How many Orthodox recognize Catholic Sacraments?

[josie_L]

I’m not reading it from “our” paradigm, that’s the point of my posts! I’m not suggesting all Orthodox agree with the Russian approach, I am simply stating that the Russian Orthodox Church does accept our sacraments as grace-filled. I’ve just stumbled upon another website (a website by the way that’s interested from an Eastern perspective to reunite our two Churches) that quoted Archbishop Hilarion, here read it:

From Vertograd Orthodox Journal, Newsletter No. 76, Oct. 21, 2009 (via the Irenikon listserv):

“To all intent and purposes, mutual recognition of each others Mysteries already exists between us. We do not have communion in the Mysteries, but we do recognize each others Mysteries”, declared Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) on the air during a broadcast of the program “The Church and the World” on the television channel “Russia”, on October 17th (video and text, vera.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=237432).

“If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church”, explained Archbishop Hilarion.

Responding to the question of whether Roman Catholics can receive Communion from the Orthodox, or Orthodox Christians from the Roman Catholics, Archbishop Hilarion said that such giving of Communion should not take place, inasmuch as “eucharistic communion has been broken” between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics. But, at the same time, he made clear that in some cases such Communion is possible: “Exceptional cases occur, when, for example, a Roman Catholic is dying in some town where there is no Roman Catholic priest at all in the vicinity. So he asks an Orthodox priest to come. Then in such a case, I think, the Orthodox priest should go and give Communion to that person.”

eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/

God bless!

 

[josie_L]

I wonder what “followed by reception” means, but I should note that even this doesn’t necessarily mean that Roman Catholic, or even non-Chalcedonian, sacraments are/were being viewed as legitimate and grace-filled by the OCA diocese at the time. This goes back to my last post in this thread, where these kinds of statements are more complicated than people portray them as.

If they were received by confession of faith, i.e., there was no need to baptize, confirm or chrismate, this would imply that the people who wrote the manual, i.e., Mid Western diocese of OCA, did believe at one point or another that our sacraments, at least those concerning baptism and chrismation were grace-filled. Honestly, I’m not sure what the difficulty is, i.e., there is no pan-Orthodox council (ecumenical) confirming one way or another whether Catholic sacraments are valid, I am simply stipulating that some Orthodox jurisdictions do believe we hold valid sacraments.

 

[josie_L]

Okay, so how does that invalidate what Archbishop Hilarion said?? Or any of the other sources which I posted/quoted? I’m trying to be unbiased here.

 

[Nine_Two]

p.s. 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

The quote you provide is only speaking of Baptism, and the OCA accepts any trinitarian baptism (I’m not sure if this is an official teaching or an extension of economy). I think Catholics were mentioned specifically because they are one of the few who without a doubt are baptized in what we would consider a “proper” way. With other denominations the question of when they were baptized may enter in (as certain Churches once baptized properly but have switched to another form).
I think it is noteworthy that it does require Christmation from Roman Catholics. While we do view this as a sacrament which can, if necessary, be repeated, someone coming direct from Catholicism to Orthodoxy wouldn’t be in a position where it would need to be repeated. This suggests not that Catholic Confirmation is rejected, but rather that the Church hasn’t put any thought into the matter and simply does it again because it sees nothing wrong with doing it again.

Insofar as Baptism goes I would accept that the Russians have officially accepted it as “valid” under those same conditions the OCA now does. I would repeat that this has not always been followed, and that this only goes for the single sacrament.

 

[Nine_Two]

I wonder what “followed by reception” means, but I should note that even this doesn’t necessarily mean that Roman Catholic, or even non-Chalcedonian, sacraments are/were being viewed as legitimate and grace-filled by the OCA diocese at the time. This goes back to my last post in this thread, where these kinds of statements are more complicated than people portray them as.

My guess is that “reception” means everything else, from Confession through to the ritual (be it baptism, christmation, or a confession of faith). I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen the ceremony by which an adult converts, but the absolution isn’t given with the confession as it normally would be, but is given publicly after the Catechumen/neophyte has given their confession of faith and if necessary been baptised and/or christmated.

 

[neokarny]

If they were received by confession of faith, i.e., there was no need to baptize, confirm or chrismate, this would imply that the people who wrote the manual, i.e., Mid Western diocese of OCA, did believe at one point or another that our sacraments, at least those concerning baptism and chrismation were grace-filled. Honestly, I’m not sure what the difficulty is, i.e., there is no pan-Orthodox council (ecumenical) confirming one way or another whether Catholic sacraments are valid, I am simply stipulating that some Orthodox jurisdictions do believe we hold valid sacraments.

I’m not disagreeing that some Orthodox jurisdictions do believe that Catholic sacraments are grace-filled, but I don’t think reception by Confession is an absolute indication of it - just as receiving via chrismation is not an absolute indication of believing the baptism was grace-filled.

