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

I sometimes wonder what Orthodox authority ever said that?! I have never understood what that means.

Judgements are made frequently. Every time a Catholic, an Anglican, a Lutheran, or a Pre-Chalcedonian or Old Catholic or a member of the Old Calendarist Churches is received into the canonical Church or wishes to marry an Orthodox Christian, judgements must be made as to their sacraments. In some cases this is ad hoc by individual priests, in other cases the bishop has made the judgments and issued instructions to his priests.

In terms of this thread every Orthodox Christian entering a Catholic Church and seeing the Tabernacle or seeing the Host exposed in a Monstrance must make a judgement - to acknowledge that he is standing in the Eucharistic Presence of Jesus Christ and to make some form of obeisance and worship, or to decide he is only in the presence of bread and ignore it.

Bless, Father Ambrose,

I wanted to thank you, my old and dear friend, for the excellent observations that you've made to this thread and the textual material that you've presented. Even on points in which you have reservations or with which you disagree, your comments and contributions have been very even-handed and have presented diverse points of view.

I'd also take note of the fact that, for a topic with much potential to be at best contentious, at worst polemical, all of our members who have posted to it - Orthodox and Catholic - have done themselves and the forum proud in the civility and constraint that they've exercised throughout the discussion.

The thread is, without question, an excellent example of the introspective and stimulating intercourse on which we pride ourselves. It's a hallmark of what an Eastern Christian forum can offer to a very mixed audience, debate without rancor, expressions of belief and acknowledgement of theologically and spiritually different understanding without triumphalism or denigration. I can only imagine that the Holy Spirit blesses us in moments like these, for what we've contributed to one another's understanding of our respective Churches.

Many years,

Neil

I found another article, this time written by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, which presents a position different than the one promoted by some individuals within the Russian Orthodox Church. The Metropolitan's brief article and another text written by Fr. Dragas seem to be in basic agreement in rejecting attempts to give recognition to non-Orthodox ritual acts, but Fr. Dragas - like several other authors I have recently come across - also touches upon what these theologians refer to as the "Latin Captivity" of Russian theology (circa, 17th century through to the 20th century), and the Latin Scholastic influence on the sacramentology of the Russian Church. I am finding a lot of this information quite enlightening, and will continue to post articles as I come across them.



Baptismal Theology [orthodoxinfo.com]

by Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Navpaktos and Hagios Vlasios

THERE HAS BEEN in the past, and there is in our own day, a good deal of discussion about the Baptism of heretics (the heterodox); that is, whether heretics who have deviated from the Orthodox Faith and who seek to return to it should be Baptized anew or simply Chrismated after making a profession of faith. Decisions have been issued on this matter by both local and Œcumenical Synods.

In the text that follows, I should like to discuss, by way of example, the agreement reached between the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of America and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in America on June 3, 1999. The Greek translation of the original text was made by Protopresbyter George Dragas, a professor at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston [Brookline—Trans.], who also provided a summary and critique of this agreed statement between Orthodox and Roman Catholics in America.

The basis of this document is the Balamand Agreement of 1993, “Uniatism, Method of Union of the Past and the Present Search for Full Communion,” which it evidently wishes to uphold.

The text on which we are commenting, that is, the agreement signed by Orthodox and Roman Catholics in America and entitled “Baptism and ‘Sacramental Economy,’” is based on several points, in my observation, that are very typical of the contemporary ecumenical movement and indicative of its entire substance.

The first point is that “Baptism rests upon and derives its reality from the faith of Christ Himself, the faith of the Church, and the faith of the believer” (p. 13). At first sight, one is struck by the absence, here, of any reference to the Triune God—perhaps in order to justify this flexible interpretation of Baptism. Faith, then, becomes the fundamental mark and element of Baptism.

The second point is that Baptism is not a practice required by the Church, but is, “rather, the Church’s foundation. It establishes the Church” (p. 26). Here, the notion that Baptism is not the “initiatory” Mystery whereby we are introduced into the Church, but the foundation of the Church, is presented as the truth.

The third point is that “Baptism was never understood as a private ceremony, but rather as a corporate event” (p. 13). This means that the Baptism of catechumens was “the occasion for the whole community’s repentance and renewal” (p. 13). One who is Baptized “is obliged to make his own the community’s common faith in the Savior’s person and promises” (p. 14).

