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

The application of economy always remains a matter of opinion.

I found the article linked below interesting:

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

^ The phenomena of 'flipping back and forth' between Greek Catholic and Orthodox priests and parishes was not confined to the Mid-East. In the early through mid twentieth century, it was not uncommon in the more remote regions of the United States or in smaller towns and hamlets for this to happen. Priests, and in one case a Bishop, did this as well with some regularity. The train went both ways! This pretty much came to end prior to World War 2.

I don't believe the position of the Russian Church invokes the principle of economy..

"Whether we like it or not we need to keep in mind that the the theological tradition of the Russian Orthodox Church has recognized for many centuries past that the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are authentic and grace-filled in and of themselves, and not simply that they become "valourised" by an infusion of grace at the time of reception into Orthodoxy, by economia. In other words it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Roman Catholic priest ministers to the Catholic faithful, he has authority from Christ to remit sins, and the Pope and all the Catholic bishops are true bishops as is Pope Shenouda of the Copts, etc."

The text I posted from ROCOR appears to disagree with your opinion, and the Russian Orthodox Christians that I have talked to personally do not seem to believe that ritual actions performed outside of Orthodoxy are inherently grace filled, but tend to see the ritual acts of schismatics and heretics as empty vessels, that is, at least until the persons involved in those actions abjure their schism or heresy and enter Orthodoxy. Thus, it seems to me that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy mean different things when they talk about the validity of ritual actions of a sacramental nature in schismatical or heretical groups.

As an Eastern Catholic it really is not a concern for me, because - after all - I believe that there is grace is Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox sacraments, but I do want to at least understand the actual Orthodox position on the matter.

An Eastern Orthodox friend of mine once recently expressed doubts about the validity of Catholic sacraments, and my response to him was that he should be faithful to the views of his Church and hierarch, and that his belief one way or the other on the issue would have no impact upon our friendship.

The text at the link below, which is written by a Russian Orthodox priest, also seems to see an application of the principle of economy whenever a man converts from schism or heresy to Orthodoxy:

What is the Orthodox Church’s view of Roman Catholic ‘sacraments’? [orthodoxengland.org.uk]

I have lost some respect for the MP through this discussion. It appears that a validly ordained Eastern Catholic priest by a bishop of apostolic succession who uses the same ritual and prayers for Chrismation as the Orthodox Church is rejected by the Holy Spirit?

Incredible! Is religion more important than faith?

Do you suppose that there are some Orthodox bishops who believe that you have to be a dues-paying member to go to Heaven?

Will the Christian scandal of division continue because of our hard hearts? I am discouraged and things like this confirm to me that our clergy made the correct decision centuries ago to come into union with the Church of Rome.

Sadly,
Fr Deacon Paul

I was also a little surprised by Fr Ambrose's perspective, given that ROCOR currently rebaptises and reordains Catholics (at least in Australia), indeed I was re-baptised myself.


I think that in general Apotheoun your understanding is correct, and I respectfully differ with Fr Ambrose. Perhaps amongst the Paris school the perspective he offers was common, but is a minority view today.

It's my understanding that the position of our current Metropolitan (of ROCOR) however is not to exercise any economia on this matter, hence the rebaptisms etc. noted above.

Undoubtedly. During the 1960s onwards as ROCA became quite adverse to anything remotely connected with ecumenism it took on a more restricted position regarding these matters than the pre-Revolutionary Church of its origin.

Now, as ROCA begins the process of reintegration with the Church inn Russia it will need to reassess its position on these matters and adopt the older and canonical Russian Orthodox position of the Russian Councils.

It has to be noted that the teaching in this article is very much at variance with the centuries old teaching and canons of the Russian Orthodox Church (please see the previous messages quoted from Fr Alexander Lebedeff of ROCA.) One expects, as time passes, that ROCA will be expected to return to the traditional Russian teaching.

We have a disjunct here. For the 20 odd years I was a priest in the Serbian Church I baptized every single convert under instructions from the Serbian bishops.

When I was transferred to the Australian Diocese of the Russian Church Abroad, in 1996, I was then forbidden, by the Russian dean, to continue with these blanket Baptisms and to follow the three methods of reception as given in the Hapgood Service Book. This gives the ways of pre-Revolutionary Russia as blessed by Patriarch Saint Tikhon for the West. I was told, in 1996, that baptism of Catholics was a rarity in the Russian Church in Australia. Has there been another policy change which has not been relayed to me? Do you know who authorised it?

I don't understand the reference to the Paris School? Were the Russian clergy and bishops (Archbishop Pavel) of ROCA in Australia followers of the Paris School for the early decades and is this why they followed the traditions of Russia? At some point did the Paris School clergy in Australia die out, to be replaced by more Boston/Grubbe priests?

As a footnote please let me add my own belief, the teaching which I received
from my spiritual father in Serbia, may his memory be eternal. It differs
entirely from the Russian. But, in Serbia you find bishops teaching
and upholding both sides of this question.



Because of my Serbian background I in fact do not agree with the Russian position.

But it would be dishonest of us not to admit that it is the historical
attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church.

There is no consensus among the Orthodox Churches on this point. I freely
acknowledge that.


Once when the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb was visiting the holy
monastery of Zica, Serbia, together with a small party of bishops and
priests he shared lunch with us in the monastery's guest refectory.
---
I suppose it would help to put you in the picture if I relate something of
Fr Dositej's place in the Serbian Church.