 

[neokarny]

My guess is that “reception” means everything else, from Confession through to the ritual (be it baptism, christmation, or a confession of faith). I’m not sure if you’ve ever seen the ceremony by which an adult converts, but the absolution isn’t given with the confession as it normally would be, but is given publicly after the Catechumen/neophyte has given their confession of faith and if necessary been baptised and/or christmated.

You’re probably right, that makes sense.

 

[josie_L]

I wonder what “followed by reception” means, but I should note that even this doesn’t necessarily mean that Roman Catholic, or even non-Chalcedonian, sacraments are/were being viewed as legitimate and grace-filled by the OCA diocese at the time. This goes back to my last post in this thread, where these kinds of statements are more complicated than people portray them as.

Fine (not sure if I agree though), but the Russian Orthodox Church, along with other Churches which were mentioned do believe that our sacraments are grace-filled. And I never said it wasn’t complicated (or why it’s so confusing), I just know that when a Church states that they accept our sacraments, I take them at their word.

p.s. Post # 16 should give you an an idea of how converts are received after their confession of faith.

 

[josie_L]

The quote you provide is only speaking of Baptism, and the OCA accepts any trinitarian baptism (I’m not sure if this is an official teaching or an extension of economy). I think Catholics were mentioned specifically because they are one of the few who without a doubt are baptized in what we would consider a “proper” way. With other denominations the question of when they were baptized may enter in (as certain Churches once baptized properly but have switched to another form).
I think it is noteworthy that it does require Christmation from Roman Catholics. While we do view this as a sacrament which can, if necessary, be repeated, someone coming direct from Catholicism to Orthodoxy wouldn’t be in a position where it would need to be repeated. This suggests not that Catholic Confirmation is rejected, but rather that the Church hasn’t put any thought into the matter and simply does it again because it sees nothing wrong with doing it again.

Insofar as Baptism goes I would accept that the Russians have officially accepted it as “valid” under those same conditions the OCA now does. I would repeat that this has not always been followed, and that this only goes for the single sacrament.

No it does not, Nine Two, I just posted more than several sources that specify that the Russian Orthodox Church does indeed accept our sacraments, i.e., I just quoted Archbishop Hilarion, for goodness sake. And no it is not referring to a single sacrament, again, what’s the big deal if they do, i.e., there is no pan Orthodox council that has decreed unanimously that we don’t have grace-filled sacraments, i.e., a council with ecumenical force. And here is what I posted earlier which you may have missed:

The rite begins with a carefully worded series of renunciations and affirmations (e.g., “Do you renounce the false teaching which claims that the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit is not sufficiently expressed by the word of Christ the Savior himself, ‘Who proceeds from the Father,’ and that it is necessary to add to these words of Christ ‘and from the Son’?”). These are followed by the command “Enter into the Orthodox Church…”; Psalm 67; the prayer “O Lord God Almighty, who dost always offer diverse ways of repentance unto those who have sinned…”; the affirmation “The Orthodox-Catholic faith which I now confess…”; the command “Bow your knees before God…”; and the absolution “Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, who committed unto his apostles the keys of the Kingdom…” (cf. Hapgood 461-63).

This is how a Catholic convert is received as per the Russian Orthodox Church.

 

[neokarny]

Fine (not sure if I agree though), but the Russian Orthodox Church, along with other Churches which were mentioned do believe that our sacraments are grace-filled. And I never said it wasn’t complicated (or why it’s so confusing), I just know that when a Church states that they accept our sacraments, I take them at their word.

p.s. Post # 16 should give you an an idea of how converts are received after their confession of faith.

See this 1971 ukaz from ROCOR:

In the Russian Kormchaya Kniga (Rudder) the following explanation of Timothy of Alexandria is given. When asked, “Why do we not baptize heretics who convert to the Catholic Church?” Timothy answers, “If we did this, a man would not soon convert from his heresy, since he would be ashamed of a second baptism. So we have the presbyter lay hands on him and pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit, a practice to which the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles bears witness.”

In Russia since the time of Peter, I, [sic.- A.P.], the practice was introduced to accept Roman Catholics and those Protestants who taught that baptism was a sacrament (e.g., the Lutherans) through a renunciation of their heresy and chrismation (Catholics who had been confirmed were received without chrismation). Before Peter, Catholics were baptized in Russia. In Greece, the practice has also varied, but for most of the past three hundred years the practice of baptizing converts from Catholicism and Protestantism was reintroduced. Those received into the Church in any other way were sometimes not even recognized in Greece as Orthodox. There were many cases of such convert children of the Russian Church not being admitted by the Greeks to Holy Communion.

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.

 

[josie_L]

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.

Neokarny, I said the ROC, not the ROCOR, i.e., I am well aware that ROCOR is independent of ROC, and that it has adopted practices that are different than the ROC.

