How many Orthodox recognize Catholic Sacraments?

[RomanCatholic66]

I second Fr. Matusiak being an excellent Orthodox Priest to contact. I contacted him with questions relating to possibly being excommunicated, and he was kind enough to reply to me and email me multiple times with answers to my questions.

I think I have to take issue with something here. Namely, in order to approach this (completely) from our paradigm, wouldn’t that mean asking “What does the Patriarch of Constantinople [he presumably being some kind of “Orthodox Pope” ] say about it?”

So what I think we are talking about here is a paradigm that isn’t one or the other, i.e. neither ours nor theirs.

There’s no paradigm. It’s not about “ours or theirs”…it’s about WHICH IS IT? Ayyyyyyh… do they or don’t they? Ugh…

 

[josie_L]

There’s no paradigm. It’s not about “ours or theirs”…it’s about WHICH IS IT? Ayyyyyyh… do they or don’t they? Ugh…

They are some Orthodox that accept our sacraments and others that don’t (the list of those that do as already been stated on this thread), but there has been no definitive teaching about whether or not our sacraments are valid, i.e., an ecumenical council that would clear up the confusion.

 

[josie_L]

How do I get a hold of Fr. Matusiak? Email please?

Why should it matter??

 

[Nine_Two]

Are you telling me The Orthodox Church that considers Itself The true church is not uniform in doctrine ?

This isn’t an issue of doctrine. I’d expand on that but given the snarkyness of your own post I doubt you actually care.

 

[babochka]

That is true of baptism, notably the only sacrament that from our point of view there is a reason we must decide whether or not it is acceptable. I’m thinking of the other sacraments though.

I would think that Holy Orders would matter, and also Chrismation. Converts do not always receive Chrismation.

Many Catholics have been received into the Orthodox church through simply a profession of faith, so that would indicate that at least some Bishops accept Catholic confirmation. Priests have also been received by vesting only, without re-ordination. This indicates that they accept the validity of Catholic Holy Orders.

Here is a letter from an OCA bishop to his priests, written in 1997. holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

Take the time to read the whole letter. It is very interesting.

Some excerpts.

The prescribed practice printed in our Service Books has been in force and active use for centuries, and it cannot be considered only a temporary episode of Economy in the life of the Church.

I would like to point to the reception of St. Alexis Toth (Tovt) of Minneapolis and WilkesBarre. St. Alexis was received according to the rite outlined in the attached document, i.e., by Confession of Faith, Penance, and vesting in the Altar after the Cherubicon. How could it be otherwise? Can one imagine Bishop Vladimir or Bishop Nicholas, the two Russian hierarchs of the day, contravening the established practice of the Russian Church and insisting the St. Alexis be ordained according to the formula for ordaining Laity? (And I may remark that St. Alexis came to the Russian Orthodox bishop in San Francisco in the first place because a Roman Catholic hierarch did not recognize his Priesthood! One may only imagine how history might now differ if the Russian Orthodox Bishop in San Francisco had also refused to recognize his Priesthood and that of many subsequent Clergy of the Church!)

 

[babochka]

What I’ve read concerning the Russian Orthodox Church is that they believe our sacraments to be** valid (to use a Western term)**. I just read the story of archimandrite Zenon who stated this very thing: keston.org.uk/kns/misc/14ARCHIM.html

Note also the provisions of the 1986 Priest’s Handbook of the Midwestern Diocese of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), pp. 11-12**: **“Converts from religions which do not practice Holy Baptism or which do not baptize with water in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are received through the sacrament of Holy Baptism, Chrismation, and Communion… After a proper period of catechetical instruction and affirmation of the Orthodox faith, those who have previously been baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are received by the appropriate rite of reception… Non-Chalcedonian Christians (Copts, Armenians, Jacobites, etc.) and validly confirmed Roman Catholic Christians are received by Holy Confession, followed by reception, absolution, and Holy Communion…”

It seems the OCA doesn’t have trouble using the term “valid”.

 

[josie_L]

It seems the OCA doesn’t have trouble using the term “valid”.

I didn’t even notice that discrepancy! Thanks for bringing it to my intention, i.e., I was told that the Orthodox don’t use the word “valid” to describe whether or not our sacraments are grace-filled.

 

[josie_L]

This isn’t an issue of doctrine. I’d expand on that but given the snarkyness of your own post I doubt you actually care.

I don’t think he was being snarky, i.e., I think he was dumbfounded.

 

[josie_L]

I would think that Holy Orders would matter, and also Chrismation. Converts do not always receive Chrismation.

Many Catholics have been received into the Orthodox church through simply a profession of faith, so that would indicate that at least some Bishops accept Catholic confirmation. Priests have also been received by vesting only, without re-ordination. This indicates that they accept the validity of Catholic Holy Orders.

Here is a letter from an OCA bishop to his priests, written in 1997. holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.lit10.html

Take the time to read the whole letter. It is very interesting.

