www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Hilarion of Volokolamsk-"Schismatic" Sacraments Not Grace-Giving

It's really not clear to me exactly whom Met Hilarion means by "schismatics."

Is he applying the term to Roman Catholics? to Greek Catholics in the Ukraine? to Orthodox schismatics in the Ukraine?

People may remember his earlier interview in Germany with Der Spiegel when he states that Roman Catholics have valid sacraments.

Here is Metropolitan Hilarion's interview with Der Spiegel and his remarks on Catholic sacraments.

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/12/abp-hilarion-sits-down-with-der-spiegel.html

I think perhaps there is a distinction between "grace-giving" and valid, also I think that taking the line that the comments are totally contradictory neglects entirely the concept of economia.

It is totally possible, for example, and totally in accordance with Orthodox theology, that were "Patriarch" Filaret of the UOC-KP to fall off the perch, clergy he ordained could be recieved by UOC-MP as clergy by economia (similarly with people he baptised or baptised in the jurisdiction, etc).

From an Orthodox perspective, were these sacraments grace giving when bestowed? Probably not, because, by definition grace flows from unity (with God and of Church - sobornost). Did the sacraments have the potential to give grace (what the Latins might crudely call validity)? Possibly, if statements by Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) and patriarch Tikhon etc. are considered. But without question, the capacity of their recipients to fully reap the benefits of grace are hampered or utterly impeded by what Florovsky called "the will to schism".

Now, were the recipients to seek union with Orthodoxy, economia could be used under the assumption that God supplies what form lacks. Economia is not a recognition, it is dispensation in following some legal form based on faith in the mercy of God.

Thus, reception of clergy or baptised under economia is a different question to the validity of sacraments or their capacity to impart grace (to my mind, these two concepts should also be distinguished).

In what way is use of the adjective "valid" re. the Holy Mysteries crude?

All validity means is "realness", or authenticity.

I agree with the framework outlined by Otsheylnik as I believe he has pointed out that the points of differentiation between the East and the West on this issue in many ways stem from language and nuance to essentially say the same thing. The differences that one sees within Orthodoxy in many ways stem from the existence of national Churches with no 'central' authority beyond the Church herself to decide these things on a 'day to day' basis. Hence the understanding of these 'nuances' will necessarily lead to different conclusions. This has been and will remain, one of the greatest obstacles that impede dialog between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communities.

Can't pin it down, exactly. I either heard it on one of his many audio tapes, circulated by "Keep the Faith, Inc.", or I may have read it in one of his articles or books. But, I definitely remember him bringing up that quote. Sorry I cannot be more helpful.

Dn Robert

RCC sacraments are considered defective by any branch of the EOC. If a RCCpriest joins the EOC (depending on the jurisdiction), he is not reordained (so i have been told), but, his defective ordination is made whole by his crismation.

For an interesting, if lengthy read on this subject, I recommend
"Baptism and "Sacramental Economy" An agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-CatholicTheological Consultation Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, June 3, 1999" which lays out the issues between East and West and the inconsistencies within Orthodox understanding of the issues. http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/baptism-sacramentaleconomy.html

You will see the reference to Bari 1987 in the concluding recommendations. It was at Bari at the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se. A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a fundamental rejection of all Catholic Sacraments.

The Catholic delegates were very upset and they walked out of the Dialogue. Since then there has been no attempt to revisit this thorny question but eventually it must be brought to the discussion table.

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not. I suppose the best we can say it that the Orthodox do not know if Catholics have sacraments. We could look at this little anecdote about Anglican baptism to get a handle on this Orthodox agnosticism......

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So, what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."

Regarding the Reception of Converts and "Re-Baptism"

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/reception_of_converts.htm

"...the Eparchial Synod of Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, with the concurrence of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, has determined to recognize by extreme Oikonomia the heterodox Baptisms normatively performed according to the prescribed form in the following denominations and churches:.... (l.) Roman Catholic...."

People often look at me sideways as if I have lapsed into madness and fundamentalism when I say the Orthodox do not recognise non-Orthodox Baptisms per se, not even those of the Roman Catholic Church, but there it is in black and white from the Greeks in the US.

I suppose in some respects to rule on "validity" is very un-apophatic, which is maybe why the ROC is not too keen on this term - by that I mean that use of the term validity can devolve quickly into a discussion of whether the fact that someone used hair oil mucked up their adult baptism etc (RC canonists of the tridentine church loved such minutiae).

Rather as an Orthodox, I place my faith in God's mercy and love to heal what may be lacking in form or function when people are united with the Orthodox Church. This is the heart of economia/ Oikonomia - "a pure contrite heart, O God thou wilt not despise" (Ps. 50). God is a bigger mystery than a label such as "validity" would tend to imply.

I understand the idea that it's best not to keep the Almighty confined to a box, but I don't see the distinction you are making.

What I mean is, if in a certain case you're appealing to economia, haven't you kind of already concluded there's a potential problem with validity there?

As for pure contrite hearts, well, I don't know about you guys but my lack of purity and contrition has me flying to the certain grace of the Holy Mysteries.

I think we have concluded that there is a potential problem with the capacity of sacraments performed in schism to confer grace.

As Fr Ambrose said, "we don't know" whether the sacraments committed in schism are valid. We don't even think this is neccesarily the right framework to look at it in.

I know this is difficult for some western christians to grasp, but we don't know, we haven't made a set of legal tomes to enable us to know, and we aren't (maybe)really interested in knowing.

What we are interested in is healing schism and division, and we trust in God to supply what lacks in that case.

Well said!

Western Christians should stop trying to force Eastern Christians to accept Western theological categories. If the West wants to have elaborate theories about why some sacraments in separated Churches are "valid" that is its own business. Each side should be true to itself.

The Irish, God bless them, in the early centuries used to hold the right arm of an infant out of the baptismal water. They wanted it to be strong to hold a sword and wage battle.

I sometimes wonder in idle moments if there are not thousands of one-armed Irishmen in heaven! :-)