All of the Greek Old Calendarist jursidictions (of which there are at least seven), both in the United States and in Greece, adhere to the “Greek” rite for the reception of non-Orthodox into Orthodoxy, i.e., exclusively by means of baptism as this was decreed by the 1756 Council in Constantinople. This “Greek” practice, with certain modifications, and the turning away from the “Russian” practice, recently became the rule for the Russian Church Abroad, according to the decision of the Council of Bishops on September 15/28 1971

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html

 

[josie_L]

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.

Again, you are confusing ROCOR with ROC, and as such I will quote Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin) concerning the reception of non-Orthodox converts in Russia:

As we noted above, the ultimate legislation which prohibited the re-baptism of Latins upon their conversion to Orthodoxy, was the decree of the Great Moscow Council of 1667, Chapter 6.

Non-Orthodox persons are received by one of three rites:

The third rite - repentance of previous errors, repudiation of those errors and a confession of the Orthodox Faith. To be used for persons converting from the Roman Catholic faith and Armenians, provided that the former have received confirmation from their bishop, and that the latter were chrismated by their clergy. If they have not been confirmed or if there is any doubt as to whether they were confirmed, they should be anointed with the Holy Chrism.

The second rite - repentance, repudiation of heresies, confession of the Orthodox Faith and chrismation. To be used for the reception of Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans (Episcopalians). Lutherans and Calvinists, because they do not have the sacrament of chrismation and do not have a clergy with apostolic succession. Anglicans, because the apostolic succession of their clergy is questionable, as was noted by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.

The first rite - baptism and chrismation. To be used for the reception of pagans, Jews, Muslims and those sectarians that do not believe in the Holy Trinity nor perform a baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.

These were the basic laws of the Russian Church with respect to the reception of non-Orthodox into Orthodoxy.[74]

Archpriest Nikolsky summarizes the subject of the reception of non-Orthodox as follows:

“The sacrament of chrismation, separate from baptism, is performed upon the heterodox uniting with the Orthodox Church, but only upon those who, having received proper baptism, have not been chrismated, such as Lutherans, Calvinists and those Roman Catholics and Armenians who were not anointed with Chrism (not confirmed).”[77]

Roman Catholic clergy, as noted above, are received in their order, following their repentance, repudiation of heresy and confession of the Orthodox Faith. The actual rite for the reception of a Roman Catholic priest into Orthodoxy was compiled by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow.[78]

To summarize the material presented on this subject we will say that in ancient times the Russian Church did not re-baptize the Latins who converted to Orthodoxy. Re-baptism was introduced for a brief period (from 1620 to 1667) as a result of those horrors that the Russian Church and the Russian people experienced from the Latins and from Catholic Poland during the Time of Troubles. Since 1667 — with respect to the Latins, and from 1718 — with respect to Lutherans and Calvinists, the law for re-baptism was repealed once and for all. Concurring with the views of our prominent theologians, the Russian Orthodox Church’s legislation followed that tradition and the rite for the reception of non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church was established. These views and these laws were distinguished by the humane and tolerant principles that were characteristic of the Russian Church. Where there is Truth, there will be strength and magnanimity. O, how marvelous is our great and wise Russian Church!

holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch2.html

 

[neokarny]

I am not confusing the two. ROCOR re-united with the MP in 2007, and is thus part of the ROC, even if autonomous to a degree.

Even ignoring that, I was using the references to make general points.

 

[janengland]

As a previous poster noted, you can go to the website of the Orthodox Church of America to search for an answer, or you can submit the question directly to the OCA priest, Fr. John Matusiak, who oversees the website: oca.org/questions I did submit several questions to him once and he graciously answered all of them.

In general, I think you will find that different Orthodox churches have different responses to the question, but Fr. Matusiak at the OCA website would be be a much more authoritative source.

I look forward to, actually long for, the day when our churches are in union again. It has been good to see Pope Francis following in the footsteps of his two predecessors by continuing to seek to dialogue with leaders of the Orthodox Churches.

God bless you,

Jan

 

[Peter_J]

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.

 

[thequietsinger]

As a previous poster noted, you can go to the website of the Orthodox Church of America to search for an answer, or you can submit the question directly to the OCA priest, Fr. John Matusiak, who oversees the website: oca.org/questions I did submit several questions to him once and he graciously answered all of them.

In general, I think you will find that different Orthodox churches have different responses to the question, but Fr. Matusiak at the OCA website would be be a much more authoritative source.

I look forward to, actually long for, the day when our churches are in union again. It has been good to see Pope Francis following in the footsteps of his two predecessors by continuing to seek to dialogue with leaders of the Orthodox Churches.

God bless you,

Jan

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.

 

[MommaduckofMany]

 

[RomanCatholic66]

There has never been a headcount done so I can not tell you how many do.

I’d say most (not all) would recognize a Catholic baptism.

The validity of any others aren’t an issue for us and therefore you won’t find official opinions on them anywhere.

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

 

[RomanCatholic66]

They don’t speculate? Then how do they know?

 

[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.

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