My wife carried our infant son up to the priest for holy communion. He shook his head “no”, and our son burst into tears. Bewildered, my wife retreated to the back of the church. I was incensed and shocked beyond measure, for I had travelled the world, and I had never seen such a thing happen in any Orthodox Church. My precious son was not yet a year old. What possible reason could this Russian priest have for denying him communion?
I didn’t know it at the time, but this jarring experience was my first step down a road that introduced me to a number of deeply ingrained, contradictory traditions within the Orthodox Church, regarding Holy Communion, the Nicene Creed, and the eternal fate of unbaptized infants.
Of course, I am still thankful to be an Orthodox Christian. The contradictions I found did not shake my faith in the Church. They did, however, help to transform my understanding of the Church, and to clarify how truth can be identified within it.
The New Testament tells us that traditions can be good or bad. The good traditions are the ones we receive from Christ and the apostles (2 Thess 2:15). The bad ones are manmade traditions that arise in opposition to God’s teachings (Mark 7:9). Little did I realize just how tricky it could be sometimes to tell them apart.
Holy Communion
Orthodox Christians have been giving holy communion to infants for 2000 years, since the earliest days of the Church. It is something the Church has always done, since the very beginning, and so, for us, denying communion to small children is unthinkable.
(Even the Roman Catholic Church used to have the same practice. They didn’t stop giving communion to infants until around the 13th century. By the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants merely inherited this error from Rome, failing to provide their littlest ones with the Body and Blood of Christ. Thankfully, some of them are now restoring the practice.)
My family and I had just moved to Russia a few months earlier, and we never expected to encounter anything like this. As a priest myself, I promptly expressed my shock to the other priests, and they promptly informed me they were shocked that I was shocked! They were simply following the modern Russian tradition regarding the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, and they had no idea that other Orthodox churches did anything differently.
The Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts is a service celebrated by Orthodox churches on certain weekdays during the 40 days of Lent. Instead of using fresh bread and wine and praying for God to change it into the Body and Blood of Christ, they reserve communion that has already been consecrated at the previous Sunday liturgy. This reserved communion is very dry, so at the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, the priest puts it into a chalice containing plain, unconsecrated wine. At the moment the Holy Eucharist touches the wine, what happens? Does the wine instantaneously become the true Blood of Christ? Or does it remain plain wine? According to the modern Russian Church, it remains ordinary wine, and thus cannot be used to commune infants.
But if you go to St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai, or to any Greek Orthodox church, or to any Antiochian Orthodox church, or to the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), or to Old Ritual Russian churches that celebrate a more ancient form of the liturgy, you will encounter a very different practice. When the Eucharist touches the wine, they believe that the wine instantly becomes the Blood of Christ, and thus they will gladly use it to give holy communion to infants.
According to the Orthodox Encyclopedia (published in the Russian language), the Russian Orthodox Church changed its practices in the 17th century. The next seven paragraphs provide a brief overview:
In 1642, the Roman Catholic Church published a book titled, “Correction, or Disclosure and exposure of errors, heresies, and superstitions of the Russian Church...”, including a scathing criticism of the Russian Orthodox Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts.
Surprisingly, St. Peter Mogila actually accepted the Roman Catholic argument. In 1646, he published his “Euchologion”, which contained a chapter on the necessary "corrections" he suggested for the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts. St. Peter Mogila is the first known Orthodox author who refused to recognize the consecration of the chalice in this liturgy.
Nevertheless, St. Peter Mogila did not change the order of the liturgy. The service books he prepared for printing included the usual order for the communion of the clergy. He reposed in the year 1653.
Two decades after his death, in the 1670s, under the authority of Patriarch Joachim of Moscow, Hieromonk Euthymius of the Chudova Monastery compiled a liturgical-canonical manual entitled “The Teaching of the Priest of the Orderly Service...” Among other things, this manual contained an article “On certain corrections in the service of the pre-sanctified liturgy,” reproducing the reasoning of St. Peter Mogila about the consecration of the cup in the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts. (He says the cup is consecrated, but not transubstantiated, without any explanation of what exactly this should mean.) The same Euthymius was the editor of the revised official Bishop's Guide to the Rites of the Church, approved in 1675, but published in Moscow in 1677, as well as the Service Book published in Moscow in 1676. In these 2 liturgical publications, the rite of communion during the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts for the first time prohibits the deacon (and if the priest serves alone, then the priest) from drinking from the chalice until the moment of consumption of the Holy Gifts at the end of the liturgy.
Wanting to change traditions in regard to the chalice at the Presanctified Liturgy, the Moscow church authorities in the late 17th century decided to separate, as contrastingly as possible, the reception of the Holy Mysteries themselves (including tasting them during consumption) from the reception of the “consecrated, but not transubstantiated” contents in the chalice.
Time passed, and the new practice became entrenched in Russia over the following 400 years, although it causes a lot of criticism — both because of its inconsistency with the traditions of the Greek local churches (and, more broadly, the traditions of the entire Orthodox Church until the 17th century), and for purely practical reasons: having communed the Presanctified Bread and not washed it down, the deacon then pronounces a whole series of exclamations of the liturgy, which is fraught with the danger of loss of particles of the Holy Bread that were not completely swallowed — since they were received almost dry — when the air flow passes through the oral cavity.
In Old Ritual (pre-Nikonian liturgy) parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, communion at the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts occurs the same as it does at full divine liturgies. Understandably, the Old Ritual churches kept the more ancient tradition.
When first hearing about these things, it may be tempting to be dismissive, saying, “There are just some minor regional differences from one church to another. Russians and Greeks have different vestments and different singing styles, so if there are also some minor liturgical differences, what’s the big deal?”
Upon careful reflection, that is not an appropriate answer. We aren’t just talking about choir music selections or about how robes are designed. We are talking about the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is a very big deal indeed!
