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

Why not? The Russian Church in particular became latinized in its theology, as even Fr. John Erickson admits.

Thank you once again for posting Fr. Peter's essay. What he says seems to correspond well with the other essays that I posted, and with what my Russian Orthodox (and OCA and Antiochian Orthodox) friends have been telling me for the last two years.

Fifty years from now, historians will probably be talking about Orthodoxy's late 20th/early 21st century captivity to the Latin-captivity ideology.

.

This is a purely anecdotal observation on my part as a high school religion teacher, but younger Orthodox Christians, much like younger Roman Catholics, appear to be more interested in fidelity to their theological and liturgical tradition than their elders.

This is true at least among those that take their faith seriously, but I admit that I have little contact with irreligious teenagers and young adults.

I have not posted on this forum before, but a member of this forum recommended this present thread to me, and I would like to make a couple of comments on the subject being discussed here. I am glad to see that the article by Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) has been posted here on the basis for receiving converts by oikonomia. This article essentially states that oikonomia can be used in the reception of converts into the Orthodox Church without requiring them to be baptized if certain preconditions exist, for instance the convert has already received the proper *form* of baptism in a church that has a true *form* of apostolic succession. Met Anthony makes very clear, however, that all sacramental forms administered outside of the Orthodox Church are only empty forms and devoid of sanctifying grace. However, if a person already has received the proper *form* of baptism, chrismation/confirmation, ordination, etc., outside of the Orthodox Church, these forms do not need to be repeated. In such a case, the previously administered *empty forms* are filled with sanctifying grace and become complete when a person is received into the Orthodox Church. I believe Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) was expressing the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church in this article, and the explanation he gives is therefore very important to understand why the Russian Orthodox Church has not traditionally baptized Roman Catholics. Not requiring baptism does not at all indicate that the Russian Orthodox Church considers Roman Catholics to have “true” or “sanctifying” sacraments, but only acknowledges that they have true *sacramental forms*, and therefore the *form* needs no repetition.

As far as I can tell, Hieromonk Ambrose is the source of the assertion on this forum that the Russian Orthodox Church has historically held Roman Catholic and Non-Chalcedonian sacraments to be “true”, “saving”, “grace-filled”, and “sanctifying” in their own right. This assertion, however, comes from Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, and while I highly respect Fr. Alexander, he has failed to prove his assertion. When Fr. Alexander has made this assertion, he has provided several historical references and quotes which he believes prove this assertion. However, in reading over the various quotes and references he has provided, they do not at all claim what Fr. Alexander believes them to claim. All that these quotes demonstrate is that the Russian Orthodox Church has historically received Roman Catholics without requiring baptism, and has generally considered Roman Catholics to have valid sacraments and valid apostolic succession. Most of the quotes provided by Fr. Alexander, however, are strictly within the context of how Roman Catholics are to be received into the Orthodox Church, and therefore references to the “validity” of previously administered sacraments only asserts that the previously administered forms need no repetition, since being received into the Orthodox Church fills with grace the previously administered empty forms.

While Hieromonk Ambrose may not be intending to be dishonest about the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church on this subject, but may just be trusting Fr. Alexander’s opinion without careful examination, I do find it a bit surprising that Fr. Ambrose claims that St. Mark of Ephesus accepted Roman Catholic sacraments. I assume he asserts this solely because he believed Roman Catholics should be received by Chrismation, that is, without baptism. This, however, only shows that St. Mark believed Roman Catholics have a true *form* of baptism, but does not at all show that he believed them to have “true” or “saving” sacraments in their own right. In fact, it was St. Mark of Ephesus who said that Roman Catholics were not only schismatics but heretics, so I don’t think he would be an authority that Roman or Eastern Rite Catholics would want to employ in their favor.

I agree that the whole subject of how Roman Catholics are received by the Orthodox Church is confusing, and I understand that when a person hears that the Orthodox Church considers Roman Catholic to have “valid” sacraments, automatically it is assumed that the Orthodox Church believes Roman Catholic sacraments to be complete, saving, true, authentic, grace-filled, etc. The fact that such confusion arises when Roman Catholics are not required to be baptized, is the very reason why some in the Orthodox Church continue to require baptism of Roman Catholics. While I realize those on this list may not like the position of Met Anthony (Khrapovitsky) or others in the Orthodox Church on this subject, I think it is better to have such beliefs expressed clearly rather than in a manner that is confusing. A clear teaching can be examined, studied, evaluated, discussed, etc., but where there is confusion, where does one begin?

That is true. But where are the statements from those who speak positively of Catholic sacraments that they are accepted only by economy at the time of reception into Orthodoxy.

If Catholics have no true sacraments in the eyes of the Russian Church, what on earth was the point of the Russian bishops wishing to give Orthodox Communion to Catholics in Russia isolated from their own Church and sacraments? Why would you give a man something he had never had and never experienced? maybe it would even be to his damnation? All his life as a Catholic he had received only mushy bread and wine (which is how I understand you to present the Russian view of the Catholic Eucharist) and then, one Sunday in an Orthodox church, he is given the true Body and Blood of Christ for the first time in his life. That would not be a responsible act by the Russian Orthodox.

