Validity and Invalidity in the Eastern Orthodox churches

[Matthew_Holford]

I have read many times that in relation to the sacraments (mysteries) the terms valid and invalid are not used by the Eastern Orthodox churches. However, I cannot recall ever reading any alternative terms. What I am wondering is even if these terms are not used how do the Eastern Orthodox refer to these realities. For example, I believe that some Eastern Orthodox will not accept Latin Catholic baptism and if a Latin Catholic is received in to an Eastern Orthodox Church they may have to be baptised. If the terms valid and invalid are not used how would the Orthodox describe what is lacking in the Latin Catholic baptism?

NB: This post is about the terms ‘validity’ and ‘invalidity’. I DO NOT want to start a discussion about whether the Catholic and Orthodox churches should accept or reject each others’ mysteries/sacraments.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have read many times that in relation to the sacraments (mysteries) the terms valid and invalid are not used by the Eastern Orthodox churches. However, I cannot recall ever reading any alternative terms. What I am wondering is even if these terms are not used how do the Eastern Orthodox refer to these realities. For example, I believe that some Eastern Orthodox will not accept Latin Catholic baptism and if a Latin Catholic is received in to an Eastern Orthodox Church they may have to be baptised. If the terms valid and invalid are not used how would the Orthodox describe what is lacking in the Latin Catholic baptism?

NB: This post is about the terms ‘validity’ and ‘invalidity’. I DO NOT want to start a discussion about whether the Catholic and Orthodox churches should accept or reject each others’ mysteries/sacraments.

I guess the term some would use would be ‘without grace.’ It’s a rather harsh way to put it, and I dislike it because it implies that we can somehow determine where grace is, but that would be the most common term seen when discussing ‘validity,’ as a Latin would understand the concept.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Something from an Orthodox website-

Question Number 1276:

Is it true that the Russian Orthodox do not recognize the sacraments of Roman Catholics as valid? If so are there any other orthodox churches that feel the same way? Thank You and God Bless Joe Fischer

ANSWER:

Yes, it is fair to conclude that since the Moscow Patriarchate recognizes the Roman Catholic priesthood as having ecclesial reality (Roman Catholic priests are received through vesting, not reordination), it follows that Roman Catholic sacraments are recognized as having ecclesial reality in spite of being defective.

It is important to remember here that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate have agreed in Synod to this pastoral position, which is their prerogative as arch-pastors of their local churches (dioceses). Accordingly, and depending on local, liturgical or theological changes, this policy may change. Orthodoxy tends to look at individual cases in the local context to make wise determinations. There are other Orthodox synods who may have a different policy for the reception of converts. Also, there is no tradition in the Church (since the earliest Council) of “indelible” holy orders; a bishop or presbyter or deacon can certainly be demoted to being a layperson, as the Canons of Nicea indicate.

It has always been the Orthodox position, since the Council of Nicea and St Basil, that non-Orthodox Christians (including clergy) can be received into the Church by suitable means, which may sometimes acknowledge the reality of their ecclesial ministries or sacraments, yet with the clear statement that these things have to be integrated into the life of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be truly “assured” (which is a better term than “valid”).

Finally, it is not the point of Orthodox bishops to “validate” or “invalidate” what takes place outside of the Church, only to determine how to receive non-Orthodox Christian into the Church so that there might be “one bishop in each city” and “one flock, one shepherd.”

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Something from an Orthodox website-

Question Number 1276:

Is it true that the Russian Orthodox do not recognize the sacraments of Roman Catholics as valid? If so are there any other orthodox churches that feel the same way? Thank You and God Bless Joe Fischer

ANSWER:

Yes, it is fair to conclude that since the Moscow Patriarchate recognizes the Roman Catholic priesthood as having ecclesial reality (Roman Catholic priests are received through vesting, not reordination), it follows that Roman Catholic sacraments are recognized as having ecclesial reality in spite of being defective.

It is important to remember here that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate have agreed in Synod to this pastoral position, which is their prerogative as arch-pastors of their local churches (dioceses). Accordingly, and depending on local, liturgical or theological changes, this policy may change. Orthodoxy tends to look at individual cases in the local context to make wise determinations. There are other Orthodox synods who may have a different policy for the reception of converts. Also, there is no tradition in the Church (since the earliest Council) of “indelible” holy orders; a bishop or presbyter or deacon can certainly be demoted to being a layperson, as the Canons of Nicea indicate.