The fourth point is a continuation and consequence of the foregoing points. Since Baptism rests upon faith in Christ, since it is the basis of the Church, and since, moreover, it is the work of the community, this means that any recognition of Baptism entails recognition of the Church in which the Baptism is performed. In the Agreed Statement we read: “The Orthodox and Catholic members of our Consultation acknowledge, in both of our traditions, a common teaching and a common faith in one baptism, despite some variations in practice which, we believe, do not affect the substance of the mystery” (p. 17).
According to this text, there is a common faith and teaching concerning Baptism in the two “Churches,” and the differences that exist do not affect the substance of the Mystery. The two sides each acknowledge an ecclesial reality “in the other, however much they may regard their way of living the Church’s reality as flawed or incomplete” (p. 17). “The certain basis for the modern use of the phrase ‘sister churches’” (p. 17) is to be found in this point. The Orthodox Church and the Latin Church are these two “sister Churches,” because they have the same Tradition, the same Faith, and the same Baptism, even though there are certain differences between them. Hence, the following opinion is repeatedly affirmed in the text: “We find that this mutual recognition of the ecclesial reality of baptism, in spite of our divisions, is fully consistent with the perennial teaching of both churches” (p. 26). Misinterpreting the teaching of St. Basil the Great, the signers of this document aver that the two “Churches,” in spite of the “imperfections” that exist, constitute the same ecclesial reality: “By God’s gift we are each, in St. Basil’s words, ‘of the Church’” (p. 26).

The fifth point is that the authors of the Agreed Statement find fault with St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, who, in interpreting the views of St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Basil the Great, and the Second Œcumenical Synod, talks—as do all of the Kollyvades Fathers of the eighteenth century—about exactitude (akribia) and economy (oikonomia) with regard to the way in which heretics are received into the Orthodox Church. That is to say, the Fathers have at times received heretics by exactitude—namely, by Baptism—and at times by economy—namely, by Chrismation. However, even when the Church does receive someone by economy, this means that She effects the mystery of salvation at that very time, precisely because the Church is superior to the Canons, and not the Canons to the Church, and because the Church is the source of the Mysteries and, eo ipso, of Baptism, whereas Baptism is not the basis of the Church. The Church can receive this or that heretic by the principle of economy, without any implication that She recognizes as a Church the community that previously baptized him. This is the context within which St. Nicodemos interprets the relevant decision of the Second Œcumenical Synod.

Confusion is certainly heightened by the fact that one of the recommendations of the Agreed Statement is subject to many different interpretations. According to this recommendation, the two Churches should make it clear that “the mutual recognition of baptism does not of itself resolve the issues that divide them, or reëstablish full ecclesial communion between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, but that it does remove a fundamental obstacle on the path towards full communion” (p. 28).

From this brief analysis, it is obvious how much confusion prevails in ecumenist circles regarding these issues. It is also obvious that [Orthodox] ecumenists understand the acceptance of the baptism of heretics (Catholics and Protestants, who have altered the dogma of the Holy Trinity and other dogmas) to mean accepting the ecclesial status of heretical bodies and, worse still, that the two “Churches,” Latin and Orthodox, are united in spite of “small” differences, or that we derive from the same Church and should seek to return to it, thereby forming the one and only Church. This is a blatant expression of the branch
theory.

When there is such confusion, it is necessary to adopt an attitude of strictness, which preserves the truth: that all who fall into heresy are outside the Church and that the Holy Spirit does not work to bring about their deification.

In any event, baptismal theology creates immense problems for the Orthodox. From the standpoint of ecclesiology, the text under consideration is riddled with errors. The Patristic Orthodox teaching on this subject is that the Church is the Theanthropic Body of Christ, in which revealed truth—the Orthodox Faith—is preserved and the mystery of deification is accomplished through the Mysteries of the Church (Baptism, Chrismation, and the Divine Eucharist). The essential precondition for this is that we participate in the purifying, illuminating, and deifying energy of God. Baptism is the initiatory Mystery of the Church. The Church does not rest upon the Mystery of Baptism; rather, the Baptism of water, in conjunction with the Baptism of the Spirit, operates within the Church and makes one a member of the Body of Christ. There are no Mysteries outside the Church, the living Body of Christ, just as there are no senses outside the human body.

In closing, I should like to cite the conclusion of Father George Dragas, which he appends to his “Summary and Critique”:

These recommendations will not win the agreement of all Orthodox, and certainly not of those who are Greek-speaking (or Greek-minded), and consequently they are, by their very nature, divisive. My primary reason for coming to such a negative conclusion is that this inquiry into sacramental theology is devoid of any ecclesiological basis and that it onesidedly interprets—or rather, misinterprets—the facts of Orthodox sacramental practice, and particularly vis-à-vis the heterodox at different periods in the history of the Church. These recommendations and conclusions and, indeed, the entire Agreed Statement are the epitome of Western skepticism. Their acceptance by Orthodox theologians signals a deliberate betrayal of Orthodox views and a capitulation to the outlook of Western ecumenism. This is something that we should reject.

[Translated from the Greek original in Ekklesiastike Parembase, No. 71 (December 2001), p. 12. Reprinted from Orthodox Tradition, Vol XX, No. 2, pp. 40-43.]

