Catholic and Orthodox views on each other's Sacraments

[dvdjs]

And to an earlier point:

My eldest sister, some 35 years ago married an EO (Russian/OCA on the father’s side; Syrian/Antiochian on the mother’s). The service was in our church, BCC, with our priest. Their OCA choir sang the responses, with direction from the local ACROD choir director. It was superb; and we continued to sing all together to wee hours of the morning.
There wasn’t a word about excommunication or anything other than joy. And, although I never thought to ask, I am certain that he is in good standing; in fact priests from his parish and former parishes came to participate in my father’s funeral last year.

Bottom line: If you have a pressing question, not a hypothetical one, then talk to the priests who would be involved. You will get real solutions. Answers on the net are often not even worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[dcointin]

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.

That is until your car breaks down in that town, and then it becomes a significant question indeed.

 

[Apotheoun]

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).

Actually, as I understand the issues, the question is not about whether there is grace in heretical mysteries, because there can be no grace in any ritual performed by heretics, but about whether or not the empty rituals of heretics can be “engraced” through the principle of oikonomia; for - as Metropolitan Anthony indicated - “as soon as organic ties to heresy are torn and Orthodoxy is accepted, grace is received, as if an empty vessel were filled with grace.” Furthermore, an additional question arises, one that is the actual focus of this particular thread and which you yourself mentioned in an earlier post, and that question concerns the nature of the faith as it is lived and expressed in the Roman Catholic Church (and by extension - the Eastern Catholic Churches). Is the faith of the Roman Church identical with that of the Eastern Orthodox Churches? Should the answer be yes - then the possibility of extending some form of recognition, even if only by oikonomia in the case of those who convert to Orthodoxy, becomes possible.

Whatever the answer to that question is, I - as an Eastern Catholic - am not offended when Eastern Orthodox Christians tell me that they believe that the mysteries of the Melkite Catholic Church are “graceless.” In fact, I believe it is important that they remain faithful to their own Church’s doctrine, just as I must remain faithful to the doctrine of the Melkite Catholic Church. After all, when I was an High Church Episcopalian I was never personally offended when Roman Catholics told me that the Anglican Church lacked a valid priesthood, because I understood that that was a point of doctrine for them.

 

[mardukm]

Well, this took place in the 4th or 5th centuries, long before the schism. So I’m wondering if the matter was ever settled by an Ecumenical Council or by other authoritative statements from Fathers, bishops, patriarchs and popes before the schism. Can anyone with a good knowledge of Church history (and from what I’ve been reading here in this forum there are quite a few very knowledgeable members here!) tell me more about this subject?

Yes, it was settled by two Ecumenical Councils - the First and Second.

St. Cyprian had denied the efficacy of Baptism and Orders not only of the Novatians (the heretics who were the immediate cause of the debate with Pope St. Stephen; the Novatians were also known as Cathari), but generally of all heretics and schismatics. Pope St. Stephen accepted the Baptism of schismatics and heretics who baptized in the three Names (i.e., he did not accept the baptism of all heretics), and also their Orders.

The first Ecumenical Council ruled, contrary to St. Cyprian, that the Baptism and the Orders of the Novatians were valid (see Canon 8). The Second Ecumenical Council likewise ruled on the validity of the Baptism and Orders of other heretics - not only of the Novatians, but also of the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians.

It all depended on the Baptism. The rule accepted by the Ecumenical Councils was basically the one given by Pope St. Stephen - i.e., Baptism in the Three Names. Though the first Ecumenical Council accepted the Baptism and Orders of the Novatians, they rejected the Baptism and Orders of the Paulianists, because the Paulianists were anti-Trinitarians. Similarly, the Second Ecum - though it accepted the Baptism and Orders of several heretics, they likewise rejected the Sacramental efficacy from other heretics such as the Montanists and the Sabellians, precisely because of their errors in Trinitarian theology. This proves that the acceptance of the Baptism and Orders of some heretics by the Ecum Councils was not by virtue of oikonomia.

The practice and principles established by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils is the standard of the Catholic Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, and (I think) the Polish National Catholic Church.

The EO practice and principles generally do not appeal to the Ecumenical Councils, but to the practice of one or two Fathers in the fourth century. It is interesting that the Second Ecumenical Council was not regarded as having ecumenical status until the the mid-fifth century. This is probably why you find one or two Fathers in the latter fourth century preaching a contrary practice. EO today appeal to these few Fathers in the latter fourth century for their modern practice and belief on the matter, but you would think they would admit that the ruling of the Second Ecum takes precedence.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Just to address the Oriental Orthodox, it seems to vary somewhat. The Armenian and Syrian Orthodox Churches permit intermarriage with Catholics and recognize our sacraments. The Coptic Orthodox generally don’t permit intermarriage with Catholics, and the general consensus seems to be that we don’t possess true sacraments, although that may vary somewhat from parish to parish. Also worth noting is that the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, neither of which technically belongs to either Orthodox camp, also recognize Catholic sacraments.

