C
ciero
Guest
wrong
- Status
P
PodunkMommy
Guest
(name removed by moderator);7868713 Generally such couples are advised to marry in an Orthodox Church due to several factors which Ryan noted said:
V
Volodymyr
Guest
[No message]
P
PodunkMommy
Guest
The image of the Crowning and the videos are beautiful!! Thank you for sharing.
Blessings.
Blessings.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Some matters were never settled universally. It should be asked if insisting that everything be the same everywhere is right or wrong. For me St Basil settled this matter, and I found in one place where he said something interesting about re-baptism and the Roman Church. Part of Canon 47 of St Basil said, “Be that as it may, we rebaptized such persons. If it be objected what we are doing is forbidden as regards this practice of re-baptism, precisely as in the case of present-day Romans, for the sake of economy, yet we insist that our rule prevail”. In this case, St Basil did not seek to conform to the practice of the Church of the Romans but insisted that his rule prevail. The early Church didn’t have a mindset that that sought to conform in every respect to Rome or any other Church, rather all felt it was their sacred duty to preserve what each had passed down to them from the Apostles.
If you are interested the view of St Basil regarding baptism outside of the Church I think he spelled it out quite well in Canon #1 of St Basil, see: Canons of St Basil
If you are interested the view of St Basil regarding baptism outside of the Church I think he spelled it out quite well in Canon #1 of St Basil, see: Canons of St Basil
J
Joel_PF
Guest
Thanks for the quotes of St. Basil, exactly the thing I’m looking for, though of course, as an Orthodox, you are biased against any sort of Petrine Primacy that might have existed. Even in modern times Catholic bishops have gone against the Pope in some matters and practices and have not by that reason implied they denied his primacy.
As for EO views on Catholic Church, they seem to vary. Members here seem to adopt an “agnostic” position, stating that the Orthodox Church cannot know whether there is validity or not. Others, however, affirm them as invalid.
Yes, it is a contemptible view of things, and I really don’t see how a Catholic could see it otherwise. Next we’ll be graciously deferring to the opinions of Protestants or Orthodox who see the Roman Church as the whore of Babylon. The Orthodox are in a lamentable error (or, for those who hold the “agnostic” position, a lamentable ignorance) regarding our Sacraments, one which, God willing, they will abandon some day in the future, as we approach a reunion which I, for one, hope for with all my soul.
As for the Orthodox position that they “do not care” whether other churches have valid Sacraments or not, well, it doesn’t really seem very spiritually prudent. After all, given that the great majority of Christians are Catholic, it would seem that it is very relevant to know whether they have access to true Sacraments or not. That’s why it matters for Catholics to know whether the Orthodox or the Anglicans have valid Sacraments; because they care for the souls even of those outside their communion, and know the good that the grace of God conferred by the Sacraments can do even outside the visible boundaries of the Church.
As for EO views on Catholic Church, they seem to vary. Members here seem to adopt an “agnostic” position, stating that the Orthodox Church cannot know whether there is validity or not. Others, however, affirm them as invalid.
Yes, it is a contemptible view of things, and I really don’t see how a Catholic could see it otherwise. Next we’ll be graciously deferring to the opinions of Protestants or Orthodox who see the Roman Church as the whore of Babylon. The Orthodox are in a lamentable error (or, for those who hold the “agnostic” position, a lamentable ignorance) regarding our Sacraments, one which, God willing, they will abandon some day in the future, as we approach a reunion which I, for one, hope for with all my soul.
As for the Orthodox position that they “do not care” whether other churches have valid Sacraments or not, well, it doesn’t really seem very spiritually prudent. After all, given that the great majority of Christians are Catholic, it would seem that it is very relevant to know whether they have access to true Sacraments or not. That’s why it matters for Catholics to know whether the Orthodox or the Anglicans have valid Sacraments; because they care for the souls even of those outside their communion, and know the good that the grace of God conferred by the Sacraments can do even outside the visible boundaries of the Church.
R
Rawb
Guest
Joel, a large part of it is that we don’t feel we *can *know. We have no way of measuring Sacramentality. How can you gauge that?
Since we don’t feel we can know, we don’t care to bash our heads against a wall trying to figure out something that we can’t know.