This is similar to the way that I approach these questions. To be honest, I would rather have Eastern Orthodox Christians or Anglicans, et al., be true to their own Church's doctrinal tradition than have them say things that they do not mean for the sake of a false peace. There is no room for political correctness in theology.

It follows, if a person is secure in his own faith, that he will not be shaken by theological disagreements with members of other Churches.

Below is a link to a pdf article written by Fr. Dragas, which looks historically at the practice of oikonomia within the Greek and Russian Churches, and which gives some of the reasons for the different approaches taken by the two groups. I do not get the impression from his article that the Russian practice, which he and several other authors - even those favorable to the Russian position - have described as a form of latinization under the influence of Peter Moghila, involves the granting of a general recognition of validity in connection with schismatic or heretical "baptism." Instead, it appears to be a specific application of oikonomia that comes into play when Catholics or Protestants convert to Orthodoxy.

The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church [jbburnett.com]

I have been told by several Orthodox friends that Fr. Seraphim Rose baptized Roman Catholic converts he received into the Orthodox Church, but I have not been able to find any written confirmation of this on the internet. Does anyone know if this issue is addressed in his biography, or any other text?

P.S. - Is it true that Hieromonk Averky, who had been a Roman Catholic seminarian, was baptized when he converted to Orthodoxy?

I came across a booklet on the holy mysteries, and although not directly touching upon the issue of mutual recognition of sacraments (or the lack thereof), I thought I would post the link to it here:

Sacraments or Holy Mysteries [orthodoxcanada.org]
V. Rev. Taras Kurgansk

P.S. - The link may only be active for a short time, so download the booklet while it is still a free offer.

P.P.S. - I owe a debt of gratitude to Fr. Ambrose who helped me to see, while he was posting at Catholic Answers Forum, that there are more than seven holy mysteries.

Witrh all respect, that is not a trustworthy comment . This is no position "promoted by some individuals" in the Russian Church. The theological tradition of the Russian Church and its canonical tradition, in other words of the largest ecclesial body within Orthodoxy, teach that it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which your Byzantine Catholic priests give you on Sundays and not just mushy bread and wine.

The Russian position is rather clear. The position of other Orthodox Churches is not so clear. The Antiochians certainly accept the authenticity of the Catholic Eucharist. Probably the Ecumenical Patriarch does also. Serbia would be divided on the matter -some bishops saying you have a genuine Eucharist, some saying not. The Church of Greece would also be divided but I suspect the majority of Greek bishops would say not. Bulgaria - at a guess I'd say no. Romania, at a guess I'd say a large number of the bishops would say yes.

Father, my comment is completely accurate. You have posted articles by individuals who have promoted a specific position, and I have done the same thing. Clearly, even in the Russian Orthodox Church there is disagreement over the issue in question. Moreover, Metropolitan Hilarion has made comments that - as several people have indicated - support both sides of the issue.

The following is a letter which was written by Fr. Seraphim Rose to Fr. Alexey Young—now Hieromonk Ambrose. It was on the problem of certain people not accepting converts who were received into the Orthodox Church through either chrismation or confession, but insisted that all must be re-baptized.


Jan. 28/Feb.10, 1976


We forgot to ask you how LM is getting along in your community. Is she getting a longing for big-city life? She told me that she and JK are not getting along, and she thinks it must be jealousy. But could it be that J just can’t stand L’s type—outspoken, always right, still reflecting something of the hothouse atmosphere of the “Boston” approach?


I’ve written and talked to L about this hothouse approach to Orthodoxy—filled with gossip, knowing “what’s going on,” having the “right answer” to everything according to what the “experts” say. I begin to think that this is her basic problem, and not Fr. Panteleimon directly.


An example: she is horrified that T was received into the Church [from Roman Catholicism] without baptism or chrismation. “That’s wrong,” she says. But we see nothing particularly wrong with it; that is for the priest and the bishop to decide, and it is not our (or even more, her) business. The rite by which he was received has longed been approved by the church out of economy, and probably in this case it was the best way, because T might have hesitated much more at being baptized. The Church’s condescension here was wise. But L would like someone “to read Vladika Anthony the decree of the Sobor” [on this subject]. My dear, he was there, composing the decree, which explicitly gives the bishop permission to use economy when he wishes! We don’t like this attitude at all, because it introduces totally unnecessary disturbance into the church atmosphere. And if she is going to tell T now that he is not “really” a member of the Orthodox Church, she can do untold harm to a soul.


