P
pickguard1
Guest
super dittos!
- Status
D
Diak
Guest
One important thing to keep in mind is that there is a significant difference between the generally Cyprianic idea of ecclesiology that much of Orthodoxy holds and the generally Augustinian ecclesiology that the Catholics hold.
A very (over)simplified distinction is this. In Cyprianic ecclesiology, it is by virtue of your communion with a church or body of churches that instills the concept of “canonicity”, which includes what would be considered in the West to be the unquestionable validity of sacramental life through that communion. That is why sometimes when Orthodox churches break communion or start a new jurisdiction they may be declared “without grace” because of the lack of canonical communion.
Augustinian ecclesiology takes a more ontological approach; validity is seen in a more objective way through demonstrated apostolic succession. Thus since there is no question about the apostolic succession of the Orthodox, there can be no question regarding the validity of their sacraments.
A very (over)simplified distinction is this. In Cyprianic ecclesiology, it is by virtue of your communion with a church or body of churches that instills the concept of “canonicity”, which includes what would be considered in the West to be the unquestionable validity of sacramental life through that communion. That is why sometimes when Orthodox churches break communion or start a new jurisdiction they may be declared “without grace” because of the lack of canonical communion.
Augustinian ecclesiology takes a more ontological approach; validity is seen in a more objective way through demonstrated apostolic succession. Thus since there is no question about the apostolic succession of the Orthodox, there can be no question regarding the validity of their sacraments.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
you don’t know what “validiy” could mean?
Does the Catholic Church possess Bishops and Priests that have a lineage to Peter and the Apostles to carry out the mission of Jesus Christ?
P
pickguard1
Guest
Validity, when refering to sacraments is a very important concept to understand. It means the the sacrament has actually occured. For example, baptizing someone in the Name of the President of the USA is invalid. That person didn’t get baptized, no matter what anyone says, or who was doing the so-called “baptizing.” There are certain prerequisites for sacraments to be valid. Some require actual membership in the Catholic Church. For example, one must be a validly (again with that word) ordained priest to confect the Eucharist. Anglican priests are not validly ordained through loss of apostolic succession, along with not having the same concept of what that ordination means. Catholics consider orthodox sacraments valid, because they maintain the perennial apostolic doctrine regarding them, and when a preist is required, orthodox priests still have Apostolic Succession.
I find it difficult that knowing whether or not you are actually participating in a true and valid sacrament or not is of no importance to you. If it didn’t matter whether your sacraments were valid, why is there a need to belong to the Orthodox faith, other than cultural and political preferences?
P
pickguard1
Guest
Me thinks this sheds some light on inconsistencies with the arguments here that “validity” means nothing. If the Orthodox profess One Baptism, why would they re-baptize converts? Because they must believe that the previous baptism was not valid! So they must care whether or not sacraments are valid. If this is the case, how is it determined that a sacrament is valid or not?
The point is, there must be a way to determine this, otherwise Jesus in no way gave any ability to His Church to discern the Truth, which is complete and utter nonsense. The answer? I think we all know where I stand.
With Rome!
P
pickguard1
Guest
I think you misunderstand the Church’s interest in this area. It is to bring back to the One Fold all the sheep who have strayed. This is done in part by determining the deficiencies and obstacles that must be overcome. A true shepherd doesn’t say my sheep will come back to me when they realize they’re lost. NO! He goes out to find them and carry them back.
C
Cluny
Guest
Quote:
Concerning Roman Catholic orders: Within the OCA Roman Catholic clergy generally are received into the Orthodox Church through “vesting”; that is, they are not ordained anew.
Another person: indication of acknowlegement of valid priesthold<<
Not really, not from the Orthodox standpoint.
The vesting of the ordinand is the LAST step of the ordination rite.
It can be argued that vesting is actually in itself an abbreviated ordination service.
It can also be argued that the Orthodox Church is TREATING a non-Orthodox rite as if it were “valid”, completing it, and filling it with grace.