Just imagine the scandal if the same question arose on a Sunday morning, and an Orthodox priest refused to give communion to a small child. Suppose the priest said, “Yes, the bread in this chalice has become the true Body of Christ, but it’s floating in ordinary wine. It’s not the Blood of Christ. So I can’t give communion to small children.” Such a priest would be thrown out, and probably defrocked, and rightfully so.
This simply isn’t one of those things that can vary from place to place, like robe styles or choir music. Suppose a Russian priest and an Antiochian priest concelebrate at the same liturgy. Is it possible that the wine in the chalice becomes the blood of Christ just for the Antiochian priest, but remains ordinary wine for the Russian priest? To ask such a question is to answer it. Obviously, it doesn’t make any sense. Either it is the true Blood of Christ, or it’s not. The Church cannot have it both ways.
Either way, we have a big problem:
If the liquid in the chalice is ordinary wine, and we call it Christ’s blood, then we are taking something which is not God, and we are pretending it is God. That’s idolatry.
If the liquid in the chalice is Christ’s blood, and we call it ordinary wine, then we are taking something which is God, and we are pretending that it’s not. That shows great disrespect to the Lord, who was crucified for us.
The only thing it cannot possibly be is “not a big deal”. Whichever side is wrong needs to make it a priority, recognize the error, and return to the correct practice, just like the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) already did.
If this were only an obscure error being made by a handful of churches in some remote corner of the world, then it wouldn’t be such a major concern. If it were only a recent error, an innovation made within the past five or ten years, then perhaps it could be easily dismissed and dispensed with.
However, from a numerical perspective, Slavic Churches — Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Serbian — constitute a majority of the Orthodox Churches in the world. This innovation is not new; it is over 350 years old, and it has become so deeply ingrained, that correcting this particular error isn’t going to be easy.
The Sins of the Saints
The most unsettling consequence of all is the realization that numerous canonized Orthodox Saints can be in error for centuries on something really important — something as important as the difference between ordinary wine and the Blood of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, this is the case, regardless of which side you happen to agree with. Whether you agree with the Russians that it’s ordinary wine, or whether you agree with multiple Orthodox churches that it’s the true Blood of Christ, either way, you have a similar problem:
If Sinai, Greece, and Antioch are right, then the Russian Orthodox Church — and its saints — have been in error for the past 350 years. Consider all of the canonized Russian saints, both bishops and priests, which have been celebrating the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts incorrectly. The long list would include saints such as St. Dmitry of Rostov, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Herman of Alaska, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. Tikhon of Moscow, St. Luke the Surgeon, St. John of Kronstadt, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, and many more. Does it seem conceivable that so many great Russian saints could all be wrong about a detail of such importance?
If Russia and Serbia are right, then Greece and Antioch — and their saints — have been in error for the past several hundred years or more. Consider all of the canonized Greek and Antiochian saints, both bishops and priests, which have been in serious error on this point. The long list would include saints such as St. St. Nectarios of Aegina, St. Joseph the Hesychast, St. Raphael of Brooklyn, St. Arsenios the Cappadocian, St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain, and many more. Does it seem conceivable that so many great Greek and Antiochian saints could all be wrong about a detail of such importance?
At this point in the conversation, Orthodox Christians usually get a little uncomfortable. Indeed, I am an Orthodox priest, and I get a little uncomfortable here, too. But the facts are the facts. Either one entire group of saints was wrong for multiple centuries, or the other group was wrong for multiple centuries. It is not possible for both groups to be right.
If they didn’t recognize the problem, then why didn’t they? As holy as they were, why didn’t they realize that they were celebrating this particular liturgy in the wrong way?
On the other hand, if they did recognize the problem, then why didn’t they speak up? Why didn’t they advocate a change to the service books, so that everyone in their church would start celebrating this particular liturgy correctly? Why the silence?
Nevertheless, all of these men were saints! Both groups were good, holy, godly men, who faithfully served Christ, and who were formally canonized as saints. They were true men of God, and it is right for us to honor them. At the same time, we must recognize the fact that their sainthood did not preserve them from all error. It was still possible for them to make theological mistakes, even on such an important issue.
For some, the solution might seem simple. Just join one of the Old Ritual churches! Also known as Edinoverie, the Old Ritual churches are a place where you can experience the Orthodox liturgy as it was practiced in Russia for over 600 years, prior to the changes that took place in the late 17th century under Patriarch Nikon. In America, there are two old rite churches in Pennsylvania, and one in Missouri. In Russia, of course, there are many more.
At Old Ritual churches, in the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, the more ancient practice has been preserved. The liquid in the holy chalice is recognized as the true blood of Christ, and thus infants are allowed to commune.
The Nicene Creed
Unfortunately, Old Ritual churches have a different issue — they have modified the Nicene Creed, so that it doesn’t quite match the Creed recited in other Orthodox churches.
This is a very practical issue for my daughters, for example. On more than one occasion, they have considered the possibility of marrying suitors who attend Old Ritual churches. This would be great during Lent, because they could attend a more ancient form of the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts. But then they would have a whole new issue to contend with — they would have to change the way they recite the Nicene Creed.
Indeed, the principle of not changing the Creed is one of the sticking points in the Filioque controversy, in disagreements between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. While Catholics have added the phrase “and the Son” to the Creed, Orthodox Christians keep the Creed as it was originally written. The Orthodox see this as a major problem for two reasons. First and foremost, it involves a false teaching. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, not from both the Father and the Son. Second, any changes to the Creed are forbidden, regardless of what they are. Even if a proposed change or addition involves a true teaching that is doctrinally accurate, we are simply not allowed to change the Creed.
Thankfully, the Edinoverie Old Ritual churches have not introduced any false teachings into the Creed. So they are OK on the first point. Their doctrine is sound. But they run into problems on the second point, because they have added a word to the Creed which did not exist in the original.
The Nicene Creed, dating back to the 4th century, says:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father...
