize all nations.”  (pages 411-412). In reality none of the canons of the Ecumenical Councils on the reception of heretics ever use the terms economia, akrivia or say they are temporary or say the form of the baptism is essential (except noting the single immersion baptism of the EunomIans). The terms economia and akrivia are only used in St. Basil’s Canonical Letter.

19. Peter Heers in his book “On the Reception of the Heterodox into the Orthodox Church: The Patristic Consensus" references Nikodemus the Hagorite 45 times (see index on page 446), Cyprian of Carthage 30 times (see index page 444), Hilarion Troitsky 29 times (see index on page 447) and Firmilian of Cappadocia 21 times (see index on page 444). Individuals such as Timothy, Presbyter of Constantinople who wrote a handbook on the reception of heretics into the Orthodox Church in the 6th century is never referred to at all.

There are a number of posts on Reddit covering some of the forgeries associated with Medieval Roman Catholicism but I haven’t seen a complete list. I thought I’d go through some of the better known forgeries but also include some lesser known ones that deserve to be known better.

1. The Gravi de pugna by pseudo-Augustine

This purports to be a letter from Augustine advocating the idea that the morally superior side in a war (i.e. the non-heretical side) will emerge victorious in war as they have God’s favour. It was a key text in the formation of the ‘Just War’ theory but the real author is unknown. It seems to date from the 5th century as it was known to Frankish theologians in the 9th century. Coupled with the authentic Letter of Augustine to Count Boniface (Letter 185), in which Augustine accepts secular law (imperial law) and coercion (but not violence as such) to be used against the Donatists to get them to convert to the CatholicChurch, it set the groundwork for the Crusades. 

2. The Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum

This is a florilegium (collection of patristic prooftexts) that support Roman Catholic doctrine. It was put together by Nicholas (Nectarius) of Crotone in the 13th century. Nicholas was bilingual and was heavily involved with negotiations with the Byzantines. It was presented to Pope Urban IV, who then passed it on to Thomas Aquinas, who used it to compile his treatise Contra Errores Graecorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks). Unfortunately many of the prooftexts are spurious or expansions of real sentences from the works of the Church Fathers. The spurious texts are most evident in the canons from councils, John Chrysostem, Athanasius of Alexandria and Cyril of Alexandria. Other texts are glosses (or notes) that are confused as being Patristic prooftexts. The best online translation of the treatise does not make it clear which texts are forgeries unless you click on the notes. Please take a look.

Thomas Aquinas: Contra Errores Graecorum: English 

3. The Athanasian Creed

Written in the 6th century in Gaul in Latin. It is unclear how early on the title ‘Athanasian Creed’ was added (i.e. from the original author or a later) but it was a major prooftext used by Roman Catholics in their debates with Orthodox Christians over the filioque. Its main function was to show the filioque had deeper Patristic roots than it really did. At the famous Disputatio at Nicaea and Nymphaeum in 1234 the Athanasian Creed took pride of place as a prooftext by Roman Catholic spokesmen. Orthodox Christians expressed doubts about it from the start, so much so that it wasn’t even used as a prooftext at the Council of Florence. It was decisively proven a forgery in the 17th century but around the corners of the internet there are still some who still attribute it to Athanasius.

For an overview of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic dialogues I highly recommend Brubaker’s article (and his translation of the Disputatio.)

(12) "You are the Heretics!" Dialogue and Disputation between the Greek East and the Latin West after 1204 

4. The Symmachian Forgeries

These are a series of forgeries associated with the Laurentian Schism at Rome in the 5th/6th centuries. The forgeries are called - 

• Liber Gesta Liberii
• Liber de Xysti purgation
• Gesta synodi Sinuessanae de Marcellino
• Constitutum Sylvestri
• Gesta de Polychronii episcopi Hierosolynitani accusation

The function of the forgeries was to create a myth that the Popes were above judgement. My favourite is the Gesta synodi Sinuessanae de Marcellino, where a council is called to judge Pope Marcellinus for apostasy during the Great Persecution (his apostasy seems to he historically true but not the trial) but the voice of God intervenes and tells the bishops to lay off his guy because Popes can’t be judged by anyone. This concept based on forgeries entered Roman Catholic canon law.

There is a great article on them by Orthodox blogger ubi petrus.

The First See is Judged by No One” and the Pseudo-Symmachian Forgeries. Response to Erick Ybarra – Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia 

5. The Donation of Constantine

I don’t want to say too much as it is so well known. Written in the 8th century, it is the first step in the Papacy’s claim for secular power for themselves.  Numerous Popes, starting with Pope Nicholas I in the 9th century, quote it extensively when they want to bully the Eastern Patriarchs. Take a look at this excellent translation of this important primary source text, Pope Leo IX’s letter to Patriarch Michael Cerularius during the schism of 1054.

