I'm becoming Catholic, wife is Orthodox.. marriage question

[Yerusalyim]

If you find a competent canon lawyer they will tell you that you are validly married. For several reasons…
according to 1117 you were freed from canonical form because of a formal act of defection…you were baptized as Orthodox.

Even if that is not the case…1127 confirms the validity of your marriage:

1127: Nevertheless, if a Catholic party contracts marriage with a non-Catholic party of an Eastern rite, the canonical form of the celebration must be observed for liceity only; for validity, however, the presence of a sacred minister is required and the other requirements of law are to be observed.

 

[Dan_Daly]

This comment puzzles me greatly:

I was baptized Catholic as a child, and Re-Baptized and chrismated and had our Marriage blessed in the Orthodox Church…

Why was the gentleman “re-baptized”? It is a sacrament you only receive once. If a non-Catholic Christian who had a valid baptism becomes Catholic, they are not rebaptized.

Can anyone shed some light on the situation from an Eastern Orthodox perspective?

Pax

 

[Cavaradossi]

Some rebaptize, some don’t. None baptize unless the proselyte wasn’t a baptized Christian in the first place (or was a member of a quasi-Christian organization with invalid baptism, such as JW, LDS, Jesus Name Pentecostals, etc.).

No there is no rebaptism. We are very clear that there is only one baptism. It may grind against Roman Catholic sensibilities, because of the current Catholic framework of validity, but in adhering to the decisions if Trullo and the a Seventh Ecumenical Council, the Orthodox confess that those who leave the Church lose their holy orders and cannot perform ordinations, baptisms or the eucharist. This is the traditional teaching of the Church, as witnessed by St. Basil the Great.

[edited]

 

[Cavaradossi]

This comment puzzles me greatly:

Why was the gentleman “re-baptized”? It is a sacrament you only receive once. If a non-Catholic Christian who had a valid baptism becomes Catholic, they are not rebaptized.

Can anyone shed some light on the situation from an Eastern Orthodox perspective?

Pax

Read my post (# 29 in this thread) for an explanation. Baptisms outside of Orthodoxy are not traditionally recognized (this is because Orthodoxy does not have a concept of things being ‘valid’ outside of the Church). This is why St. Basil the Great taught that those who received baptism outside of the Church should receive true baptism upon entering into the Church. Hence it is never a “rebaptism” because the first baptism isn’t considered to be a true baptism at all.

This is not to say that I personally like the teaching (it is definitely something that I don’t hope is true), but it is a genuine teaching of the Church from even before the schism.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Read my post (# 29 in this thread) for an explanation. Baptisms outside of Orthodoxy are not traditionally recognized (this is because Orthodoxy does not have a concept of things being ‘valid’ outside of the Church). This is why St. Basil the Great taught that those who received baptism outside of the Church should receive true baptism upon entering into the Church. Hence it is never a “rebaptism” because the first baptism isn’t considered to be a true baptism at all.
This is not to say that I personally like the teaching (it is definitely something that I don’t hope is true), but it is a genuine teaching of the Church from even before the schism.

Very interesting to put it mildly.

This would seem to be a much bigger obstacle to reunion than anything in the Creed or the role of the papacy. Essentially, if I follow what you are saying, the Eastern Orthodox position is that Catholics are not baptized Christians. Is that correct? That would in effect mean that Catholics are not Christians. Followed to it’s logical conclusion, it would mean all the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid, because baptism is a pre-requisite. So if the Eastern Orthodox assertion was correct, then Our Lord would not be present in the Catholic Mass. It would also mean Catholics don’t go to heaven, barring they have a baptism of desire (presumably in which they desire to be baptized in the Eastern Orthodox church).

As I said, this is all very interesting, and if what you say accurately reflects Eastern thought, then we are MUCH farther apart than I ever imagined.

Another interesting thing I took from your comments was that a priest can lose his ability to baptize. In the Catholic Church, one doesn’t need to be a priest to baptize someone. Actually, one doesn’t even need to be a Christian themselves to baptize someone.

Referring to this as a pre-schism teaching would seem incorrect to me. While St. Basil and other eastern Fathers would rightly not accept invalid baptisms, they did not see “the West” as outside of the Church.

