When Orthodox convert to Catholicism (redux)

[rad]

I think we may be misunderstanding each other. Full Eucharistic communion has not been reestablished so on a hierarchal level for those non-Catholic Eastern Churches, full intercommunion is not yet possible. It has happened, most recently with a Romanian Orthodox bishop. He was not only not excommunicated by his Church, but fully pardoned. I frequently see Ukrainian Orthodox communing at our services.

How can that be happening? The Patriatrchate has only recently said that there is to be no mutual prayer of the Orthodox with others. How then can there be intercommunion? The Ukrainians must be unaware of this statement from Moscow? or maybe they are simply defying their Church? Or maybe you are communing people from some schismatic Ukrainian groups?

The statement from Moscow informed that there will be an official statement from the Holy Synod very soon about not praying with any but brother Orthodox. It is expected that this will not apply to mixed family situations though… grace at meals is in order, etc.

 

[Aramis]

HH Alexi II Speaks… but that doesn’t mean the Synod Listens.

HH Alexi is in a peculiar position in the Ukraine…
(1) The local Autonomous Church of the Ukraine makes its own policies as a rule.
(2) they are dependent only for appointment of bishops on the Muscovite church
(3) The Russian Synod is not united with Alexi in his Anti-Catholic Views… I understand the split to be roughly 1/4 “Catholics are Heretics” and 1/4 “We should be seeking to bring them back to Orthodoxy as a corporate body through dialogs.” A few even hold that dual communion is not only possible, but should be allowed yesterday…
(4) Orthodoxy in the Ukraine isn’t one national church, but at least 3, not counting the UGCC… only one of which even is affiliated with him.

 

[Apotheoun]

The Council of Chalcedon deposed the former Patriarch Dioscorus and installed Proterius as the new Patriarch of Alexandria. This was not an imperial decision so much as a decision of the Church through an Ecumenical Council.

I agree with your position. Well said.

 

[rad]

HH Alexi II Speaks… but that doesn’t mean the Synod Listens…

The March statement prohibiting prayer with non-Orthodox came from the Department of External Relations and not directly from the Patriarch. It was in connection with the refusal of the Russian bishops and theologians at the latest WCC meeting to join in prayer.

The upcoming more official statement will come from the Holy Synod of all the Bishops, and that includes all the Bishops in Ukraine.

So the question is: why are the priests in Fr Diak’s parish giving communion to Ukrainians? My thought is that they are members of some of the schismatic Ukrainian groups and the Catholic priests may not realize that.

 

[Aramis]

The UOC-KP, UOC-MP, and UAOC are all orthodox (note the lower case) enough to be admitted to communion in a Catholic church if they approach of their own free will, in accord with CCEO canon 671.

They may not refuse them if they are approaching of their own free will, and are properly disposed (including confession sufficiently recently).

 

[rad]

The UOC-KP, UOC-MP, and UAOC are all orthodox (note the lower case) enough to be admitted to communion in a Catholic church if they approach of their own free will, in accord with CCEO canon 671.

They may not refuse them if they are approaching of their own free will, and are properly disposed (including confession sufficiently recently).

This is an interesting intrusion of the Catholic Church into the religious sphere of the Orthodox Church, pre-empting the rights of the Patriarchs to decide who is and who is not canonically Orthodox and which Churches are part of our communion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Rad,

This is an interesting intrusion of the Catholic Church into the religious sphere of the Orthodox Church, pre-empting the rights of the Patriarchs to decide who is and who is not canonically Orthodox and which Churches are part of our communion.

I don’t believe brother Aramis is saying anything about who or who is not canonically Orthodox. I believe what he is saying is that the Catholic Church offers the Sacraments to ALL who are properly disposed and have come to one of the Catholic Churches under extenuating circumstances, ESPECIALLY Christians from apostolic Churches. (Please don’t misinterpret what I said to mean that the Catholic Church will give any Joe athiest the Holy Mysteries without proper discernment).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

I don’t believe brother Aramis is saying anything about who or who is not canonically Orthodox.

I wonder if these determinations by the Catholic Church help explain why the Russian Church is cool towards the Vatican. I remember that the canonical Church in Ukraine refused to attend any of the papal ceremonies when Pope John Paul II visited. He had invited self-proclaimed Patriarch of Ukraine and this man is not recognized as an Orthodox Patriarch by any Orthodox Church.

 

[Aramis]

His (UOC-KP) episcopal ordination was in the proper forms by valid bishops, and his synod supports him, and they have valid orders, sacraments, and theology. Further, they are a schism from the UOC-MP, and from the UGCC.