Since we don’t feel we can know, we don’t care to bash our heads against a wall trying to figure out something that we can’t know.
J
Joel_PF
Guest
Ok, that sounds reasonable. You must understand, though, that from a Catholic point of view this lack of knowledge itself is still a sad thing, for we believe it IS possible to know whether Sacraments are valid or not outside of our communion.
Also, this reasonable view you expound is not universal in Orthodoxy. Many believe that they can know, and they know Catholic Sacraments are invalid. Perhaps this is particularly so with the Russians, who seem to be specially averse to all things Roman?
R
Rawb
Guest
I suppose, but you have to see from our point of view, you seem to have taken a rather arbitrary set of rules and applied them to the efficacy of Sacraments. I don’t say this to be contrary or rude, just to point it out. It is when we start getting to this area, what Orthodox generally mean by acquiring an “Orthodox Mindset” and a whole philosophy on approaching religion and life in general that you begin to see why the Orthodox believe that communion with Rome is so far off.
shrug
H
Hesychios
Guest
To me that is hubris.
You don’t really know that Orthodox sacraments are valid either, you just think you know. In fact, the Roman Catholic church has flip-fopped on this very subject. If you think admitting we don’t know is sad, I think not admitting it and changing one’s mind in the process is more so.
Basically, Orthodox don’t know and ultimately don’t care whether your sacraments are valid, because you do not believe what we believe. We can not and will not break bread with you before the altar of God until you share Orthodox beliefs.
It’s a little like arguing about whether so-and-so in some other town has the skill and ability to fix your car. If you have no intention whatever of using that shop it ultimately doesn’t matter.
Now some Orthodox may, on a personal level, have lost all hope in your church and therefore have given up any thought of sacramental efficacy in the RC. I think that is sadly unnecessary, and it is not a universal teaching of the church. It is a minority opinion, but the question itself is un-Orthodox. It doesn’t matter what they think because they have no more ability to know than you do, and we all (regardless of what we might personally think) will not take communion in your church.
We are not going to pretend to speak for God, who fills all things. If the Holy Ghost wants to enliven your soul you are truly blessed, but we don’t know what God is doing in your life because you are not a part of the church in a recognizable way.
Hopefully (from the Orthodox point of view) in the process God would lead your church to Holy Orthodoxy. He has a long reach, and can do this if He wants to.
J
Joel_PF
Guest
This is very much to the purpose of the thread. When did this change happen? Are there Church documents, writings of saints or any other relevant writings on the Catholic side denying that the Greeks had valid Sacraments?
J
JohnVIII
Guest
That Canon #1of St Basil that I made reference to seems to indicates that St Basil knew that those outside of the Church had no grace. Quote: “…true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who succeeded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others…”
Perhaps what “cannot” be known for sure is whether or not a jurisdiction has really been cut off from the Church or not. Many assume that when communion is broken between two Churches that it means that one of them cannot be in the Church any longer. Sometime this may be the case, but not always.
Actually, I am not against Petrine Primacy. Well maybe I am “biased” against it, because I’ve been Orthodox for about 25 years, but there is no doubt that the Church followed something close to a High Petrine model for several centuries. To say that the High Petrine model is wrong is to say that the Church was wrong. But I do reject any sort of Absolutist Petrine view, and I also think it was wrong for Rome to declare this matter to be dogma and/or declare an anathema against those who don’t hold the same exact view of Rome (whatever that view is!).
Many years ago I used to believe that Rome’s Sacraments were without grace. (I don’t like to use the legal term “invalid”, the Holy Spirit is not restrained by law). I do now believe that Rome has grace because I used to believe Rome was in heresy but now I believe Rome essentially holds an orthodox Faith.
I wouldn’t call it “contemptible”. To say that the Orthodox considers Rome to be the “whore of Babylon” is an exaggeration. The Orthodox simply wish to continue in all that has been passed down to them from the Apostles, and if that means we need to make a choice between communion with Rome and preserving all that has been passed down to us, most of us will choose to keep the Holy Deposit. Simply refusing to give up what has been passed down to us should not be considered contemptible.
As for re-union, I firmly believe that will happen soon. Look to Russia for this to happen.