Neither of these is the same thing as “acknowledgment of valid priesthood.”
As I stated earlier, Orthodox do not concern themselves with “validity” of sacraments outside Orthodoxy; it’s just a non-issue.
I realize this statement is not going to please a lot of people here.
Concerning Roman Catholic orders: Within the OCA Roman Catholic clergy generally are received into the Orthodox Church through “vesting”; that is, they are not ordained anew.
Another person: indication of acknowlegement of valid priesthold<<
Not really, not from the Orthodox standpoint.
The vesting of the ordinand is the LAST step of the ordination rite.
It can be argued that vesting is actually in itself an abbreviated ordination service.
It can also be argued that the Orthodox Church is TREATING a non-Orthodox rite as if it were “valid”, completing it, and filling it with grace.
Neither of these is the same thing as “acknowledgment of valid priesthood.”
As I stated earlier, Orthodox do not concern themselves with “validity” of sacraments outside Orthodoxy; it’s just a non-issue.
I realize this statement is not going to please a lot of people here.
H
Hesychios
Guest
No, I don’t think so.
If you want to keep a catalog of your Villatte, Thuc, LeFebvre, Costa, Mendes and Milingo lines of consecration and pull them all back in to the fold, I think that is great, and good luck to you.
I would advise you to consider what they actually teach before putting parishes under their control.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Nom,
Without these basic conditions, the Catholic Church does not accept a Baptism as valid. The Baptism of Oneness Pentecostals are invalid. Jesus-only baptisms are invalid. I’ve recently read that Mormon baptisms are considered invalid. There are some Protestant groups that deny original sin, so I imagine these people don’t have valid baptism (I mean, how can your baptism be valid if you deny the very purpose of baptism?).
IMO, “Cyprianic ecclesiology” is not patristic, but an innovation, or at least an error that the early Church refuted, but which modern EO’xy has revived. The same can be said of their theory of using oikonomia to fill up Grace where there is believed to be none.
Among the OO, the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches accept the validity of Catholic Sacraments. The Coptic Orthodox did so on the whole as late as the early 20th century, but (according to some) in response to the Catholic practice of accepting Coptic Orthodox into the Catholic fold by baptism, they started doing likewise (though that may change). The situation is similar in EO’xy, though I don’t know which jurisdictions accept Catholic Sacraments and which ones don’t. But the situation even within jurisdictions is different. For instance, there is a church on a small Greek island somewhere which has a Catholic priest and serves both Catholic and Orthodox members. (I read about it in a National Geographic article).
The difference between the CO and the EO seems to be that the CO is based merely on historico-politico-ecclesiastical considerations, whereas the EO practice seems to be based on a genuine difference of understanding of Catholic theology among the EO. Someone earlier rightly complained that there does not seem to be unity in EO’xy on such an important matter. But such a position should be mitigated by the fact that even the early Church - our standard - was not always certain whether a particular person or group of persons could be condemned for a particular teaching that the Church had adjudged as “heresy.” So the EO “confusion” might not really be considered a difference in fundamental theology among themselves, but rather merely a difference in knowledge about the other party.
Blessings,
Marduk
That’s not completely true. Catholics use the same standard now as the early Church did - it depends on the Baptism formula (in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit), as well as an orthodox and Catholic understanding of the Trinity (Three Divine Persons, one God). The early Church’s criteria is a little more complicated, though the basic conditions must be present, and a diligent reader should be able to discern the criteria (e.g. baptisms of Arians were accepted, but those of modalists were not, etc.).
Without these basic conditions, the Catholic Church does not accept a Baptism as valid. The Baptism of Oneness Pentecostals are invalid. Jesus-only baptisms are invalid. I’ve recently read that Mormon baptisms are considered invalid. There are some Protestant groups that deny original sin, so I imagine these people don’t have valid baptism (I mean, how can your baptism be valid if you deny the very purpose of baptism?).
IMO, “Cyprianic ecclesiology” is not patristic, but an innovation, or at least an error that the early Church refuted, but which modern EO’xy has revived. The same can be said of their theory of using oikonomia to fill up Grace where there is believed to be none.