Therefore, despite not being part of the EO Communion, from the Catholic perspective, they are one of the separated eastern churches covered under the canons.

Catholic priests and their priests may NOT concelebrate, but their faithful, when properly disposed, may not be turned away.

Yes, this HAS ticked off Moscow. They need to realize that the rule has been in force for 25 years in its current incarnation, and far longer than that in practice. And it’s not likely to go away, either.

With the passing of HH Alexi II of Moscow, there is hope for a less reactionary Muscovite Patriarch.

 

[Diak]

I wonder if these determinations by the Catholic Church help explain why the Russian Church is cool towards the Vatican. I remember that the canonical Church in Ukraine refused to attend any of the papal ceremonies when Pope John Paul II visited. He had invited self-proclaimed Patriarch of Ukraine and this man is not recognized as an Orthodox Patriarch by any Orthodox Church.

Whose definition of “canonical”? It seems to often change in Orthodoxy. I remember well the statements of ROCOR even into the early 1990s that the MP was “without grace”. There were no statements of recanting from their respective positions at the time of the recent re-union, so one day one was “without grace”, the next…

 

[rad]

His (UOC-KP) episcopal ordination was in the proper forms by valid bishops,.

The Synod which ordained him and the Synod which defrocked him and returnd him to the state of a layman is one and the same.

It is not logical to accept the Synod’s authority in the first instance and deny it in the second.

 

[rad]

His (UOC-KP) episcopal ordination was in the proper forms by valid bishops, and his synod supports him, and they have valid orders, sacraments, and theology. Further, they are a schism from the UOC-MP, and from the UGCC.

Therefore, despite not being part of the EO Communion, from the Catholic perspective, they are one of the separated eastern churches covered under the canons.

Catholic priests and their priests may NOT concelebrate, but their faithful, when properly disposed, may not be turned away.

Yes, this HAS ticked off Moscow. They need to realize that the rule has been in force for 25 years in its current incarnation, and far longer than that in practice. And it’s not likely to go away, either.

With the passing of HH Alexi II of Moscow, there is hope for a less reactionary Muscovite Patriarch.

It is untoward to speak of a “reactionary” Patriarch in Moscow. The Patriarch of Constantinople has affirmed several times that only the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (autnomous under the Moscow Patriarchate) is the legitimate Church in Ukraine.

Not one Patriarch or any Orthodox Church has accepted Patriarch Philaret and his church as a legitimate Orthodox Church. It seems that the entire global Orthodox Church must qualify for “reactionary” for refusing to recognize defrocked schismatics as having the authority to create schismatic Churches?

 

[Diak]

The Synod which ordained him and the Synod which defrocked him and returnd him to the state of a layman is one and the same.

It is not logical to accept the Synod’s authority in the first instance and deny it in the second.

A “Synod” hand-picked within Soviet influence and after the Sergian capitulations.

You mean the “Synod” of the church that kept Patriarch Jeremias under house arrest by order of Boris Godunov until he consecrated his candidate to the “patriarchate” in a ceremony that had never been performed before? Godunov not only picked the candidate but established his place of residence and the canonical terms of his power. Synod indeed.

From the Catholic perspective +Filaret has done nothing to eliminate himself from Apostolic Succession. He is therefore “canonical” as far as we are concerned. He was also one of the first bishops, Catholic or Orthodox, to celebrate a panakhyda for the late John Paul II within minutes of hearing of his death. And at nearly 5,000 parishes now in Ukraine from independent counting, his KP is certainly growing in size and stature.

He stuck his neck out for Ukrainian autocephaly and lost within days all of the benefits, financial or otherwise, of his long service with the MP for the benefit of his own native Kyivan Church. Mnohaya lita, Vladyko.

n.b. It is ironic indeed that the older +Filaret outlived +Alexei.

 

[rad]

Whose definition of “canonical”?

Ours. Whose slse? Could we leave outsiders to decide for us?

It seems to often change in Orthodoxy.

Father, forgive me for correcting you but this is a misrepresentation. It does not often change in Orthodoxy.

I remember well the statements of ROCOR even into the early 1990s that the MP was “without grace”

I think you are misremembering!
The Russian Church Abroad never stated that the MP was without grace, not even in the depths of the Cold War. This position was held by individuals here and there but it was NEVER that of ROCOR. ROCOR’s Synod sometimes came under pressure to deny grace in the MP but they declined to make such a negative assessment of the MP.