My spiritual father (and the person who tonsured me) was Fr Archimandrite
Dositej of the holy monastery of Zica. He was tonsured and ordained by Saint
Nikolai Velimirovic of Zica
and was his disciple. He was a spiritual friend of Saint Justin Popovic and
in the esteem of the Serbian faithful second only to him as one of Serbia's
spiritual fathers. In a country which has dozens of excellent monasteries
and many many excellent spiritual fathers, this means quite a lot. He was
the spiritual father of Zica monastery with 27 monastics and he was the
confessor of many other monks and nuns from other monasteries and he had
numerous spiritual children throughout Serbia. This helps to make it clear
why I trust and hold to the tradition which I received from him.
---


Back to the anecdote....... At the meal Archbishop Kuharic asked Fr Dositej
what he saw as the difference between Catholic and Orthodox sacraments.

Fr Dositej took two identical glasses and he filled one with water. He
pointed to that one and said: "This glass is the sacraments (tainstva) of
the Orthodox."

Hierom. Ambrose

Beyond the sources Father Ambrose of ROCOR has posted here and on another forum on the subject, my recollection of the Bulgakov handbook left no doubt that the accepted canonical ROC practice was not to rebaptize Catholics and that rebaptism was completely uncanonical, despite current ROCOR opinion. It has nothing to do with the "Paris School", who some would maintain was a continuation of pre-revolutionary ROC opinion and continues in many ways with the post-Soviet ROC.

I know the dean you are talking about, and I know that what you say does indeed represent his personal view.

However, clergy educated in Jordanville from say, the early 1990s on, would not have this view, by and large. It is noteworthy that the mid-1990s also represents a period of tightening up on this matter in the Church in Moscow. The Russian Catholic priests Andrei Udovenko and Sergei Golovanov talk about this. In the MP, I argue that becoming more "hardline" on ecumenism represented an attempt to show MP hardliners that disciples of Nikodim Rotov were shedding his influence. Now the situation has changed somewhat, with patriarch Kirill going so far as to talk of Rotov's influence on him publicly.

I think followers of the Paris School (being Bulgakov etc.) have always been rare (though not unheard) of in ROCOR, given that ROCOR formally condemned Bulgakov.

The question does not hinge on Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov who died in 1978 nor on the Paris School nor on modern hardliners and softliners but on the canon law of the Russian Church for the last several hundred years, formulated *and still in force* by the Great Moscow Councils of medieval times and based on the 1484 Council of the Four Patriarchs. These canons have not been abrogated.

If any section of the Russian Church wishes to exercise a kind of reverse economy by overriding the canons and acting in a more strict fashion, perhaps they have such a right. But the canons remain as the norm and the canons embody the essential teaching and while a tiny number of émigré bishops may have deemed it wise to overturn the canons (and let us remember that some of them refused to do so) in response to what they saw as the threat of ecumenism in the 60s, 70s and 80s, their decisions can only be temporary during the time of danger and the canons remain as the yardstick of proper practice.

The Reception of Fr Seraphim Rose

ROCA's desire to receive all converts by Baptism is not in conformity with the tradition and canons of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Bishop Jerome of Manhattan wrote of this:

"Archbishop Afanassy, then of South America, rejected the demand to "baptize all
converts", and said that in his diocese at least, the traditional rules for reception of
converts would remain in force.

"Then the text was changed, so that instead of requiring all converts to be
baptized, the matter was left up to the local bishop.

"The intervening 36+ years have shown no difference between converts received by
baptism vs. those received in the normal manner (by profession of faith or
chrismation)."
Source: http://tinyurl.com/3vjdn9g

Notice his description of what is the normal manner.

We see the ancient Russian tradition at work with the reception of Fr Seraphim Rose
in the early 1960s when thoughts of baptizing all comers were unknown in the Russian
Church Abroad.

The baptism of Catholics et alii has been taking place only in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and
2000s- a brief 40 year period in the West.


This is what the biography of Fr. Seraphim Rose published by his
monastery (St. Herman's) has to say:

"On Sunday, February 12/25th, 1962, the commemoration day of his
patron St. Eugene of Alexandria, Eugene was received into the Church.
The service was performed by an archpriest of the Russian Church
Abroad, Fr. Nicholas Dombrovsky, in the San Francisco "Joy of All Who
Sorrow" Cathedral. Fr. Nicholas had been instructed by Archbishop
Tikhon to receive Eugene through the Sacrament of Chrismation."



I looked at the Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim_Rose
and it says that Fr Seraphim was baptized Methodist and received into
Orthodoxy by Chrismation.
______________
"Born the youngest of three children to Frank and Esther Rose in San
Diego, Eugene was raised in California, where he would remain for the
rest of his life. He was baptized in the Methodist faith when he was
fourteen years old....

"This culminated in Eugene's decision to enter the Church through
chrismation in 1962."
_____________

Chrismation would have been the canonical method since he was received
in 1962. That was long before some sections of ROCA conceived the desire
to baptize all converts. That began in the 1970s, about 10 years after Fr
Seraphim's reception.

At the time of his reception ROCA was adhering to the three different Russian
modes of reception given in the Hapgood Service Book and which are simply
the centuries old practice of the Russian Church. It would have been unthinkable
to receive Fr Seraphim by Baptism.