A thousand years later, in the 14th century, some Russian service books mistranslated the Greek word for “Lord”, mistakenly replacing the Slavonic word gospoda (“Lord”) with the word istinnago (“true”):
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... And in the Holy Spirit, true and the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father...
By the 15th century, some Russian service books had combined the words gospoda and istinnago, simultaneously including both words in the Creed, with the following result:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... And in the Holy Spirit, the true Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father...
By the late 16th century, the majority of Russian manuscripts contained this change in the Creed, so when Old Believers rejected the liturgical reforms in Russia at the end of the 17th century, they opted to keep this added word in the Creed, even though it had been a 14th century innovation. (For more details, see pages 177-180 in Russia, Ritual, and Reform by Paul Meyendorff.)
What does this mean for us today? If you are a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, then it means you have to make a choice — either go to a Russian church that says the Nicene Creed correctly, or go to a Russian church that correctly recognizes the true blood of Christ during the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts. If you attend a church that gets one of these things right, then alas, you are attending a church that gets the other thing wrong. And since worldwide, the majority of Orthodox Christians are Russian, this particular issue is widespread.
Of course, such imperfections are annoying, and they need to be corrected, but they don’t change the fact that the Orthodox Church is the True Church, founded by Christ and the apostles. When Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, He was only promising that the Church wouldn’t fall into apostasy and disappear from the earth. He wasn’t promising that the Church would always be free from every possible doctrinal misunderstanding or error. When our “boat” encounters a “storm”, some theologically incorrect “water” may get into the boat, and then it’s our job to bail it out. Jesus didn’t promise us to have freedom from such problems. Thankfully, though, He did promise that our boat would never sink.
Infant Damnation
This third topic is the most painful to discuss, because it hits a nerve at a very deep level. My wife and I have lost children to miscarriages, both before and after our conversion to Orthodoxy. So when certain people in the Church say that all unbaptized infants are burning in hell, I take that very personally.
Prior to becoming Orthodox, we were Calvinists. That’s a branch of Protestantism which believes God chooses ahead of time who will be saved and who will be damned. It is a large group which includes Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches, among others. According to their teaching, if God happens to choose you for salvation, then there is no way you can be lost. God guarantees that you will eventually believe in Christ, become a Christian, persevere to the end, and be saved. On the other hand, if God chooses to damn you, then you’re screwed. It is guaranteed that you will never have genuine faith in Christ. The fires of hell are waiting for you, and there’s nothing you can do about it. It would seem that unborn infants are usually too young to excercise active faith in Christ. Thus, many Calvinists (though not all of them) have taught that most babies go to hell if they die before they are born.
Just as one example out of many, Dr. C. Matthew McMahon is a Reformed Presbyterian pastor and author. He runs the Puritan Board, an online forum for serious Calvinists. Back when I was a Calvinist myself, I was a frequent participant on his forum. Here is what this Calvinist pastor has to say about the eternal damnation of infants who die in the womb:
"The moment the cells form a human being in the womb, they are at instant enmity against God for violating the moral Law IN ADAM. They are held guilty, defiled and abominable as they partook of the forbidden fruit in the loins of the father. As a result, they are judged for everything upon judgment that Adam transgressed as if they ate the fruit themselves . . . they are morally held responsible for Adam's sin (Psalm 51:5) at the moment of conception. Thus, abortion is a quick step to judgment for every human being aborted. It is not only murder, but it seals the fate of MOST children dying in judgment and without Christ"
- Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
If this quote is not disturbing enough for you, then feel free to read the full discussion he had on this topic online.
Thankfully, my family and I are no longer Calvinists. When we became Orthodox Christians, we joyfully (and naively) thought that we had left this sort of twisted nonsense behind us. We were told that the Orthodox Church teaches some basic truths about God’s infinite love for man, and about the truly universal reach of the Gospel. For example:
God loves every human being, and truly desires for all men to be saved.
If any person hears the Gospel, then it is truly possible for that person to respond in faith, to trust in Christ, and to be saved.
In the harrowing of hell, on the day before His resurrection, Jesus preached to the spirits in prison — that is, He preached the truth to people who had died and gone to hades. Many of them believed in Christ and were saved, and once He rose from the dead, He released them from hades and welcomed them into heaven. In the Orthodox Church, the icon of the Resurrection depicts Jesus pulling Adam & Eve out of hades.
For those of us living today, it is important to be baptized into the Orthodox Church. However, if some little ones die unbaptized — such as unborn infants who die via miscarriage — then we ask St. Varus to pray for them. In Russia, there is even a church built in memory of an unbaptized man, and its altar is dedicated to St. Varus. Every day, my family and I pray for our children who died via miscarriage, and we ask the Lord to have mercy on these little ones.
While living in our pleasant little bubble of American Orthodoxy, before moving to Russia, we thought this was all there was to it. We never dreamed that anyone in the Orthodox Church would try to drag us back into the surreal, twisted world of Calvinist theology.
But then one of my daughters met a wonderful young man. A nearly perfect young man. The sort of young man that parents dream of having their daughters marry. Christian, devout, honorable, respectful, serious, intelligent, with a good job, a good income, and a desire to create a family and to raise Christian children — my daughter was hoping to marry him, and my wife and I were hoping that she would . . .
until . . .
This devout Orthodox Christian young man made it clear that all unbaptized babies go to hell when they die, without exception. They haven’t been baptized, so they will be forever separated from Christ. The same goes for Orthodox catechumens who die unexpectedly. It doesn’t matter if you have faith in Christ, have been faithfully attending church, and are eagerly looking forward to your baptism which is scheduled for tomorrow — if there is a car accident and you unexpectedly die today, then you are damned. You haven’t been baptized, so you will spend eternity in hell, forever separated from Christ.
And according to this young man’s beliefs, there’s nothing we can do about it. It doesn’t matter how many times we pray for the souls of those who have died unbaptized. They cannot be saved. There is no hope for them. — Of course, we can pray for baptized Orthodox Christians who have died. Our prayers can help them. — But there is no use praying for the unbaptized. We are wasting our breath. That’s what this young man expects us to believe.