It has always been the Orthodox position, since the Council of Nicea and St Basil, that non-Orthodox Christians (including clergy) can be received into the Church by suitable means, which may sometimes acknowledge the reality of their ecclesial ministries or sacraments, yet with the clear statement that these things have to be integrated into the life of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to be truly “assured” (which is a better term than “valid”).

Finally, it is not the point of Orthodox bishops to “validate” or “invalidate” what takes place outside of the Church, only to determine how to receive non-Orthodox Christian into the Church so that there might be “one bishop in each city” and “one flock, one shepherd.”

Paul theApostle

Thanks for your interesting post. It seems to me that I may have not made my original question clear. The main thrust of which was to ask what terms the Holy Orthodox use in place of ‘valid’ and ‘invalid’ regarding the mysteries (sacraments). Where I mentioned the Orthodox accepting Latin (Roman) Catholic baptism I intended that to be an example rather than the question.

Your post has now thrown up another question. I know it’s quite clear in your post but I’d like to double check. Do the Eastern Orthodox churches not believe that ordination places an indelible character on the soul? Therefore their clergy could truly be returned to the lay state rather than being laicised but retaining the character of ordination on their souls. What do they believe regarding baptism and chrismation (confirmation)? In the West we believe these sacraments give a special mark to the soul and that they can never be repeated.

 

[Rdunbar123]

Paul theApostle

Thanks for your interesting post. It seems to me that I may have not made my original question clear. The main thrust of which was to ask what terms the Holy Orthodox use in place of ‘valid’ and ‘invalid’ regarding the mysteries (sacraments). Where I mentioned the Orthodox accepting Latin (Roman) Catholic baptism I intended that to be an example rather than the question.

Your post has now thrown up another question. I know it’s quite clear in your post but I’d like to double check. Do the Eastern Orthodox churches not believe that ordination places an indelible character on the soul? Therefore their clergy could truly be returned to the lay state rather than being laicised but retaining the character of ordination on their souls. What do they believe regarding baptism and chrismation (confirmation)? In the West we believe these sacraments give a special mark to the soul and that they can never be repeated.

I was received into the Antiochian Wester rite from Roman Catholicism by confession of faith and communion , a Baptist was received on the same day and needed to be chrismated(confirmed). My confirmation was recognized a valid, since Baptists are baptized via Trinitarian baptism, his baptism was valid. AFAIK, all Trinitarian baptism is considered valid unless by some screwball formula such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. At least in the Greek and Antiochian jurisdictions.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I was received into the Antiochian Wester rite from Roman Catholicism by confession of faith and communion , a Baptist was received on the same day and needed to be chrismated(confirmed). My confirmation was recognized a valid, since Baptists are baptized via Trinitarian baptism, his baptism was valid. AFAIK, all Trinitarian baptism is considered valid unless by some screwball formula such as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer. At least in the Greek and Antiochian jurisdictions.

That seems similar to what happens in the Latin Catholic Church. For the most part Catholics and Orthodox generally accept each others’ sacraments. I am interested, based on what another poster said, to know whether the Orthodox believe that baptism, chrismation/confirmation, and ordination put an indelible mark on the soul as is believed by Catholics.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Saying that baptism affects one on an ontological level is consistent with Orthodox theology, at least from what I’ve encountered. I do not know about ordination or chrismation.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

GENERAL WARNING
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

GENERAL WARNING
For all threads dealing with the Orthodox Church.
Your threads will be watched closely and it is HIGHLY suggested we use charity and respect in posting.

To enable us to discuss within the required parameters can you please point out where this post has been uncharitable.

 

[Cavaradossi]

To enable us to discuss within the required parameters can you please point out where this post has been uncharitable.

I believe this was posted in every thread on Orthodoxy regardless of content, because some were getting rather nasty. I don’t think there is anything in this thread in particular which is objectionable.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Matthew ,i dont know much about that issue of the Scaraments leaving a permanent mark,but i was interested in this topic a while ago and found stuff to read about it,mainly i was interested in the mark of Confirmation and the Holy Chrism

I remember reading that for Orthodox christians,if one of them leaves their church and goes into schism,then when and if they come back into the church,they will recieve the Holy Chrismation again,

you can read more about this if you search the net or forum perhaps

Peace

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I believe this was posted in every thread on Orthodoxy regardless of content, because some were getting rather nasty. I don’t think there is anything in this thread in particular which is objectionable.

Yes, I thought everything was OK. I didn’t know it was a general post in all threads concerning Orthodoxy.