Maybe you are right to say that it is wrong to not care. But there are things that are more important. Whether or not a Church that we are not in communion with has grace does not depend on anything that we do or do not do. We cannot make a church have grace if it does not, nor can we take grace away from a church if it does have grace. Grace comes from God and it is not dependent on inter-communion to be present. But we are able to preserve all that has come down to us from the Apostles, and to choose not to do so would be a crime far greater then mistakenly not being in inter-communion with a Church that we really should be in inter-communion with (if that is the case).
Peace!
A
Apotheoun
Guest
I found the article below, which was written by an Orthodox priest named Peter Alban Heers, helpful in understanding the Orthodox position on the intrinsic connection of the holy mysteries to the Church:
The Mystery of Baptism and the Unity of the Church
P.S. - Fr. Peter has a program on Ancient Faith Radio called Postcards from Greece.
The Mystery of Baptism and the Unity of the Church
P.S. - Fr. Peter has a program on Ancient Faith Radio called Postcards from Greece.
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is a well known debate within the Roman Communion under the Pope, and I am sure an archive search in the Traditionalist section of CAF would pour out several threads on the subject.
I would have to submit the following as a primary source. Some have claimed this Bull to be infallible, but others dispute this. I think this would have to be considered part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the church in it’s time though, as far as I understand that.
"The most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier.
No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
Bull Cantate Domino, Council of Florence by His Holiness Pope Eugene IV 1442AD
This follows the Bull Unam Sanctam of about 140 years earlier …
“Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis”
" we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
The span between the first quote and the second could represent six to seven generations of teaching on the subject, and actually 14 Popes from the one to the other.
Now we are aware that many fathers from the first millenium church did see rival churches teaching seriously heretical doctrines as graceless. This would be a continuation of a very old theological opinion. The point here is that those in schism quite apart from heretics are also unable to be saved.
Granted, this does not address the efficacy of Orthodox sacrament directly. What it says is that anything and everything one does outside of the Roman Catholic church avails one not a bit. I think one could reasonably presume that also means receiving a sacrament from a priest not under the Pope (in schism) is pointless.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Thanks for this reference! I am not certain, however, that the primary Orthodox view that even baptism is without grace if it is outside of the Church is the only Orthodox view. Many Fathers have clearly taught this, but not all. St. Seraphim, for example, in St. Seraphim’s conversation with Motovilov said, “This Baptismal grace is so great and so indispensable, so vital for man, that even a heretic is not deprived of it until his death”. See, St. Seraphim’s conversation with Motovilov.
I maintain this issue has NEVER been universally settled. Nor do I think that it should be (modern Roman pronouncements notwithstanding).
D
dcointin
Guest
Since there is no unanimous Orthodox teaching on this subject, I’ll give you my personal opinion, which is that Catholic sacraments are efficacious. I would argue this because I believe there are no actual dogmatic differences between us, and thus Catholics have not lost the grace of the Holy Spirit by falling into heresy. By “dogma” I’m referring principally to our faith in Christ and the Holy Trinity, which I believe to be the same. The one area of possible difference is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son (“filioque”), but after reading the treatment of this subject by Blessed Pope John Paul II (holy father pray for us!), I believe this is a misunderstanding. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that the Holy Spirit has its origin in the Father alone, who is the source (“arche”) of the Holy Trinity. There was a tremendous amount of misunderstanding on this point due to language differences and emotion, but I believe that theologians today of good faith on both sides would agree that there is no real difference on this point. As for whether there is also a “procession” of the Holy Spirit from the Son, which different from an origination, is a matter of theologian opinion that I think we can discuss together in the future. The other area of possible difference is the role of the Bishop of Rome, but this concerns governance, not dogma, although the Catholic Church has made this a matter of faith. Prior to the schism between our churches, I think it’s fair to say that the East understood the Bishop of Rome as having primacy, and that this primacy included a right to hear appeals upon the request, confirm the decrees of councils, and serve as a point of unity for the Church. I would say that this corresponds most closely to the “high petrine” view that is often talked about here by brother Mardukm. There’s an excellent observation made by Orthodox theologian Fr. Alexander Schmeeman in the book “The Primacy of Peter”, ed. Meyendorf, on this topic. He wrote:
“We must remember that the rejection of Roman claims at the time of the Great Schism was due to an Orthodox “instinct” more than to a positive ecclesiological doctrine. It was helped by violent anti-Roman feelings among the Easterners, and by the whole alienation and estrangement of the West from the East.”