Where in the world did this faithful son of the Russian Orthodox Church get such ideas? How did he arrive at such depressing conclusions?
This young man turned out to be a devoted follower of Fr. Daniel Sysoev, a popular Russian priest who was shot in his own church just a few years ago.
Over the past century, there have been hundreds of millions of abortions worldwide. Since all of these babies died before birth, they died without baptism. Thus, according to Fr. Daniel Sysoev, all of these infants are now in hades, and they have no hope for escape:
According to the Lord, all the unbaptized, except for those who were executed for Christ’s sake, will go to hades… As for innocent infants, there is simply no such thing. Every man has a distorted will from the moment of conception. Every man joins the devil’s “mafia” by virtue of his birth, and it is this that made necessary the sacrifice of Christ, which acts in us through baptism, so that infants also might be saved… The homilies of St. Gregory pertain only to unbaptized infants, but even these do not presuppose their salvation. (Daniel Sysoev, Letters, p. 16, 18, 20)
In the eyes of God both you and every infant are sinners, and if you do not receive baptism you will go to hades. (Daniel Sysoev, Letters, p. 143)
What happens after death to people who were not baptized? They are going to hell; there is no other way for them. Christ descended into hell only once – on Holy Saturday – and freed those people who lived before His birth, but looking for Him. All the people who don’t want to come to Christ, perish forever… There is no salvation without baptism. If you take the position of J.J. Russo, who believed that children are a clean slate, then, of course, the death of children (without a baptism) would be extremely unjust. But Scripture says that there is not one righteous one. After baptism the grace of God washes away all sins by repentance… In the moment of birth, even [from the moment] of conception, a person enters into an alliance, between Adam and the devil, and becomes a sinner from the very beginning. There is no such thing as a “sinless baby.” (Daniel Sysoev, Lectures on Dogmatic Theology - Missionary Edition, p. 24, 172, 174)
Hades is a kind of underground into which people who have fallen into sin go, and to this day, all of the unbaptized, without exception, wind up there. (Daniel Sysoev, Instructions for the Immortal, p. 7)
Sinners and unbaptized go to Hades, where with dread they await punishment. During this time the baptized may yet receive relief by the prayers of the Church. (Daniel Sysoev, The Law of God, p. 28; cf p. 143-144)
Thankfully, not all Russian priests agree with Fr. Daniel Sysoev. But sadly, some of them do. Just for example, consider Fr. George Maximov, who is one of Russia’s most well known priests. The famous orthochristian.com website has a section with many articles written by him. He is the chair of the Missionary Department of the Russian Orthodox Church's Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa. No doubt he has some level of oversight regarding the spiritual formation of men who are being ordained as Russian Orthodox priests there. Fr. George also wrote a book titled “No Salvation Outside the Church” (in Russian), in which he argues that all people go to hades, without exception, if they die without baptism.
Sadly, the problem is not only in Russia. Even in America, it turns out there are some Orthodox who believe in infant damnation.
Consensus of the Saints — The First Seven Centuries
So what should we believe? When unbaptized infants die, do they all go to heaven? Are they all tormented forever in the fires of hell? Or do they go some “nice” and “comfortable” part of hell, where they are free from physical torture, but still forbidden entry into heaven, like an Orthodox version of “Limbo”?
Imagine that you live in the early 7th century, and you are faced with precisely this question. To resolve it, you agree to follow the consensus patrum — that is, the consensus of the Saints. You’ll take a look at what the saints said about unbaptized infants, and you’ll go with the majority.
At first, you are encouraged when you read the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa (+395). He notes that such infants are "perfectly free from the sufferings which flow from wickedness, having never caught the disease of evil at all", and he says that they will be gradually enlightened until they are able to fully experience the joys of heaven.
This passage from St. Ephrem the Syrian (+373) agrees that unbaptized children will be welcomed into heaven:
"In Paradise, the life cycle of trees resembles a necklace... That cornucopia full of fruits in all stages of development resembles the course of human marriage; it contains old, young and middle-aged, children who have already been born, and babies still unborn; its fruits follow one another and appear like the continuous succession of mankind. The river of humanity consists of people of all ages, with old, young, children and babes, infants in their mothers’ arms and others still unborn in the womb. Such is the sequence of Paradise’s fruit..." (Hymns on Paradise, 11-13)
Unfortunately, however, you can’t seem to locate any other saints who speak this way, and you are hesitant to base your beliefs on the teaching of just two saints.
You find the writings of two other saints — St. Gregory of Naziansus (+390) and St. Ambrose of Milan (+397) — who say that unbaptized infants will not be allowed to enter heaven. However, they say that such children will not be tormented, and that they will be free from physical suffering. Apparently, that’s two votes in favor of Orthodox “Limbo”.
Then you read multiple saints, one right after the other — eight Orthodox saints — who seem to suggest that unbaptized infants will be tormented in hell, losing their souls and suffering eternal destruction:
St. Macarius the Great (+392) — “A woman who has conceived in her womb carries her child within herself in darkness, so to speak, and in an unclean place. And if the baby finally happens to come out of the womb at the appropriate time, she sees a new creature for heaven, earth and sun - such as she has never seen; and immediately friends and relatives with a cheerful face take the baby into their arms. And if due to some disorder the baby happens to die in the womb, then it is necessary for the doctors who have already been appointed to do so to resort to sharp instruments, and then the baby passes from death to death, from darkness to darkness.” (Philokalia. Selected Teachings. M. 2002, p.45.)
St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258) — “But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council… we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in His Gospel, “The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them,” as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost…” (Epistle 58. To Fidus, on the Baptism of Infants.)