(12) Draft Translation - Pope Leo IX on the Power of the Pope (Epistle 100) 

The heavy reliance of the Medieval Papacy on the Donation of Constantine is masked by the almost complete lack of full English translations of Papal letters to the Eastern Patriarchs.

6. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals

An oldie but a goodie. These forgeries from the 9th century Frankish Empire wish to depict a centralising and micromanaging Papacy (at least in the West) as existing from the beginning. Decretals are Papal directives to subordinates (i.e. all other bishops) that they are expected to follow. They were often in response to inquiries by other bishops. The lack of decretals from the early Papacy inspired a forger to fill in the gaps with forgeries.

Of the 30 decretals from Popes from Anacletus (79 - 90 AD) to Miltiades (311-314 AD) all are forgeries. Of the 13 Popes between Sylvester to Leo, 6 Popes issued decretals that are authentic, while 7 are forgeries. Between Pope Hilary to Pope Gregory II, 3 Popes issued authentic Decretals, while 11 Popes are listed as false, inauthentic Decretals. While most forgeries are obvious some are less clear cut. Letter 15 of Pope Leo the Great is still disputed.

Even at the Council of Florence in 1439 these forgeries played a role in convincing Bessarion to join the union.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateACatholic/comments/1tle0mk/a_renowned_jesuit_scholar_writes_how_a_spurious/

7. A forged text of Theodoret of Cyrrhus on Purgatory

During the debates about Purgatory the Latin spokesmen at Ferrera-Florence presented this prooftext from Theodoret. It is the only Greek text that uses purgatory as a noun. In his commentary on I Corinthians 3:15. In it Theodoret says: ". . . but only as through fire." For this, we believe this fire is purgatory, in which the souls are purified like gold in the smelting furnace, his work is burned through fire." (Theodoret of Cyr, In I Cor, 3 PG 82:252 A and note) The complete Commentary on the Pauline Epistles survives complete but the Purgatory prooftext is absent. The only conclusion is that it was forged prior to the council. Prooftexts were often presented as extracts rather than complete documents. 

For a discussion on this text read the article by James Jorgenson.

James Jorgenson, “The Debate over Patristic Texts on Purgatory at the Council of Ferrera-Florence, 1438,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 30.4 (1986), pp. 309 - 334.

8. The Letter of of Patriarch Philotheos of Alexandria to Pope Eugenius

I have written about this forgery previously.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateACatholic/comments/1tl8xbo/is_the_letter_of_patriarch_philotheos_of/

9. The Last Will and Testament of Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople

I have written about this forgery previously

https://www.reddit.com/user/Ok-Mushroom6586/comments/1tpwvet/was_the_last_will_and_testament_of_patriarch/

10. Pamphlets and Books from the Propaganda Fide

The Propaganda Fide was established by Pope Pope Gregory XV in Rome in 1622. They immediately started producing works in Greek and Arabic directed at the Orthodox Christians living in the Ottoman Empire to convert them to Roman Catholicism. A number of these were forgeries including a pamphlet on the Papacy supposedly by Athanasius of Alexandria, sermons by St. John Chrysostom with interloped sentences supporting Roman Catholic doctrines and even a pamphlet claiming to be the deathbed conversion of St. Mark of Ephesus to the union at Florence. A number of Counter-Reformation catechisms were translated into Greek and published anonymously or with the names of Church Fathers.

I know least about the forgeries from the 17th century. If anyone knows a bit more then I'd love to know, particularly an academic source. The article where I picked up the information is no longer available to me.

This is the full text of the notorious bull of excommunication that caused the schism of 1054. It is talked about a lot but few have ever actually read it so I thought it was about time to post it. Here it is:

Humbert, by the grace of God cardinal-bishop of the Holy Roman Church. Peter, archbishop of Amalfi. Frederick, deacon and chancellor, to all sons of the Catholic church.

The holy Roman Church, first, and Apostolic see, toward which, as toward the head, belonging the special solicitude of all churches, for the sake of the peace and benefit of the church, has deigned to appoint us apocriasaii [legetes] to this city, in order that, according to our instructions, we might come over and see whether in fact the clamor still continues which, without ceasing, comes to its [Rome’s] ears or, if that is not so, let the glorious emperors, the clergy, the Senate, and the people of this city of Constantinople, and the entire Catholic church, know that we have noted here a great good, on account of which we deeply rejoice in the Lord, but also we have perceived a very great evil because of which we are extremely saddened.