I think we could find a rapprochment on this issue if we began by acknowledging two things: one, primacy is more than honorary, and implies real jurisdictional authority as well, and two, that this authority is not unrestricted power over churches but a ministry of service within it. I think that both churches have in the interests of polemics gone too far in their respective arguments and ignored the greater historical context.
“We must remember that the rejection of Roman claims at the time of the Great Schism was due to an Orthodox “instinct” more than to a positive ecclesiological doctrine. It was helped by violent anti-Roman feelings among the Easterners, and by the whole alienation and estrangement of the West from the East.”
I think we could find a rapprochment on this issue if we began by acknowledging two things: one, primacy is more than honorary, and implies real jurisdictional authority as well, and two, that this authority is not unrestricted power over churches but a ministry of service within it. I think that both churches have in the interests of polemics gone too far in their respective arguments and ignored the greater historical context.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks so much for this clear and candid statement. The interesting paper linked to by Apotheoun also makes it clean that this is the case: not only over time, but even right now. Moreover, on the issue of Baptism of Catholics in particular, whatever the academics say (and if I am not mistaken this whole elaborate theory of sacramental economy is a relatively recent development), the reality is that it is a comparative rarity for baptism of chrismation to be redone; overwhelmingly what has been done is just show up, confess, commune. I would hazard a guess that reception of Catholic priests by vesting is also the norm.
Do you think this scores points - even though your support is not about sacraments at all, and even though the practice of the EOs is far from clear?
I thin that a fair reading of history is that sacramental economy has been used as a tool when other issues are in play. Even now, while I don’t doubt that the JP recognizes the grace of Romanian sacraments, there has been an excommunication and a small schism.
When the chips are down, however, either when we suffer together or join together all of this academic theorizing goes out the window and we do recognize each other, as Apostolic Christians.
H
hazcompat
Guest
“But how,” I asked Father Seraphim, “can I know that I am in the grace of the Holy Spirit?”
“It is very simple, your Godliness,” he replied. “That is why the Lord says: ‘All things are simple to those who find knowledge’ (Prov. 8:9, Septuagint). The trouble is that we do not seek this divine knowledge which does not puff up, for it is not of this world. This knowledge which is full of love for God and for our neighbour builds up every man for his salvation. Of this knowledge the Lord said that God wills all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (I Tim. 2:4). And of the lack of this knowledge He said to His Apostles: Are you also yet without understanding (Mat. 15:16)? Concerning this understanding [15], it is said in the Gospel of the Apostles: Then opened He their understanding (Lk. 24:45), and the Apostles always perceived whether the Spirit of God was dwelling in them or not; and being filled with understanding, they saw the presence of the Holy Spirit with them and declared positively that their work was holy and entirely pleasing to the Lord God. That explains why in their Epistles they wrote: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15:28). Only on these grounds did they offer their Epistles as immutable truth for the benefit of all the faithful. Thus the holy Apostles were consciously aware of the presence in themselves of the Spirit of God. And so you see, your Godliness, how simple it is!”
orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx
peace
D
dvdjs
Guest
Fascinating. What can we know? What are the criteria of by which you can decide what is or is not knowable? Are these criteria knowable? What are the elements of your religious faith that go beyond what is * knowable*? I think it better to say that you hold a belief that you cannot know. But where does that belief come from? Is it a dogmatic element of the EO faith?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Very little.
I am uncomfortable with lapsing into an analogy that conflates consumerist mentality with anything having to do with religious faith - even though that consumerist mentality - shopping and hopping - is so prevalent in the modern American approach to religious life.
In any case, as I mentioned above, this is posturing. When the chips are down, when the car breaks down in that other town, people, amazingly, discover that they actually do know about this shop and hope that that shop will be open to them, and are happy to go there. That is the way it is and has been. Only an odd fringe complain about EOs receiving from RC priests in the Gulag, or EOs offering communion RCs during the communist era.
Perhaps it will be necessary for dire emergency to fall upon us for all of us to loose our hubris. Too bad.
- Status