www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism

Our good fortune to have someone here with experience of the issue from both perspectives.

This is not a question which agitates the Orthodox. I suppose though that they had whatever ontological status the Roman Catholic Church was able to confer on them. The Orthodox, who have no systems of validity/invalidity or liceity/illicitness, have no interest in determining if they were in possession of "valid" Orders prior to their reception into Orthodoxy because the concept of "validity" is alien to the East.

(I feel the need coming on to repost Irish Melkite's essay which succintly explains these different Catholic and Orthodox approaches to the "validity" of the Sacraments and of Ordination in particular )

I suppose the bottom line is that the Orthodox see the episcopate as existing only within the Church and as a function of the Church. There can be no rival or alternative episcopate outside the Church. And since the Sacraments flow from the episcopate the ramifications are obvious.

The "touchy-feely" area comes into play when a man wishes to be received into Orthodoxy. At that time the bishops may apply, through the use of economia, some "touchy-feely" decisions which tone down the strict requirements of the canons and smooth his way into the Church.

I suspect that there are a good many people on the Forum who have many years of experience from both perspectives.

The principles at work behind economia are many and complex. Most people, including fresh converts, find them difficult to understand since they are are often, seemingly, outside the rational application of canonical requirements - this can distress the logical Western mind!

Economia is in effect the power and grace of the Holy Spirit which dwells in the Church in super abundance. This limitless measure of grace which suffuses the Church enables miracles to happen and irresolvable situations to be resolved. Economia is the triumph of charity over the canons!

None of that is probably very helpful since I know you have a mind which likes to be precise and analytical. I'll look around the Net and see if there is something which will speak to you.

Yes, you are right. Although the canon law of the Patriarchate of Constantinople requires the rebaptism of Catholics this happens only rarely in America. In the great majority of cases American Catholics are not baptized by the Greeks.

The monograph below was written a few years back by Irish Melkite.


The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology
of Sacraments outside the Church
by Irish 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.

.......>

By here I meant participating in this thread; regarding the forum though, it's good to have one more.

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

I found the article linked below on "economia" to be both interesting and informative:

The Ecclesiastical Principle of oikonomia and the ROCOR under Metropolitan Anastassy [russianorthodoxchurch.ws]

Having read the sections on Purgatory and Indulgences, and having participated in the discussions here recently, I can say I agree with neither of them.

That feeling the need coming on must have been a distraction from the actual question. I asked about baptism not ordination.

The French Catholic Cistercians were baptized at their reception into Orthodoxy. What that says about their ontological status prior to Orthodoxy is unclear to me. I doubt if many Orthodox would attempt an answer.

I understand why it seems hurtful to Catholics (and Anglicans and Lutherans), since the Catholic Church recognises the Churchness of the Orthodox, but again, understand where the Orthodox are coming from. We are only sure by faith that Orthodoxy is the Church; giving Sacraments to somebody outside that visible Church and acknowledging Sacraments outside that visible Church is unthinkable to us.

----
In the interests of full disclosure....

When I was a Serbian priest (most of my 'working' life) I baptized almost every convert. This was done at the direction of my bishop.

When I moved over into the Russian Church Abroad (the Australian diocese) 12 years ago I was told to stop doing this and instead to follow the customs of the pre-Revoluntionary Russian Church (found in English in the Hapgood Service Book.) So I ceased baptizing Catholics and receive them by confession of faith and chrismation.

You will find that many in the American segment of the Russian Church Abroad baptize Catholics. I imagine that will fade out as they come into conformity with standard Russian practice back in the 'homeland.' However, Baptism always remains an option and any Catholic desirous of baptism would probably not be denied it.

No, as I've stated I believe indulgences are a mistaken idea. Also, in Orthodoxy there is no determination that I'm aware of which "direction" someone is going during the particular judgment. It is generally held that this will be determined at the final judgment. The way I read the CCC, only the elect go through purgation. Another difference, and another thing I would find problematic about the theory of purgatory.

Síocháin, a chara!

Yes, it is problematic because it eliminates the possibility of grief for sin and repentance and forgiveness after death.

The fate of souls is not finally determined until the great day of the final Judgement. It is then that we will all stand before the Judgement Seat of the Saviour. While we would be certain that the souls who are saved cannot be lost while they await this day, we are not so certain that the souls that may seem to be damned cannot find salvation (in ways about which we honestly have no idea.)

Deacon,

I think Father Ambrose's 'feeling of the need coming on' - besides that he's been much enamored of that particular post of mine for some years - relates to the following prefatory remarks contained in it:


which is the underlying premise - that the administration of a Mystery by one whose presbyteral right to do so might be seen as flawed calls into question the efficacy of the Mystery which he administered.

Many years,

Neil