Some excerpts.

It is indeed interesting!!

 

[Rdunbar123]

See this 1971 ukaz from ROCOR:

Even reception without chrismation can, even if not always, be a matter of economia for the convert, and not a comment on sacramental grace.

And of your quotes, I didn’t see where any were a (current) statement of the Russian Church (or any other Church) on the sacraments of Catholics. I’m doubting that Metropolitan Hilarion, or anyone else, was officially speaking on behalf of their Synod/Patriarchate. Further, ROCOR, for example, is not universal in its reception of converts from Catholicism, and can vary from bishop or diocese - from reception via chrismation to a full baptism.

Reception by confession means confession of faith without Chrismation

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think he was being snarky, i.e., I think he was dumbfounded.

I’ll let him/her defend the intentions of the post. If it was a simple misunderstanding of what doctrine is, then that is fine.
As someone else mentioned the Catholic Church holds no official position on the validity of modern Anglican Holy Orders, though many proclaim such a position. Were this doctrine that would put the Catholic Church in the same position as us regarding the recognition of the Mysteries.

 

[Peter_J]

There’s no paradigm. It’s not about “ours or theirs”…it’s about WHICH IS IT? Ayyyyyyh… do they or don’t they? Ugh…

Hi RomanCatholic66. I think you bring up an important issue. Many laity (whether Catholic or Orthodox) expect that any information they might wish to have must be provided on-demand by the magesterium (including Does so-and-so have valid orders?). It’s good that we’re all aware of that, since it would seem to indicate the laity taking-the-lead so to speak.

 

[josie_L]

I’ll let him/her defend the intentions of the post. If it was a simple misunderstanding of what doctrine is, then that is fine.
As someone else mentioned the Catholic Church holds no official position on the validity of modern Anglican Holy Orders, though many proclaim such a position. Were this doctrine that would put the Catholic Church in the same position as us regarding the recognition of the Mysteries.

But it’s only with regard to Holy Orders that there is much confusion ( and that’s not our fault), i.e., the situation with Anglicanism is extremely complicated, i.e., the circumstances surrounding Anglican Holy orders are not the same as those surrounding Catholicism, so we are in actuality comparing apples and oranges.

p.s. According to what I’ve read and what Babochka just posted, there is a ritual in which Catholics and Catholic priests should be received (the article itself mentions this).

 

[Nine_Two]

But it’s only with regard to Holy Orders that there is much confusion ( and that’s not our fault), i.e., the situation with Anglicanism is extremely complicated, i.e., the circumstances surrounding Anglican Holy orders are not the same as those surrounding Catholicism, so we are in actuality comparing apples and oranges.

p.s. According to what I’ve read and what Babochka just posted, there is a ritual in which Catholics and Catholic priests should be received (the article itself mentions this).

It may only be Holy Orders (although I’m pretty sure Anglicans have to get re-Confirmed Catholic as well), but if that’s going to be called “doctrine”, then you’re in the same boat as us.

My argument is of course that it isn’t doctrine, so the original accusation that due to this we aren’t united in doctrine is false.

 

[josie_L]

It may only be Holy Orders (although I’m pretty sure Anglicans have to get re-Confirmed Catholic as well), but if that’s going to be called “doctrine”, then you’re in the same boat as us.

My argument is of course that it isn’t doctrine, so the original accusation that due to this we aren’t united in doctrine is false.

Well, I’m not sure if I would say it isn’t doctrine for some, moreover, correct belief compels correct action and incorrect belief causes incorrect actions, i.e., when a Church exhibits disparate views concerning teachings/rituals one of them has to be wrong.

p.s. On the whole, Anglicans don’t view confirmation as a sacrament, so if there are being confirmed in the Catholic Church, it’s because they were not chrismated, i.e., they are not being re-confirmed.

 

[janengland]

How do I get a hold of Fr. Matusiak? Email please?

oca.org/questions

Please go to this Orthodox Church of America website and you will find a way there to contact father Matusiak.

God bless you!

Jan

 

[GKC]

It may only be Holy Orders (although I’m pretty sure Anglicans have to get re-Confirmed Catholic as well), but if that’s going to be called “doctrine”, then you’re in the same boat as us.

My argument is of course that it isn’t doctrine, so the original accusation that due to this we aren’t united in doctrine is false.

It’s because of the Orders issue. No valid orders, no bishop to validly confirm.

Assuming no valid orders.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I’ll let him/her defend the intentions of the post. If it was a simple misunderstanding of what doctrine is, then that is fine.
As someone else mentioned the Catholic Church holds no official position on the validity of modern Anglican Holy Orders, though many proclaim such a position. Were this doctrine that would put the Catholic Church in the same position as us regarding the recognition of the Mysteries.

I must locate this post. I’d love to see the reasoning behind it. The RCC position on Anglican Orders is that expressed in Apostolicae Curae. As always, since officially proclaimed in 1896.

GKC