The original Latin of this quote says, “nulla anima perdenda est”. The Latin word “perdenda” literally means to come to destruction, and the full phrase “nulla anima perdenda est” is translated into the English phrase, “that no soul be lost”. St. Cyprian doesn’t want to “destroy men’s lives” by delaying infant baptism any longer than absolutely necessary. He says that infants should be baptized within 2 or 3 days after being born, and that parents should not even wait eight days, so that there is no danger of the children losing their souls and coming to destruction.St. Augustine of Hippo (+430) — "Our Lord will come to judge the quick and the dead, and he will make two sides — the right and the left. To those on the left hand he will say, 'Depart into everlasting fire'; to those on the right, 'Come, receive the kingdom'. He calls one 'the kingdom', the other 'the condemnation of the devil'. There is no middle place where you can put infants; . . . so that when you confess the infant will not be in the kingdom, you must acknowledge he will be in everlasting fire." (De Verbis Apostoli, serm. 14)
St. Zosimus of Rome (+418) — “If anyone says that… in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger , 30th edition, p.45, note 2).
St. Prosper of Aquitaine (+455) — “Consider also the case of the whole multitude of children. In none of them do you find deserts, neither past nor future, only the sin in which the whole human race is born unto damnation. We speak now of children before the use of reason and before they are able to make any use of their free will. Some are regenerated in baptism and pass on to eternal happiness, others are not reborn and go to unending misery.” (The call of all nations, Book 1, Chapter 16)
St. Avitus of Vienne (+518) - "And a case more dreadful than all of these occurs when envious death snatches away a tender child who lacks baptism and who must be borne under that harsh sentence to Hell. Such a child, when it ceases to be the child of its mother, becomes the son of damnation, and its sad parents wish unborn the limbs to which they gave life only to see them consigned to the flames." (The Poems of Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, Poem 6, 171-216)
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+533) — “Hold most firmly and never doubt that, not only adults with the use of reason but also children who either begin to live in the womb of their mothers and who die there or, already born from their mothers, pass from this world without the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, which is given in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, must be punished with the endless penalty of eternal fire. Even if they have no sin from their own actions, still, by their carnal conception and birth, they have contracted the damnation of Original Sin.” (To Peter on the faith, 70)
St. Fulgentius of Ruspe (+533) — “For sometimes a child is born to believers, even to those who (as we have already said) are solicitous with godly faith and love for the redemption of their child, but he dies before he is washed by the sacred water of baptism . . . In fact, if one takes the will of the parents into consideration, the Christian parents earnestly desired that their child be baptized and hastened eagerly to have it done, but their child was prevented by death from being baptized and was assigned to the eternal fires.” (The truth about predestination and grace, 27)St. Gregory the Great (+604) — "For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation [baptism] do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; There they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment ‘wounds are multiplied to them without cause.’ For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will." (Exposition on the book of blessed Job, Volume 1, Book IX, Chapter 32)
Again, imagine you are a person living in the early 7th century, and you are trying to determine the truth about the fate of unbaptized infants, according to the consensus patrum — the consensus of the saints. You find two saints who say these children can go to heaven, and ten saints who say they can’t. And of these ten, a majority of them say that little infants will burn forever in the torments of hell fire.
Is that an answer that we should accept? Should we resign ourselves to believe that hundreds of millions of unborn children are now being tortured in the fires of hell? Or is there something broken in this particular approach to answering theological questions?
Consensus of the Saints — Including Modern Times
Now let’s suppose you live much later than the 7th century. Instead of restricting yourself to the voices of saints who spoke during that particular time period, you can also consider the voices of saints who lived in subsequent centuries.
Some of the more recent saints say things that are just as disturbing as the earlier ones:
St. Paisios of Mt. Athos (+1994) — “I lit candles for the dead... To the left was a waterless, barren area - only rocks and rocky cliffs. This area incessantly shook from a strong roar, into which thousands of heartbreaking, heart-breaking screams merged... I heard a voice telling me: ‘A field sown with wheat that has not yet begun to emerge is the tomb of the souls of the dead who will be resurrected. In a place that shakes and trembles with heartbreaking screams, there are the souls of children killed by abortions.’ Having experienced this, I could no longer recover from the great pain that I experienced for the souls of these children.” (St. Paisios of the Holy Mountain. Family Life, volume IV, part two)
However, thankfully, there are many saints who are considerably more encouraging. For example:
St. Cleopa of Sihăstria (+1998) — "Children who die unbaptized, for reasons beyond the control of their parents or priests, can be considered participants in the baptism of desire, like the Old Testament righteous, or by analogy with the healings performed by Jesus Christ through the prayers of parents or friends. After all, God does not punish the innocent, but on the contrary, for he created man for happiness." (Lumina și faptele credinței, p. 97) [Romanian language]
St. Athanasius the Confessor, Bishop of Kovrov (+1962) — "Some elders, at the request of mothers whose infants were stillborn or died unbaptized, gave samples of prayers for remembering such infants at home prayer. They also advised mothers (and everyone), according to the feeling of Christian love, to pray for infants who in the womb of Orthodox mothers died accidentally from unknown actions, or from a difficult birth, or from some carelessness, and therefore did not receive baptism, so that the Lord may baptize them in the sea of His bounty and save them by His inexpressible grace." (On the Commemoration of the Deceased according to the Statutes of the Orthodox Church)
St. Anastasios of Sinai (+700) — "In the case of children, without sin at the age of five or four, but being the offspring of Jews or unbaptized, where do we want to say that they go [when dying], to condemnation or to Paradise? . . . my opinion is that they will not enter hell." (St. Anastasios of Sinai, Questions and Answers, Question 9)
Multiple saints have said that, in some cases, prayers for the dead can help those who die outside the Church. And if such prayers can be effective for unbaptized adults who die, then how much more effective they should be for unbaptized infants! Considered in that light, the quotes from these saints are quite encouraging:
St. Mark of Ephesus (+1444) — "some of the saints, who prayed not only for the faithful, but also for the wicked, were heard and with their prayers rescued them from eternal torment, as for example the First Martyr Thekla rescued Falconila, and St. Gregory, as the story goes, rescued King Trajan." (Refuting the Latin Chapters Regarding the Purifying Fire, Homily 2)
St. Gennadius Scholarius (+1473) — "some [unbaptized] souls, condemned to eternal confinement in the torments of hell, are nevertheless freed from the torments of hell by the bold and effective prayers of certain holy men... and are granted a blessed life." (On the Middle State of Souls and Against Purgatory)
St. Athanasius the Confessor, Bishop of Kovrov (+1962) — "Ancient Russia, with all the strictness of its attitude to the dead, found it possible to pray not only for the conversion of the living to the true faith, but also for the the dead belonging to another faith to be delivered from torment. In doing so the Church resorted to the intercession of the holy martyr Varus... the canon asks for the intercession of the holy martyr before the Lord for the forgiveness and the remission of His righteous wrath for those who are afflicted by dark evil belief: our forebears who died in impiety, heresy, or even paganism." (On the Commemoration of the Deceased according to the Statutes of the Orthodox Church)
St. Seraphim of Platina (+1982) — "And behold, some of the saints who prayed not only for the faithful, but even for the impious, were heard and by their prayers rescued them from eternal torment, as for example the First Woman-martyr Thecla rescued Falconila, and the divine Gregory the Dialogist, as it is related, rescued the Emperor Trajan... it is evident that this deliverance from hell was the fruit of St. Gregory’s own personal prayer. Although this is a rare occurrence, it gives hope to those who have dear ones who have died outside the faith." (The Soul After Death - Kindle edition)
If our prayers are even able to help sinful adults who have died outside the Church, then they should be even more effective for helping little unbaptized children who die in infancy.
