"Every Orthodox Christian is in essence being asked: Do you believe and confess that Orthodox and heterodox baptism are one and the same – are both the “one baptism for the remission of sins”? If, however, you accept that the “one baptism” we confess in the Symbol of Faith is the same as that “baptism” performed by the heterodox, it follows that the “one Church” is identified with a “church” to which the heterodox also belong.

Moreover, if the heterodox are baptized into Christ and into the life of Christ, have “put on Christ” in baptism, then they lack nothing of the Grace of God and surely the only thing which prevents them from sharing in Holy Communion with the Orthodox is prejudice and misunderstanding. For, if dogmatic truth is no longer a necessary criterion for membership in the Church, we will find no reasons other than prejudice and misunderstandings to refrain from union.

One can expect claims that nothing has changed, that the practice of receiving the heterodox «κατ’ οικονομίαν» by Chrismation was the norm for decades and it will continue to be. If the practice has not changed – a practice, which St. Nikodemos the Athonite’s interpretation calls into question –, how it is understood definitely has changed. Although nowhere in the agreement is it stated that the heterodox baptism is considered by the Orthodox as inactive or lacking, some are now justifying the decision on the grounds that the Orthodox consider heterodox baptism to be a baptism «ἑν δυνάμει» (potentially so), and not «ἑν ἐνεργεία» (actively so). Besides the fact that this is stated nowhere in the agreement – and thus the Orthodox appear to be saying one thing and believing another – “baptism ‘ἑν δυνάμη’” is unknown among the Fathers. What Father ever spoke of mysteries existing «ἑν δυνάμη» among the heterodox?

Dear Orthodox Christians, the canonical and patristic witness is clear. The 46th and 47th Apostolic Canons declare, respectively: “We order that a bishop or presbyter that recognized the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be defrocked. For “what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?” (c.f. 2 Cor. 6:15) and “If a bishop or presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize someone that had been polluted by the impious, let him be defrocked, on the grounds that he is mocking the cross and death of the Lord, and fails to distinguish priests from false priests.”

More important, however, than even the anti-canonical nature of these agreements is the implication that fundamental differences in faith no longer prevent us from effecting union with the heterodox. What we have here, is no less than a “false union,” plain and simple – union of the churches in the “one baptism” of the Church. A confession of faith has been posited, one which says that the “one baptism” is every baptism, whether it be performed within or outside of the Church, by an Orthodox Christian or a heterodox, according to apostolic form or not. Furthermore, by implication, this new confession of faith also holds that, since we share the “one baptism” with the heterodox, and enjoy so-called partial union with them, they too are members of the Church – even if, perhaps “ecclesiastically lacking” in some way.

John Paul II “baptizing” by pouring

Orthodox Christians – especially every Orthodox shepherd – are called upon to resist this new “confession of faith” in word and deed and “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh a reason of the hope” that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15).”