For, with respect to the pillars of the empire and its wise and honored citizens, the City is most Christian and orthodox. However, with regard to Michael, falsely called patriarch, and his followers in folly, too many tares [zizania] of heresies are daily sown in its midst. For as the Simoniacs sell God’s gift; as the Valesians castrate their guests and promote them not only to the priesthood but even to the episcopate; as the Arians rebapise people already baptised (especially Latins) in the name of the Holy Trinity; as the Donatists affirm that, especially for the Greek church, Christ’s church and the true sacrifice [of the Mass] and baptism have perished from the whole world; as the Nicolaites permit and defend [carnal] marriage for ministers of the holy altar; as the Severians maintain that the law of Moses is accursed; as the Pneumatomachians [enemies of the Holy Spirit] or Theoumachians have deleted from the creed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; as the Manichaeans declare, among other things, that anything fermented is alive; as the Nazarenes maintain the bodily cleanliness of the Jews to such a point that they deny baptism to infants who die before the eighth day after birth and [deny] communion to menstruating women or those about to give birth or if they [the women] were pagan they forbid them to be baptised; also, they [the Nazarenes], preserving their hair and beards, do not receive into communion those who, according to the custom of the Roman church, cut their hair and shave their beards. Although admonished by our Lord Pope Leo regarding these errors and many other of his deeds, Michael [Cerularius] himself has with contempt disregarded these warnings. Moreover, to us his [Leo’s] ambassadors who are seeking faithfully to stamp out the cause of such great evils, he denied his presence and any oral communication, and he forbade [us the use of] churches to celebrate Mass in, just as earlier he had closed the Latin churches [in Constantinople], and, calling the Latins azymites [users of the unleavened bread in communion], he hounded them everywhere in word and deed. Indeed , in the persons of its sons, he cursed the Apostolic See, in opposition to which he signed himself ‘ecumenical patriarch." Wherefore, not putting up with this unheard-of slander and insult to the first, holy Apostolic See, and seeing the Catholic faith assaulted in many ways, we, by the authority of the undivided and Holy Trinity and the Apostolic See, whose embassy we constitute, and by the authority of all the orthodox fathers of the seven [ecumenical] councils and that of the entire Catholic church, whatever our most reverend lord the pope has denounced in Michael and his followers, unless they repent, we declare to be anathematised.

“May Michael, false neophyte patriarch, who only out of human fear assumed the monastic habit, now known notoriously to many because of his extremely wicked crimes, and with him Leo the archdeacon called bishop of Ochrida, and his treasurer [sacellarius] Michael, and Constantine who with profane feet trampled upon the Latin’s sacrifice [the Eucharist], and all their followers in the aforesaid errors and presumptions, be anathematised. Maranathma, with the Simoniacs, Valesians, Arians, Donastists, Nicolaites, Severians, Pneumatomachians, Manicheans, and Nazarenes, and with all heretics, indeed with the devil and his angels, unless by some chance they repent, Amen. Amen. Amen."

I make no claim to originality. I took this translation from the excellent sourcebook of Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes, University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London, 1984, pp. 208-9.

Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida comes across as an intolerant and ignorant man. Steven Runciman in ‘The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XIth and XIIth Centuries’ (Oxford, 1955), p. 48 says ‘...for few important documents have been so full of demonstrable errors. It is indeed extraordinary that a man of Humbert’s learning could have penned so lamentable a manifesto.’

The things that strike me most about the bull are the crazy accusations of heresy and the insulting way Humbert addressed Patriarch Michael. The actual bull is directed at the patriarch and his followers rather than the Orthodox Church but the result was a schism between East and West. I found it interesting that in 11th century Rome they thought the filioque was part of the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as Humbert thinks the filioque was deleted. As Pope Leo IX died while the legates were on their way to Constantinople the bull should have been invalidated but subsequent Popes decided to uphold it, one of whom was one of the legates, Frederick the deacon, who later became Pope Stephen IX. The whole bull is a massive overreaction to Archbishop Leo’s letters to John of Trani.

The events of 1054 have been reconsidered in recent years. Few now think Archbishop Leo of Ochrida was acting as an agent for Patriarch Micahel Cerularius to stir up trouble with the Papacy by sending letters to Italy about Azymes (the use of unleavened bread in the liturgy). There has also been doubt expressed about Humbert’s accusations that Greeks were rebaptising Latins, that Cerularius closed Latin churches in Constantinople and that the deacon Constantine trampled a Latin Eucharist (mainly due to lack of corroborative evidence). See the article by Tia Kolbaba cited below.

Tia Kolbaba, “On the Closing of the Churches and the Rebaptism of Latins: Greek Perfidy or Latin Slander?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 29 (2005): 39-51.

Anyone have any thoughts to share?