Many people expect Elder Ephraim of Arizona to be canonized as an Orthodox saint within the next few decades. If this happens, then we will have an additional quote to add to the list:
"I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that these embryos, these infants, these beings do not cease to exist once they are aborted. On the contrary! Each embryo is a complete human being, especially with respect to the soul. These children live in the other world, and, as you can understand, many millions of children now comprise an entire army in Heaven. All of them protest. Their innocent blood cries out to God that they were killed unjustly, that they did not receive Holy Baptism, that they did not [formally] become Orthodox Christians. Who is responsible for this? It is self-explanatory and does not have to be spelled out. When this blood is spilled, God's computer documents the crime. How will this blood be washed away? When someone becomes dirty, how is he cleansed? Only with clean water. Likewise, water is needed in this case as well. It must flow forth continuously from two faucets, which are the two eyes. Internal repentance should be externalized with a lifelong, never-ending stream of tears."
We also have encouraging words from the holy Elder Paisius of Sihla (Romania):
"I believe that these infants are martyrs. They will complete the number of the martyrs in the last times, as the Apocalypse says. In dying through abortion they receive the baptism of blood, but the Church does not commemorate them in her prayers in order not to encourage abortions, which for the parents is an act of infanticide."
Interestingly, in medieval Russia, Orthodox priests were permitted to give a Christian burial to unbaptized infants in certain circumstances:
"If the child died unexpectedly within the first week of life, the parents were exonerated and excused from any penance. If a sickly child died unbaptized due to parental neglect or drunkenness, the penance was raised to one year. If the dead child was still unbaptized more than six weeks after birth, the parents were placed under a penance of three years. When the priest was certain that the infant's death was entirely accidental, he was directed not to impose a penance on the parents, and was permitted to give it a Christian burial. The existence of special canons to excuse parents when the baby's death was truly unforseen tends to confirm the supposition that regulations on unbaptized children generally concerned infanticide." (Eve Levin, Infanticide in Pre-Petrine Russia, p. 218)
It’s also worth noting that both in Scripture and in the lives of the saints, there have been multiple Orthodox saints who were holy while still in the womb, long before baptism. I have written about them here . . . Unborn Children with Halos: The Church’s Ancient Testimony of Infant Saints
Today, multiple Orthodox jurisdictions now accept the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved, with full synods of Orthodox bishops offering full agreement. The bishops also have to make decisions about whether to approve the canonization of new Orthodox saints. And when new saints such as St. Cleopa of Sihăstria and Elder Ephraim of Arizona are recognized, it has a direct bearing on the overall consensus of saints, reducing any overall support for infant damnation, and tipping the scales in favor of infant salvation.
Here are some Orthodox jurisdictions which seem to be recognizing the possibility of unbaptized infants being saved:
Romanian Orthodox Church
At the Proskomedia service in the Romanian Orthodox Church, in preparation for the Divine Liturgy, Orthodox priests pray for children who died as a result of miscarriage. The service includes prayers for the deceased, including three different groups of children: "copilandri" (teenagers), "copii" (infants and young children) and "prunci fără de vreme" (stillborns). — In the Romanian language, the word "prunci" means "child". And when a baby dies prematurely and is stillborn, it is said to be miscarried “de vreme”. This phrase "de vreme" is used in the Romanian Bible in 1 Corinthians 15:8, where St. Paul compares himself to a miscarriage. The phrase can also refer to babies who die as a result of abortion.
The liturgical textbook "Liturgica Speciala” was written by Fr. Ene Branishte, a Romanian Orthodox priest. Page 392 says: "Pruncilor născuţi morţi sau celor ce mor nebotezaţi, li se poate face slujba înmormântării, ca şi la pruncii morţi botezaţi." Translation: “Stillborn infants or those who die unbaptized may be buried as baptized dead infants.”
According to Fr. Patriciu Vlaicu, a Romanian Orthodox priest, “The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church issued a decision on this matter on May 5, 1908, according to which stillborn infants or unbaptized deceased born into the families of the Orthodox Church may be granted the usual rite of infant burial. This decree is normative for the Romanian Orthodox Church, and it is reflected in the general liturgical manual, which has the greatest authority in the Romanian Orthodox Church” (Canon Şi Libertate, pp. 211-212).