Among the OO, the Syriac Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches accept the validity of Catholic Sacraments. The Coptic Orthodox did so on the whole as late as the early 20th century, but (according to some) in response to the Catholic practice of accepting Coptic Orthodox into the Catholic fold by baptism, they started doing likewise (though that may change). The situation is similar in EO’xy, though I don’t know which jurisdictions accept Catholic Sacraments and which ones don’t. But the situation even within jurisdictions is different. For instance, there is a church on a small Greek island somewhere which has a Catholic priest and serves both Catholic and Orthodox members. (I read about it in a National Geographic article).
The difference between the CO and the EO seems to be that the CO is based merely on historico-politico-ecclesiastical considerations, whereas the EO practice seems to be based on a genuine difference of understanding of Catholic theology among the EO. Someone earlier rightly complained that there does not seem to be unity in EO’xy on such an important matter. But such a position should be mitigated by the fact that even the early Church - our standard - was not always certain whether a particular person or group of persons could be condemned for a particular teaching that the Church had adjudged as “heresy.” So the EO “confusion” might not really be considered a difference in fundamental theology among themselves, but rather merely a difference in knowledge about the other party.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Michael,
“This is done in part by determining the deficiencies and obstacles that must be overcome.”
Blessings,
Marduk
I believe brother pickguard1 stated exactly just that. Here is what he stated:
“This is done in part by determining the deficiencies and obstacles that must be overcome.”
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
Thank you for your kind reply, Mardukm. It really was a question and you’ve answered very satisfactorily.
I wasn’t looking for my question to be used by another poster as a weapon with which to club you (pickguard1
). Charity in all things!
D
Diak
Guest
Indeed. One simply cannot compare the apples and oranges of the differences in approach to ecclesiology using only the characteristics of the one and give due respect to both. Until one realizes that there are important and significant distinctions between a primarily Cyprianic and primarily Augustinian ecclesiology that even effect the basic terminology in use, this discussion is for naught.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
Michael has already answered this quite clearly in an earlier post. While I may not agree with his position about the Catholic Church having to “fix” their theology, he made it abundandtly clear that his position was that of his Church, that the Church makes no judgement on whether or not any Catholic Chruch is devoid of grace. He stated pretty plainly that that is a matter for God to decide.
D
Dan-Man916
Guest
This is absolutely correct! Both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church are going to have to recognize that each side has a different ecclesiology but that these ecclesiologies are not truly contradictory to each other.
In my honest opinion, both the Greeks and Latins suffer from the same problem. Namely, that their expression of the Apostolic faith must be interpreted from only their own particular ecclesiology and framework without respecting the dignity of the other.
P
pickguard1
Guest
in reference to…Thank you for your kind reply, Mardukm. It really was a question and you’ve answered very satisfactorily.
I wasn’t looking for my question to be used by another poster as a weapon with which to club you (pickguard1
I wasn’t intending to “club” anyone - where is this club? I apologize it my post was taken as such.Me thinks this sheds some light on inconsistencies with the arguments here that “validity” means nothing. If the Orthodox profess One Baptism, why would they re-baptize converts? Because they must believe that the previous baptism was not valid! So they must care whether or not sacraments are valid. If this is the case, how is it determined that a sacrament is valid or not?
The point is, there must be a way to determine this, otherwise Jesus in no way gave any ability to His Church to discern the Truth, which is complete and utter nonsense. The answer? I think we all know where I stand.
I was just pointing out the fact that since the Orthodox and Catholics profess the same doctrine regarding baptism, the fact that there are some who are “re-babptised” (what the Catholic Church terms “conditional” baptism") means that the validity of sacraments outside of Orthodoxy is important, regardless of what it seems people on this post are saying. If it didn’t matter, there would be one of two things that would happen. Either the Orthodox would automatically assume no one outside Orthodox Churches to be baptised, or they would say if you have been baptised outside, there is no need to be baptised inside, because after all there is only one baptism. This obviously isn’t the case and there are situations where some might be “conditionally” baptised, and others where their previous baptism is accepted. So the Orthodox, MUST be concerned with the validiy of sacraments outside of their Church. It’s seems as though it just that they don’t go out and determine before the fact if any one group possesses valid sacraments, only individuals when they express desire to convert.