Regarding the Coptic Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox has historically adhered to the same principle as the Catholic Church and the other Oriental Orthodox Churches - the principle laid down by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils (as I’ve noted elsewhere, there was actually intercommunion going on between the Catholic missionaries and the COC in Egypt for almost 100 years in the 17th century). Why it is no longer the case, I can only guess. I have heard the theory that the practice of rebaptizing Catholics began at the turn of the 20th century, in response to Catholics who began to rebaptize converts from Coptic Orthodoxy in Egypt. Interestingly, the common declaration between HH Pope Shenoute and HH Pope Paul VI in 1973 admitted that “the divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments.”

My personal theory is that this practice of rebaptizing began after the common Christological declaration between the ACOE and the CC, since the ACOE and COC have historic animosity. Admittedly, this circumstance has only come to my attention in the past several years, a little bit before my translation to the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Be that as it may, during the temporary reunions achieved by Lyons and Florence, not a single Orthodox Christian, Oriental or Eastern, was requried to be rebaptized, and not a single priest was requried to be reordained.

Blessings,
Marduk

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.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Todd,

whether or not the empty rituals of heretics can be “engraced” through the principle of oikonomia

Can you please explain this? I do not understand how oikonomia can be a vehicle for divine grace. Can you please provide some quotes from the early Fathers affirming this teaching or practice - i.e., in the context of our conversation about rebaptism and efficacy of Sacraments outside the Church?

Otherwise, I would agree with brother Dvdjs that this is only a relatively recent development in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Apotheoun]

Can you please explain this? I do not understand how oikonomia can be a vehicle for divine grace. Can you please provide some quotes from the early Fathers affirming this teaching or practice - i.e., in the context of our conversation about rebaptism and efficacy of Sacraments outside the Church?

Otherwise, I would agree with brother Dvdjs that this is only a relatively recent development in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

The principle of oikonomia is simply a ruling act of the household of God made by one who has the power to implement a decision of that kind (i.e., a bishop). Thus, it is not oikonomia per se that fills the empty outward rituals of heretics with grace; instead, it is communion with the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that accomplishes that end. Grace is bound to the Church and the true faith, and that is true whether a heretic is accepted back into the Church by baptism, or by the second, or by third rite.

 

[Apotheoun]

Otherwise, I would agree with brother Dvdjs that this is only a relatively recent development in Eastern Orthodoxy.

No, it is an ancient part of Orthodox doctrine. Grace - according to Orthodoxy - is bound to the Church.

 

[dvdjs]

No, it is an ancient part of Orthodox doctrine. Grace - according to Orthodoxy - is bound to the Church.

That is not the point. Neither is the ancient origins of the concept of economy.

The point is: what is the Church? And in the specific context: does it embrace the Catholic church? The answer - yes or no - has varied considerably over time. Relatively recently, the idea has been that the answer, since, oh say"1054", has been no, but that strictness or economy varied. It’s a neat academic theory that would do scholastics proud. Is just doesn’t conform uniformly with life that the church has lived. If the EOC works hard, especially among new converts in America, it might very well establish this mentality as its phronema. But that will be an innovation - and to what end?

We will all be accountable to Christ, for what we have done to build up walls or to break them down. This theory builds them up. It strikes me as the epitome hubris, as long as we are feeling free in this thread to point out such things, to think that that is somehow good.

 

[JohnVIII]

Yes, it was settled by two Ecumenical Councils - the First and Second.

St. Cyprian had denied the efficacy of Baptism and Orders not only of the Novatians (the heretics who were the immediate cause of the debate with Pope St. Stephen; the Novatians were also known as Cathari), but generally of all heretics and schismatics. Pope St. Stephen accepted the Baptism of schismatics and heretics who baptized in the three Names (i.e., he did not accept the baptism of all heretics), and also their Orders.

The Novations were not heretics, there were schismatics only. In fact, the Fathers (according to St Basil) considered that the rules with regard to the Novations served as a prototype for all schismatics. Canon 8 of the 1st was given in order to allow the reception of schismatics into the Church by economia, not to require it! By definition, the practice of economia required a canon to permit it. When a bishop choose to not apply strictness but wished, for some reason, to be more permissive he would be safe from potential discipline from the synod if there was a canon permitting the practice. If there was no canon and the bishop acted permissively anyway, this is not called economia, it is call “concession”, and the bishop might be subject to discipline.

I could quote a number of other canons to show that canon 8 of the 1st was a “permissive” canon, but I think it could be proven by the canon itself. It says, “…let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop’s dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter…”. Think about this! If there was a bishop of the Church in a city and also a Cathari (Novation, i.e. schismatic) bishop, the schismatic bishop could not, in this case, remain a bishop upon joining the Church, but he could be made a presbyter (i.e. priest)! This would be impossible if the schismatic bishop was a true bishop when he was still in schism! Do I need to find quotes that prove that to demote a bishop into a priest is sacrilege!