Decree from the Romanian synod of bishops in May, 1908, published by the Romanian Orthodox Church later the same year — (BOR, an. XXXII, nr.3, iunie 1908, p. 258)
Greek Orthodox Church
In March, 2001, the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church approved use of the Orthodox Christian burial service for infants who died without baptism, and also for certain types of suicides.
The Holy Synod of bishops stated, "According to the established tradition of infant baptism, unbaptized infants of Christian parents are classified as catechumens." And they went on to say that "it is possible for the funeral service rite to be performed over catechumens." The synod noted "the personal innocence of infants, as sufferers and non-perpetrators of evil according to [the writings of Saint] Gregory of Nyssa," and they advocated "burying unbaptized dead infants in Christian cemeteries, thus expressing the belief that these too are under the protection of God."
Orthodox Church in America (OCA)
In 2015, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America formally approved a Service after a Miscarriage or Stillbirth, in which the church recognizes the child’s Orthodox patron saint, and asks for Christ to admit the child into His heavenly kingdom.
Antiochian Orthodox Church
In 2017, the Antiochian Orthodox Church published a liturgical book titled Services of Initiation, in which it offers alternatives for various childbirth prayers, including a rite for sillborn infants. The relevant prayers are on pages 27–32, with an explanation on pages 133–139.
Orthodox Church of Cyprus
On February 6, 2018, the Holy Synod of the Cypriot Orthodox Church approved for liturgical use a service for deceased unbaptized infants.
Prior to these encouraging events which have taken place in the Orthodox Church over the past few decades, many distraught parents didn’t know where to turn. Some of them had created plaintive blogs such as Lost Innocents (English) and Lost & Premature Babies - An Orthodox Perspective (Romanian), and wrote for publications such as Touchstone Magazine, where they openly sought for hope for their little ones. Thankfully, entire synods of Orthodox bishops are finally responding, making positive statements, gently correcting the inaccuracies of previous generations.
These developments are much more encouraging — and much more in accord with the entire tenor of the Holy Scriptures and the Gospel — than the cluster of quotes from early medieval saints who claimed that all miscarriages and victims of abortion would burn in the fires of hell.
Of course, all of this is great news for those of us who love children, and who pray for their entrance into heaven. But how do these developments impact our understanding of the consensus of the saints? Is the consensus patrum still something that we can trust?
Consensus of the Saints — Reconsidering the Method
When Orthodox Christians invoke the pricinple of consensus patrum, they often do so lazily, simply by compiling saints’ quotes and then counting noses. If the majority of quotes align with a particular position, then their work is done. They confidently declare, “This is the teaching of the Church!”
But the lazy approach can lead a person into significant problems. Imagine that you were a Christian family living in the 7th century, and that you had tried to use this method. When 70%-80% of all the saints’ quotes you found were proposing the eternal torment of unborn children — infants burning in hell — would you just have to accept that?
If you think you would be compelled to accept it, then we have a real problem on our hands, because now that additional time has passed, the majority of saints’ quotes no longer agree with this form of infant damnation. It is no longer accurate to say that “most saints think unbaptized infants are being tormented in hell.” Thus, if we take the lazy approach to the consensus of the saints, we would have to believe that the truth changes over time, and we would have to accept a certain form of moral relativism.
But the truth cannot change. And we must not accept moral relativism. Therefore, we cannot accept a simplistic approach to the consensus patrum. We must not merely compile saints’ quotes and then count noses. It is possible for us to do better than this.
When we seek to consult the consensus of the saints, here are some principles we can apply, to get more dependable results:
Unanimity trumps mere majority
100% of saints agree that God created the universe, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Scriptures are trustworthy. None of the saints approve of fornication, murder, homosexual behavior, adultery, or abortion. Without exception, all saints who mention contraception are opposed to it. There aren’t any saints who reject the deity of Christ, the sanctity of marriage, or the veneration of icons. When the saints are unanimous, it is far more powerful than when there is a mere consensus.Earlier teachings carry greater weight than later ones
In the thousand years prior to the time of St. Peter Mogila, there don’t seem to have been any Orthodox Christians who denied that the liquid in the chalice is the true Blood of Christ, during the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts. This change in beliefs and this change in the liturgy was a clear innovation, and in the Orthodox Christian Faith, innovation = error. It doesn’t matter how many bishops and priests do it the wrong way today, and it doesn’t matter how many saints have done it wrong for the past 350 years, it’s still an error, and it still needs to be corrected.Core Christian doctrines trump sideline issues
This category is very important, though knowing how and when to apply it is not always simple. Inevitably, someone asks, “How do you know which doctrines are central?” Admittedly, the answer requires some level of discernment.
If someone says, “God is not the Creator”, or “Jesus is not God”, or “Jesus is not the only way to heaven”, then we don’t have to think twice. In certain situations, we know without the shadow of a doubt that we are dealing with a central, core, foundational doctrine of Orthodox Christianity, and if that doctrine crumbles, we know that the entire Christian faith crumbles with it.
These are issues on which we cannot afford to compromise, and we can often identify these particular doctrines by looking above at the “unanimity of the saints”. If the saints are split 60/40 on a particular teaching, then either side might be right. But if a teaching is supported by 100% of the saints, without exception, and you can’t find any saints who oppose that teaching, then there’s a good chance that you are looking at something that belongs in the “dogma” column, indicating a doctrine that must be believed and defended at all costs.Worldwide teachings prevail over teachings promoted in an isolated location
Earlier in this article, there was a list of eight Orthodox saints who taught that unbaptized infants come to utter destruction, being tormented in hell. But how widespread was this teaching, really? With the exception of one saint from Egypt, the entire list of saints was located in the area marked with a little blue line on this map:
At the tip of northern Africa, Augustine was in Hippo (Algeria), Cyprian was in Carthage (Tunisia), and Fulgentius was in Ruspe (Tunisia). Just across the sea in western Italy, Zosimus and Gregory were located in Rome. A little farther up the coast, Prosper of Aquitaine was located in Marseilles, and Avitus was further inland, in Vienne. All of them spoke Latin. Most of them were followers of Augustine.