There were no statements of recanting from their respective positions at the time of the recent re-union, so one day one was “without grace”, the next…

This is quite incorrect but if you believe it is correct are you able to offer us official testimony?

 

[rad]

Father, again forgive me.

There is another side to what you have presented here and much could be said. But it may only create a bad atmosphere here and let us avoid that. Let us leave Filaret and his Church to the judgment of the fulness of Orthodoxy when it convenes the proposed Great and Holy Council.

A “Synod” hand-picked within Soviet influence and after the Sergian capitulations.

You mean the “Synod” of the church that kept Patriarch Jeremias under house arrest by order of Boris Godunov until he consecrated his candidate to the “patriarchate” in a ceremony that had never been performed before? Godunov not only picked the candidate but established his place of residence and the canonical terms of his power. Synod indeed.

From the Catholic perspective +Filaret has done nothing to eliminate himself from Apostolic Succession. He is therefore “canonical” as far as we are concerned. He was also one of the first bishops, Catholic or Orthodox, to celebrate a panakhyda for the late John Paul II within minutes of hearing of his death. And at nearly 5,000 parishes now in Ukraine from independent counting, his KP is certainly growing in size and stature.

He stuck his neck out for Ukrainian autocephaly and lost within days all of the benefits, financial or otherwise, of his long service with the MP for the benefit of his own native Kyivan Church. Mnohaya lita, Vladyko.

n.b. It is ironic indeed that the older +Filaret outlived +Alexei.

 

[Diak]

Father, forgive me for correcting you but this is a misrepresentation. It does not often change in Orthodoxy.

Not true. Other Churches, such as the Bulgarian, were considered “uncanonical” at the inception of their autocephaly but later were decided not to be so. What changed? Nothing, essentially. One can go through several other examples as well with a seemingly capricious approach to grace and ecclesiology.

 

[Diak]

This position was held by individuals here and there but it was NEVER that of ROCOR. ROCOR’s Synod sometimes came under pressure to deny grace in the MP but they declined to make such a negative assessment of the MP.

I will concede that a definite Synodal proclamation was not made, but certainly individual priests and even bishops held this opinion. The question remains - who was right and who was wrong, since neither side has recanted of its positions? Was there a Sergian capitulation? Many of those hierarchs are still in office within the MP.

 

[Aramis]

My comments about the Reactionary nature of His Late Holiness Alexi II have little to do with HH Filaret.

It has far more to do with HH Alexi being hyper conservative, and prone to endorsing actions which lack willingness to participate in the Orthodox Communion, let alone dialog with Catholics, Old Believers, and Balto-slavics… including the UOC-KP. He has advanced the old (historic) Russian Imperial Ambitions, not via military, but via domination of the child churches of the Patriarchate.

He was very pravoslavnii, but not very politic.

As for Patriarch Filaret: he was deposed by the synod for schism, and his schism succeeded. In a very real way. (Sadly, it also took some of the UGCC as well.) He still remains a validly ordained bishop, and the schismatic synod was likewise comprised of valid bishops, and elected him their patriarch by acclimation as evidence by inclusion in the dyptichs and submission to his directives.

Valid, but not licit. De facto, but not de jure.

 

[rad]

As for Patriarch Filaret: he was deposed by the synod for schism…

…He still remains a validly ordained bishop

…Valid, but not licit. De facto, but not de jure.

Dear Aramis,

The small article below was written by a former Forum member and it used to be one of those Stickys at the top of the page

The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology
of Sacraments outside the Church
by Neil Foley, Catholic Melkite

---

I apologize if the following is rambling or seen as not completely relevant to the points being debated here, but I perceive the arguments as going in opposing circles and ignoring several basic considerations, on the part of both my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other’s stance is or is not
rational, but it won’t change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum. This leads me to presumptuously suggest that it is time to move on to other things.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament’s minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

The Augustinian theory… effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only
the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory… effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or
jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory,

(although they have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called “independent” Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.

 

[rad]

Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that “more is better” or “there has to be at least one good one here somewhere”. With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these “Churches” which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy. We, as Catholics, can dislike the fact that all do not choose to do so, but it is not our place to impose upon others our
theological precepts and require that they adopt them.

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church would in some instances likely have to accept the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of “independent Orthodox” (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed “non-canonical” or “of iregular status”, but those of the so-called “independent movement”) whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations.

My apologies to those in whom I have induced narcolepsy.

Many years,

Neil