Pax

 

[RyanBlack]

RCIA is a catch all for everyone entering the Catholic Church. It is not really practical for a parish volunteers/pastors to offer multiple classes varied on the levels of knowledge (and such) of those entering the Church fully.

Individual instruction can also be problematic with the low number of priests today.

This user stated that while he was baptized a Catholic he was not raised in the faith.

So he was never educated in the Catholic faith. Though he was “re-baptized” and chrismated in the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are not identical and there are differences that he must learn.

The ideal would be individual instruction but, as I said, his pastor might not have the time to do such.

But the only requirement for reception in the Catholic Church for the Orthodox is making a profession of faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Very interesting to put it mildly.

This would seem to be a much bigger obstacle to reunion than anything in the Creed or the role of the papacy. Essentially, if I follow what you are saying, the Eastern Orthodox position is that Catholics are not baptized Christians. Is that correct? That would in effect mean that Catholics are not Christians. Followed to it’s logical conclusion, it would mean all the sacraments of the Catholic Church are invalid, because baptism is a pre-requisite. So if the Eastern Orthodox assertion was correct, then Our Lord would not be present in the Catholic Mass.

As I said, this is all very interesting, and if what you say accurately reflects Eastern thought, then we are MUCH farther apart than I ever imagined.

Another interesting thing I took from your comments was that a priest can lose his ability to baptize. In the Catholic Church, one doesn’t need to be a priest to baptize someone. Actually, one doesn’t even need to be a Christian themselves to baptize someone.

Referring to this as a pre-schism teaching would seem incorrect to me. While St. Basil and other eastern Fathers would rightly not accept invalid baptisms, they did not see “the West” as outside of the Church.

Pax

If you follow the link in post 29, it should lead to another post of mine with a link to St. Basil’s first canonical epistle. Basically, he writes about how “schismatics” lose all grace and cannot perform true baptisms. In Saint Basil’s opinion, it isn’t about validity (which has to do with the form of the baptism) but with holy orders and specifically the loss of them following schism.

I really don’t think however that this would be the primary stumbling block to unity. Given that the Orthodox and Catholics are not in communion, both your Church and my Church confesses that it is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, while confessing that the other is technically in schism (doing otherwise is tantamount to admitting that one’s own church is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church). This mutual inability to admit that the other group isn’t in schism is probably the biggest stumbling block for entering into communion. Our different perspectives on the possibility of sacraments existing outside of the Church (with the Catholics holding to the idea of validity and the Orthodox holding to St. Basil’s answer) are probably a minor issue by comparison.

Edit: the post has a quotation but not a link. Let me see if I can’t grab a link for you.

Here it is: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html

 

[Marybeloved]

Read my post (# 29 in this thread) for an explanation. Baptisms outside of Orthodoxy are not traditionally recognized (this is because Orthodoxy does not have a concept of things being ‘valid’ outside of the Church). This is why St. Basil the Great taught that those who received baptism outside of the Church should receive true baptism upon entering into the Church. Hence it is never a “rebaptism” because the first baptism isn’t considered to be a true baptism at all.

I understand that this isn’t just ‘the way it is’ in Eastern Orthodoxy, but just one of two contradictory views both stemming from the early church. Some orthodox “rebaptize”, some don’t. Some try to reconcile the two views into a hybrid.

This is not to say that I personally like the teaching (it is definitely something that I don’t hope is true), but it is a genuine teaching of the Church from even before the schism.

Not true. Just one view. Otherwise we would have the entire Eastern Orthodoxy practice and teach the same thing.

And Yes- It’s not a rebaptism- Whatever they do to a baptized Catholic is not “rebaptizing” or “baptizing” but just a meaningless gesture.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I understand that this isn’t just ‘the way it is’ in Eastern Orthodoxy, but just one of two contradictory views both stemming from the early church. Some orthodox “rebaptize”, some don’t. Some try to reconcile the two views into a hybrid.

If you will read St. Basil’s first canonical epistle, which I linked in the post above, you will see that he allows for the possibility that those baptized by schismatics may have their baptisms accepted by bishops if they so deem it to be better. The explanation for this (not given in the epistle), is that the grace of Chrismation will supply whatever grace was lacking at baptism. In other words, he too was aware that there were multiple ways for receiving those baptized by schismatics into the Church, and he says that it is up to the judgment of bishops what method may be used.