Then these younger Orthodox Christians, if they are of the Russian tradition, should be careful to examine their theological and canonical tradition. They should at least show some respect for the erudition of their elders (such as Fr Alexander Lebedeff) and investigate his presentation of their Church history. It is all too easy to run with what may be a distorted view occasioned by the reaction to ecumenism over the last 4 decades. Part of this may involve an over-emphasis on "oikonomia." The young should not be content with facile answers in their search for truth within their own Church history and theology.

I am sure that my friends respect Fr. Alexander as a person, but they do not agree with his opinion, and nor are they required to do so. After all Fr. Alexander is not infallible. I must admit that I find it interesting that you have chosen to ignore the essays that I have posted in this thread, essays that are written by Orthodox authors who are at least as important as Fr. Alexander.

I am happy to say that I respect Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, and Metropolitan Anthony, and I also respect Fr. Dragas and Fr. Peter Alban Heers, and they all disagree with Fr. Alexander's more or less Roman Catholic take on the sacraments, which is why I tend to find their presentation to be more in line with Orthodoxy as I have come to understand it from my Orthodox friends. I am sure that you respect these priests and bishops, and I would not think to call your personal integrity in the matter into doubt. That said, it is fairly obvious that you do not accept their theological position on heretical and schismatical ritual acts, but such I suppose is the way of things on internet forums.

Perhaps in a future post you can address a problem with your own stated position that Fr. Peter highlights in his essay, a problem that has not been addressed by you in any of your posts up to this point, the problem put succinctly is this: if the ritual actions of non-Orthodox are valid it follows that the heretical body itself is in fact the true Church, because the sacraments can only exist in the Orthodox Church. For as Fr. Peter so eloquently explained: "The Church is known in her mysteries. In and through the mysteries the Church exists and is continually formed, her borders are set, her members identified. 'Those who live their lives outside of the mysterial (sacramental) life are outside the body of the Church.'"

Perhaps they are missing out on respect for the canons of the Russian Church? The matter in hand was formulated into canon law at the 1667 Council in Moscow and is still in force today. It was still in force in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad up until the 1960s and 70s when the reaction to ecumenism caused the Church Abroad to override the canons. What your young people, born since the 1960s, now see as the Russian norm in the West would have been an aberration in 1960 and earlier.

And, to quote from "Baptism and "Sacramental Economy":

"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. This teaching has been reaffirmed on many occasions. The formal expression of the recognition of Orthodox baptism has been constant in the teaching of the popes since the beginning of the sixteenth century, and was emphasized again at the Second Vatican Council. The Synods of Constantinople in 1484 and Moscow in 1667 testify to the implicit recognition of Catholic baptism by the Orthodox churches, and do so in a way fully in accord with the earlier teaching and practice of antiquity and the Byzantine era."

https://www.byzcath.org/index.php/component/content/300?task=view

Are you yourself willing to accept what Fr Peter writes? He places you and all Catholics in the position of unbaptized pagans, nuance it how he may. He reduces your Eucharist to nothing more than bread and wine and your worship of it is objectively idolatry. He reduces your bishops to unbaptized pagans.

I believe that Metropolitan Anthony was Russian Orthodox, so I doubt he was "missing out" on Russian Church canons; instead he simply did not read them in the way that you do. Moreover, perhaps he understood the fact that disciplinary canons can be changed with the vicissitudes of history, and that what may be done in one era, may no longer be useful in another era.

Besides, as is clear from Metropolitan Anthony's own essay, he did not read the canons of the Russian Church as giving general recognition to Roman Catholic sacraments, but saw the canons as an application of oikonomia in particular cases. He seems to have viewed the "sacraments" of heretics and schismatics as empty vessels that are only filled with grace upon the conversion of the recipient to Orthodoxy (see the article entitled The Ecclesiastical Principle of oikonomia and the ROCOR under Metropolitan Anastassy). I am content to respect his opinion on the matter.

I have no problem with what Fr. Peter said, just as I had no problem with what Catholics said about Anglican Orders when I was an Anglican. I respect honesty in theological discourse.

Fr. Ambrose,

Fr. Peter claims that the Church and the sacraments are inseparable; and so, wherever the sacraments are there is the Orthodox Church. What do you say in response to Fr. Peter? Is the Roman Catholic Church (and the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Ruthenian Catholic Church, et al.) the Orthodox Church?

P.S. - Maybe there is no schism, which means that you and I are really in communion with each other.

Seems the Latin Captivity began very early!

"The Synods of Constantinople in 1484 and Moscow in 1667 testify to the implicit recognition of Catholic baptism by the Orthodox churches, and do so in a way fully in accord with the earlier teaching and practice of antiquity and the Byzantine era."

https://www.byzcath.org/index.php/component/content/300?task=view

Yes, Latinization began during the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261), and may have begun slightly earlier than that on certain points of doctrine. Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus would also have no trouble calling Bekkos (the pro-union Patriarch) a Latinizer, and there were others who were enamored with Latin doctrine in the 14th century as St. Gregory Palamas would no doubt affirm.

In response to Fr Peter I would say that it is plainly not the understanding of the Russian Orthodox Church.

As we see, Metropolitan Hilarion is able to recognise the validity of Catholic (and most likely Pre-Chalcedonian) sacraments without confusing these bodies with the Church. Fr Peter's conclusions are based on the premises which he creates and presents. The Russian Church is not on the same page and does not draw these conclusions.