No saints from Constantinople. Not any saints from Cappadocia in Asia minor. None from Germany, England or Spain. None from Georgia, Syria or Jerusalem. Just this one isolated area, half encircling the Tyrhennian Sea. What tainted theology was infecting the churchmen in this particular region? It’s almost as if there was something in the water.
Meanwhile, multiple Orthodox saints from around the world have taught us that unbaptized infants do not burn in hell. From Syria to Sinai (St. Ephrem & St. Anastasios), from Cappadocia to Constantinople (St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Mark of Ephesus & St. Gennadius Scholarius), from Romania to Russia (St. Cleopa of Sihăstria & St. Athanasius of Kovrov), and all the way around the planet to the distant United States of America (St. Seraphim Rose & Elder Ephraim), there is truly a worldwide consensus of Orthodox saints, providing us with encouraging information about what unbaptized infants can expect to experience after death. To create a map of all these saints, we would have to circle the globe, traversing oceans and seas, connecting numerous countries and continents with an unimaginably long blue line.
But what about “Limbo”?
Alas, there are still more saints’ quotes that we haven’t yet considered. Over the centuries, a number of saints have agreed with St. Ambrose and St. Gregory of Naziansus, believing that unbaptized infants are both excluded from heaven, and free from torment. Supposedly they go to a “nice” corner of hell that is relatively comfortable — basically an Orthodox version of “Limbo”.
Fr. Daniel Sysoev, Fr. George Maximov and others have taught similarly. They say that unbaptized infants do not go to eternal torment in the painful fires of hell, but that they go to some “nice” corner of hell where the punishment is minimal.
What are we to make of these claims?
There are some people who find such a scenario conceivable, but I am not one of those people. It seems impossible that the same God who sent His Son to die on the Cross for our salvation, would save liars, thieves, adulterers, and murderers, and yet would make no provision whatsoever for saving hundreds of millions of the most vulnerable and helpless children.
Imagine the following scenario . . .
A cold-blooded woman pays a heartless abortion doctor to murder the child in her womb. The infant is cut into pieces and sold to the highest bidder for “medical research”. Years later, the woman and the doctor both repent of their sins and become Orthodox Christians. In response to this scenario, Jesus says,
“My daughter, I forgive you for murdering your baby. I have washed your sins away, and this crime will not be held against you.”
“My son, I forgive you for being an abortion doctor — a serial killer — and for murdering thousands of children. I have cleansed you from your sins, and your crimes will not be held against you.”
But to the little infant, Jesus says,
“I will never cleanse you. I will never forgive you. You never did anything wrong, and you never commited any sin, but you are condemned because you are a descendant of sinners. You were a tiny murder victim, put to death by your own mother. You had no way to escape or defend yourself, and you had no ability to seek baptism before your death. You are not my child, and I will never allow you to enter heaven.”
Jesus then welcomes the woman and the abortion doctor into heaven, and leaves the aborted child in the “nicest” corner of hell, to spend the rest of eternity in “Limbo”.
Does this story sound even remotely reasonable? Does it bear any resemblance whatsoever to the good character of God that is revealed to us in Scripture and in (most of) the writings of the saints? Obviously not.
Therefore, we should be very hesitant to accept such a teaching, even if it apparently has support from the consensus of saints. If any doctrine requires us to believe that God is unjust or unmerciful — or to believe that God isolates several hundred million infants and makes eternal salvation utterly unavailable for them — then perhaps we need to take a second look at that particular doctrine.
At the beginning of this article, we considered the drama in the Church that has unfolded over the centuries, in regard to the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, the reciting of the Nicene Creed, and the opinions various saints have held regarding the salvation (or damnation) of infants who die without baptism. In the course of our study, we have made some significant observations:
It is possible for many saints to get a particular doctrine wrong, and to get it wrong for hundreds of years (as long as it is not a central doctrine of the faith).
Even after a number of centuries have passed, it is possible to make a course correction, and to restore the Church to a proper understanding of that particular doctrine.
If a teaching is new then it cannot be true. True doctrines usually have the assent of the majority, and they always have the assent of antiquity. So if you believe a particular doctrine to be true, then it’s necessary to find examples of saints who espouse it in the early centuries of the Church.
This is why the salvation of unbaptized infants is a plausible doctrine, and women’s ordination (for example) is not. In the early centuries of the Church, there were saints (such as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Ephrem the Syrian) who believed in the salvation of unbaptized infants, but in the Early Church, nobody was ordaining female priests.
We still need to deal with the question of regional councils and Ecumenical Councils, and how they impact our understanding of these issues. But this article has already become very long, so I will end here for now.
In the comment section, feel free to chime in with your thoughts and ideas. I look forward to hearing from you.
I gave my unborn baby who died to Mother Mary. I was tormented by worry and guilt before that moment. I felt her peace after that. I know my little 19 week gestation boy is in her loving arms until I can see him and love him. After all, she knows the pain of losing a son.
I find offensive the input of of robed clerics pontificating about whatever, presuming that because they are a superior, more enlightened class, they have the right to determine what is right or wrong doctrine, and dictate what ordinary believers should believe and how they should act.
Recently I was watching a video recording of a national church leader, delivering essentially a nothing burger, to trusting, hungry believers.
I eventually realized, that the real gospel was being preached by the faithful believers themselves, who are the true flesh and blood of our Lord.
The Nicolaitans were those who felt that there was a spiritually superior clergy class and a spiritually inferior laity class of Christians.
Our Lord hates the idea that any member of His body is inherently superior to any other.
He left the kingdom in the hands of fishermen, and other ordinary people, whom he considered to be quite competent to share the gospel.
He did not ordain a hierarchy.
He ordained a priesthood of believers, all of equal value, but with different functions.
God deliver us from the false church of the Nicolaitans!