Not true. Just one view. Otherwise we would have the entire Eastern Orthodoxy practice and teach the same thing.

The teaching of St. Basil is clear, there are no holy orders outside of the Church. What you see as a difference in how converts are received does not reflect a difference in teaching (although some priests and bishops may be ignorant of why both methods are acceptable)

And Yes- It’s not a rebaptism- Whatever they do to a baptized Catholic is not “rebaptizing” or “baptizing” but just a meaningless gesture.

Was that really necessary? I am not here to call Catholic baptisms invalid. I am simply posting here to answer a question about why the Orthodox would “rebaptize” a baptized Christian, the answer being of course that from an Orthodox point of view there is no such thing as rebaptism, since those baptisms outside of the Church are believed to be defective. I can see how this might be a touchy subject, but let’s not go into combat mode here. I am just trying to answer questions.

 

[Dan_Daly]

If you follow the link in post 29, it should lead to another post of mine with a link to St. Basil’s first canonical epistle. Basically, he writes about how “schismatics” lose all grace and cannot perform true baptisms. In Saint Basil’s opinion, it isn’t about validity (which has to do with the form of the baptism) but with holy orders and specifically the loss of them following schism.

I really don’t think however that this would be the primary stumbling block to unity. Given that the Orthodox and Catholics are not in communion, both your Church and my Church confesses that it is exclusively the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, while confessing that the other is technically in schism (doing otherwise is tantamount to admitting that one’s own church is not the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church). This mutual inability to admit that the other group isn’t in schism is probably the biggest stumbling block for entering into communion. Our different perspectives on the possibility of sacraments existing outside of the Church (with the Catholics holding to the idea of validity and the Orthodox holding to St. Basil’s answer) are probably a minor issue by comparison.

Edit: the post has a quotation but not a link. Let me see if I can’t grab a link for you.

Here it is: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.clxxxix.html

I appreciate your candor and agree that a lack of candor has done no good in the efforts to reach a reunion.

As a Catholic, the honest position is that the “Orthodox” are not orthodox at all, being both schismatic and in some ways heretical. That however, does not stop them from having valid sacraments.

This is indeed a huge issue, if the “Orthodox” do not believe that Catholics are actually baptized Christians. One can put aside any question of the place of the Bishop of Rome…because there is no Bishop of Rome. A bishop must be a Christian, and thus any person baptized in a “schismatic” Catholic Church would not be able to be a bishop.

This is all very interesting, and I will have to think further before commenting more. I’d never heard this before. This position essentially puts the Eastern Orthodox in the same realm as Sedevacantists.

Pax

 

[Khalid]

What does the robber synod in Ephesus have to do with Trullo?

Quinisext (“reprobate”) council = council in Trullo. I was confused (equating “reprobate” with “robber” - my own error) with the robber council bit - there are too many illegitimate councils in the East over the past 1800 years called by too many names to keep them straight.

Unless there’s another council in Trullo that’s only recognized by the EOs that I’m missing.

 

[Khalid]

Very interesting to put it mildly.

This would seem to be a much bigger obstacle to reunion than anything in the Creed or the role of the papacy. Essentially, if I follow what you are saying, the Eastern Orthodox position is that Catholics are not baptized Christians.

From my understanding, it seems to be a teaching very influenced by the spirit of Donatism - that the sacrament relieth upon the minister, and not only upon God.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I appreciate your candor and agree that a lack of candor has done no good in the efforts to reach a reunion.

As a Catholic, the honest position is that the “Orthodox” are not orthodox at all, being both schismatic and in some ways heretical. That however, does not stop them from having valid sacraments.

This is indeed a huge issue, if the “Orthodox” do not believe that Catholics are actually baptized Christians. One can put aside any question of the place of the Bishop of Rome…because there is no Bishop of Rome. A bishop must be a Christian, and thus any person baptized in a “schismatic” Catholic Church would not be able to be a bishop.

This is all very interesting, and I will have to think further before commenting more. I’d never heard this before. This position essentially puts the Eastern Orthodox in the same realm as Sedevacantists.