Another example: L was very pleased that Q was baptized [after having been a member of the Russian Church Abroad already for several years]: Finally he did it “right”! But we are not pleased at all, seeing in this a sign of great spiritual immaturity on his part and a narrow fanaticism on the part of those who approve. Saint Basil the Great refused to baptize a man who doubted the validity of his baptism, precisely because he had already received communion for many years and it was too late to doubt then that he was a member of Christ’s Church! In the case of our converts, it’s obvious that those who insist or are talked into receiving baptism after already being a member of the Church are trying, out of a feeling of insecurity, to receive something which the Sacrament does not give: psychological security, a making up for their past failures while already Orthodox, a belonging to the “club” of those who are “right,” an automatic spiritual “correctness.” But this act casts doubt on the Church and her ministers. If the priest or bishop who receives such people were wrong (and so wrong that the whole act of reception must be done over again!), a sort of Church within the Church is created, a clique which, by contrast to “most bishops and priests,” is always “right.” And of course, that is our big problem today—and even more in the days ahead. It is very difficult to fight this, because they offer “clear and simple” answers to every question, and our insecure converts find this the answer to their needs.


At times we would like to think that the whole “Fr. Panteleimon problem” in our Church is just a matter of differing emphasis which, in the end, will not be so terribly important. But the more we observe, the more we come to think that it is much more serious than that, that in fact that an “orthodox sectarianism” is being formed at that expense of our simple people. Therefore, those who are aware of all this must be “zealots according to knowledge.” The Church has survived worse temptations in the past, but we fear for our converts lest in their simplicity they be led into a sect and out of the Church.


God is with us! We must go forward in faith.”


* This letter is from “Letters from Father Seraphim”

http://solzemli.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/fr-seraphim-rose-on-the-rites-used-to-receive-converts/

Thank you, I already read that letter on the internet, but that does not really answer my question about what Fr. Seraphim's own practice was, because all he is doing in the letter, as I see it, is saying that one should not openly dissent from the application of oikonomia made by a Church hierarch, which is a viewpoint that I wholehearted assent to as conforming to the holy canons.

What I do not see him saying in the letter is that Roman Catholic sacraments are valid in general, or that acceptance of them by oikonomia means that they are grace filled when celebrated in separation from the Orthodox Church. Perhaps he has written a letter where he states that plainly, but this letter is not it.

P.S. - I was told by a friend that Fr. Seraphim Rose was present when Fr. Averky was baptized, and that he said nothing in opposition at the time.

Fr. Ambrose,

I want to thank you for the information you have posted in this thread, but what remains unclear to me, at least based upon the information that I have found up to this point, is the idea that the Orthodox can give general recognition to schismatical and heretical "sacraments," because the texts I have found (other than the ones that you have posted) so far indicate that valid sacraments can only be celebrated within the Orthodox Church. In fact, some of the texts I have found up till now emphasize that any general recognition of Roman Catholic (or Protestant) sacraments would be the same as declaring that those ecclesial bodies are the true Church.

Be that as it may, perhaps I should state my own position, because I am an adherent to the Cyprianic model, but with a twist. I hold that the sacraments/mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are all valid, because these three groups (for lack of a better word) are the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other groups, in my opinion, are outside the one Church, but their "mysteries" can be accepted through oikonomia as long as they have the proper outward sacramental form.

Todd

I think it apropos to post a related comment relayed here by Fr Kimel:

"I remember talking to Fr Patrick Reardon about the diversity of practice within Orthodoxy on precisely this question. He replied (paraphrase), "The diversity that exists today also existed in the 5th century, and in the absence of a centralized authority, it will probably continue till the end of time. But the Church makes do.""



Catholic Sacraments: On the Russian e-forums the Metropolitan's words to Der Spiegel about the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments are seen as just that - you have a true Eucharist. This is the interpreation of his words of both those who support and those who oppose your Eucharist.

Schismatic Sacraments: His comments about the lack of the Mysteries among schismatics is seen as aimed at the schismatic Ukrainian Church headed by the Patriarch Philaret Denisenko. The Russian Orthodox bishops exercised their power of binding and loosing to reduce him to a layman and to declare all his acts null and void and to remove all the holy Mysteries from his Church.

Interestingly Fr. Dragas speaks about this diversity too (i.e., in the article I gave a link to earlier), and he believes that it should continue, because he sees it as a strength of Orthodoxy that it can adapt to changing historical conditions and circumstances.

And yet here is a full recognition of Catholic baptism, something denied by Met Hierotheos and others quoted here. And the statement rightly points out that this recognition has flow on consequences in terms of ecclesial life and, necessarily, the other sacraments.

"We are therefore moved to declare that we also recognize each other's baptism as one and the same. This recognition has obvious ecclesiological consequences. The Church is itself both the milieu and the effect of baptism, and is not of our making. This recognition requires each side of our dialogue to acknowledge an ecclesial reality in the other, however much we may regard their way of living the Church's reality as flawed or incomplete."

An Agreed Statement
of The North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation
St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary, Crestwood, New York
June 3, 1999

http://www.usccb.org/seia/agreed.shtml