I was under the impression this thread was discussing whether the Orthodox considered Catholic Sacraments as “valid”, and some posters have said it doesn’t matter - I think this proves the opposite.
[edit-add on] I also expressed my conviction that the only way clarity is achieved - since the Church of God must know what His sacraments are and when they have been correctly performed - is by adherence to the RC Church, which lays claim to the ability to discern such shings.
J
jay29
Guest
Former Orthodox here. I saw the light in the Petrine verses of Holy Scripture and converted to the Catholic Church. The way I see Orthodoxy now is just a confusing mess when it comes to official doctrine. There is none. It seems to me that it all depends on the priest or bishop you are talking to when it comes to doctrine. That’s not how things are supposed to work.
Orthodox priest #1: Catholic Sacraments do not confer grace.
Orthodox priest #2: Catholic Sacraments do confer grace.
Which does one believe?
Ridiculous. Almost like Protestant theology. Things depend on the opinion of the local pastor.
Orthodox priest #1: Catholic Sacraments do not confer grace.
Orthodox priest #2: Catholic Sacraments do confer grace.
Which does one believe?
Ridiculous. Almost like Protestant theology. Things depend on the opinion of the local pastor.
P
pickguard1
Guest
John 10 14 I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me. 15 As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. 16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.
John 21 15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
If Christ is the Good Shepherd and some of his sheep sheep outside the fold whom he must bring so to have one fold and one shepherd, and if He expressly charged the care of his sheep to Peter, does it not make sense that Peter should also follow the Lord’s example and bring the other sheep to the one fold? For the sheep outside are still the Lord’s sheep. Christian charity and the command of Jesus is what guides the successor of Peter to search out these lost sheep and bring them back.
Your comment seems somewhat sarcastic and insincere. The Roman Catholic Church is always open to receiving her lost sheep back into the one fold, and in fact actively tries to bring them back. Some have been headstrong and have left the fold again after being returned, others are still on the other side of a mountain, as it were, and have yet to be reunited with the flock. Nevertheless, the Church never turns its back on any who seek unity.
C
Cluny
Guest
Since there has never been a plenary Orthodox Council to determine the matter of whether the Catholic Church (or Coptic or Armenian or any other) confers grace in their sacraments, it’s to be expected that this issue would get different answers from different priests.
That’s why the BISHOP decides the matter in the case of conversions.
In Diak’s comparison about apples and oranges–they are both fruits. I think comparing apples and armadillos would be a better analogy.
J
JackQ
Guest
And here lies the central issue, and why this question is important to us Catholics. The Church has been commanded by Christ to evangelize the world. Now if the Orthodox are of the same faith as us, then there is no need to seek or pray for their conversion. All that is necessary is reconciliation and reunion. If, on the other hand, the Orthodox are a different religion entirely, then it is incumbent upon us to evangelize them and lead them to the truth. I realize that you will say that Orthodoxy has maintained the true faith, but we would disagree with that position if, in fact, you claim to be a separate religion.
The Orthodox object when they perceive that we are seeking converts from among their membership. But that objection only makes sense if Orthodoxy is really the same religion as Catholicism, because then an attempt to evangelize the Orthodox would be a reflection of a cultural bias. On the other hand, if you are a different religion, as you seem to feel that you are, then we have a duty to help you see the truth.
S
Seamus_L
Guest
The Catholic Church allows the Orthodox to receive Holy Communion in our churches. Pope John Paul II said that schism is too strong a word. Even Pope Benedict has spoken in favor of the Two Lungs concept, and yet the Orthodox view us much differently. They consider us to hold to many theological errors and false teachings.
- Status