The first Ecumenical Council ruled, contrary to St. Cyprian, that the Baptism and the Orders of the Novatians were valid (see Canon 8). The Second Ecumenical Council likewise ruled on the validity of the Baptism and Orders of other heretics - not only of the Novatians, but also of the Arians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians.

It did not rule anything of the sort. It gave specific permissive canons to, as St Basil put it, “follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church”. To impose an interpretation to these canons that says that this is what the Church ruled, first of all, goes contrary to a number of Apostolic Canons, here is a few:

CANON 46

We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? Or what part hath the believer with infidel?”

CANON 47

If the Bishop, or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.

CANON 68

If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon except a second ordination from anyone, let him and the one who ordained him be deposed. Unless it be established that his ordination has been performed by heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either faithful Christians or clergyman.

Furthermore, it is totally inconsistent to assume that the Church ruled against St. Cyprian when the very same Church canonized the canon from St Cyprian that articulated his views at the 6th Ecumenical in canon #2.

…This proves that the acceptance of the Baptism and Orders of some heretics by the Ecum Councils was not by virtue of oikonomia.

No, permissive canons do not prove anything of the sort. Trying to interpret them as ruling canons strips them completely from the context that the Fathers say that they were intended. It also forces you to oppose the understanding of these Fathers who were there and attended these councils and were contemporary to their writing, and whom the Church considered were among the greatest teachers of the Church.

…EO today appeal to these few Fathers in the latter fourth century for their modern practice and belief on the matter, but you would think they would admit that the ruling of the Second Ecum takes precedence.

St Basil was very strict in his adherence to the canons that came from the 1st Ecumenical Council! There is no way it can be said of him that he was “preaching a contrary practice”! He didn’t live until the 2nd, but there are indications that alot of what he had taught influenced it. It would be better to understand the canons of the 1st Ecumenical in the context and understanding held by St Basil.

I respect all that you say very highly Brother Marduk, I really do! But if it comes down to your interpretation vs St Basil’s, I’m sorry but I must go with St Basil.

Blessings & Peace!

 

[xiaochun3612]

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.

Birkenstock Outlet Shoes Shopwearing birkenstock shoes

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re going out with a Mormon girl? As Johnny Carson would say: I did not know that…

Incorrect. Orthodox are allowed to marry nonOrthodox, but the person must be baptized Trinitarian. This came up recently in a discussion with my priest over my relationship with a Mormon girl.

Last I heard if a 'Dox and a Catholic want to get married, the Catholics actually have permission, from their bishops, to get married in the Orthodox church, because of the beliefs about the Sacrament from an Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspective. In Orthodoxy it requires the presence of the priest, and in Catholicism only the presence of the couple.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What do you mean “our?” You’re not an Orthodox until Pentecost, dude! You don’t have your membership card yet!

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

 

[Rawb]

What do you mean “our?” You’re not an Orthodox until Pentecost, dude! You don’t have your membership card yet!

Ah, but one’s point of view can be the same as an organization’s, and thus rightly be called “our’s” regardless as to whether or not one is actually officially a member of that organization.

And no, I’m not going out with a Mormon girl. You can infer why from my previous post.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hey I have to give you a bad time! …btw, thanks for helping guide/navigate me through the DL today. That was quite an adventure trying to follow all that! That priest chanted that stuff 500 mph! Geez! Between that and the incense, my head was uh-spinning!

Ah, but one’s point of view can be the same as an organization’s, and thus rightly be called “our’s” regardless as to whether or not one is actually officially a member of that organization.

And no, I’m not going out with a Mormon girl. You can infer why from my previous post.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My inference abilities are impaired, brother. I just got back from my classroom at 10:30pm laying down lesson plans. My eldest son has a 101 temp and I’m staying home tomorrow to watch him; Kate can’t miss an RN class at this point or she’s kicked-out. We just can’t get these kids over the hump with this bug!

I read a couple of your last posts, didn’t see anything so I’m not sure to what you were referring. I only caught a blurb about you and a Mormon girl

Ah, but one’s point of view can be the same as an organization’s, and thus rightly be called “our’s” regardless as to whether or not one is actually officially a member of that organization.

And no, I’m not going out with a Mormon girl. You can infer why from my previous post.

 

[Rawb]

No worries. Something was wrong with the mikes today I think. The volume wasn’t as loud as normal (Father drops his every week, and they fix it and tell him not to drop it, and then he drops it again). Enunciating? Is enunciated in Mother Russia?! Is outrage!

Anyway, off-topic, but you’re welcome lol.

Hey I have to give you a bad time! …btw, thanks for helping guide/navigate me through the DL today. That was quite an adventure trying to follow all that! That priest chanted that stuff 500 mph! Geez! Between that and the incense, my head was uh-spinning!

 

[5Loaves]

Off topic but interesting that she looks like she is naked except for a veil. I continue to wonder when it because the norm East and West to allow wedding gowns with so much skin exposed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Looking at those two, he’s getting the better part of the deal, she’s getting robbed!

Off topic but interesting that she looks like she is naked except for a veil. I continue to wonder when it because the norm East and West to allow wedding gowns with so much skin exposed.