Pax

On the other hand, some bishops like Metropolitan Hilarion have stated publicly that Catholic sacraments are recognized de facto because of the way Catholic priests can be received into Orthodoxy through vesting instead of being Ordained. It is interesting to note that the Russian Orthodox Church, despite her reputation for being incredibly anti-ecumenism tends to have a more ecumenism-friendly approach to the reception of converts from “heterodox” forms of Christianity than the Greeks do.

St. Basil’s first canonical epistle, while authoritative, is perhaps not the absolute end of the question. The schisms mentioned in the epistle were nothing as major in scale as the East-West schism (or the schism over Chalcedon for that matter). There is a bit of an ecclesiastical gray area which has not really been delved into much by either side, which might just contain the answer as to how communion could be resumed without admitting to the body of Christ being fractured (as the Anglicans do with their “branch theory”)but also without admitting that the schism involved only one guilty party (the current impasse we are in). Until then, I think the Orthodox still stick with what they have always done (as prescribed in that letter), and the Catholics will do the same. It probably isn’t much to fret about in the end. God will change hearts when he so wills it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Quinisext (“reprobate”) council = council in Trullo. I was confused (equating “reprobate” with “robber” - my own error) with the robber council bit - there are too many illegitimate councils in the East over the past 1800 years called by too many names to keep them straight.

Unless there’s another council in Trullo that’s only recognized by the EOs that I’m missing.

The canons from Trullo were ratified with every regional council in Second Nicaea (canon I), so again, I don’t see how this can possibly be a point of contention. The canons from Trullo include endorsements of some important regional synods like the third synod of Carthage, which otherwise may never have been approved in the East as canonical writings.

 

[1ke]

A canonical question on that point:

Prior to a few years ago formal defection was considered to release a baptized Catholic from canonical form.
If he and his wife had been baptized Catholic but formally defected to the Orthodox Church and married in it before the recent revision of canon law, then wouldn’t their marriage be valid?

After all, we can’t invalidate what was already valid.

But joining another denomination is considered “notorious defection” under canon law, not “formal defection”. There are some papers on this. Unless he wrote to his bishop and the bishop accepted the defection it is not a formal defection.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Not true.

Can. 1127 §1. The prescripts of can. 1108 are to be observed for the form to be used in a mixed marriage.

Nevertheless, if a Catholic party contracts marriage with a non-Catholic party of an Eastern rite, the canonical form of the celebration must be observed for liceity only; for validity, however, the presence of a sacred minister is required and the other requirements of law are to be observed.

Thanks for the correction.

But I stand by my statement that this user shoulfd be talking this over with his pastor and that opinions here at CAF are non-authoritative.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But the only requirement for reception in the Catholic Church for the Orthodox is making a profession of faith.

No, that is the actual how they are received. What happens before is up tothe pastor.

We have no clue as to any sort of education and knowlegde this user has.

 

[dans0622]

A canonical question on that point:

Prior to a few years ago formal defection was considered to release a baptized Catholic from canonical form.
If he and his wife had been baptized Catholic but formally defected to the Orthodox Church and married in it before the recent revision of canon law, then wouldn’t their marriage be valid?

After all, we can’t invalidate what was already valid.

Hello,

If they actually did “formally defect,” then yes, they would have had no obligation to observe canonical form and the marriage would be valid on that account. However, as “1ke” stated, “formal defection” was defined in such a way that the act of joining another Church (such as the OP describes in his own life) would not have met the requirements of that restrictive definition. If you are interested, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts issued this explanation in 2006 and it can be found here: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

Dan

 

[1ke]

The one question we have not asked the OP, is when he was baptized Catholic was it in the Latin Rite or in one of the Eastern Rites. Since he said he was baptized but received no other sacraments of initiation we can infer it was Latin Rite. BUT, we do not know that for sure.

If the OP is an Eastern Rite Catholic then the Eastern Code of Canon Law applies to him. And, moreover, when he is reconciled with the Church he would still be an Eastern Rite Catholic.

OP, were you baptized in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church?

 

[RyanBlack]

No, that is the actual how they are received. What happens before is up tothe pastor.

We have no clue as to any sort of education and knowlegde this user has.

Well, yes, what level of teaching, if any, is necessary prior to reception is up to the pastor. But, as I said, all that is required for reception of an Orthodox Christian into full communion with the Catholic Church is a profession of faith.