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

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.

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.

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?

I would not really have thought of the 13th century as "antiquity."

It is interesting that you reject Metropolitan Anthony's doctrinal position. His essay was so well written.

One mudst be a tad careful with Metropolitan Anthony. I remember how enamoured many were with his teaching on redemption - very persuasive, very attractive. But, alas, one day the bishops told us it was contaminated with severe errors.

Jason,

Welcome to the Byzantine Forum. A great first post.

Todd

That's interesting, because based upon what my Russian Orthodox friends are telling me, one must be a tad careful with Fr. Alexander - at least as far as the present issue is concerned.

I'm not going to get into the thread discussion in depth (you'll rarely find me debating theology), but ...

As regards the willingness of the Russian Orthodox to commune Catholics (and vice-versa, during a time when such was certainly not the stance held by Rome) - simplistic as it sounds, the persecutions visited on the faithful and clergy of both Churches under communism and especially in the gulags made for a very different world of worship.

Colloquially, one can speak of strange bedfellows but, to persons of faith, one cannot discount the influence of the Holy Spirit in encouraging God's people - of both Churches - to reach out and afford spiritual care to their brethren, separated from one another by theological barriers that men, albeit holy and well-meaning, not God, erected between them.

Many years,

Neil

While Hieromonk Ambrose may not be intending to be dishonest about the historical position of the Russian Orthodox Church on this subject,

One mudst be a tad careful with Metropolitan Anthony. I remember how enamoured many were with his teaching on redemption - very persuasive, very attractive. But, alas, one day the bishops told us it was contaminated with severe errors.

Tell us, is it not true that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church promulgated a decision to give Holy Communion to Catholics in Russia?

Did they formulate this decision on the basis of "You Catholics have never received the Eucharist in your own churches. You don't have the Eucharist. But now, by golly, we Orthodox are going to treat you to the real thing for the first time in your lives."

Or did they formulate their decision because they believed that the Catholics are in fact accustomed to receiving a genuine Eucharist in their own churches from their own priests?

Or were the Russian bishops, in your opinion, simply being dishonest about the whole thing?
--------------

P.S. Most definitely not a good thing to include a slur against a priest in your first post to a new forum.

I believe that the decision about Holy Communion of Catholics promulgated in 1970 was made under the influence of the views of Met. Nikodim (Rotov), could be regarded as an historical aberration, and was indeed rarely acted upon. I really do feel Met. Nikodim was the prime mover, and that the patriarch at the time was in a position not unlike that of Met. Vitaly (Ustinov) of ROCOR at the tail end of his life, where he was old, frail, and more of a figurehead than a real mover or shaker.

It is my contention that in all likelihood was seen by Met. Nikodim as a political decision that was advantageous at the time, and enhanced the Metropolitan's good relationship with the Vatican. It promoted a good image externally, but was probably rarely (if ever) honoured in the breach.

Of course this era of the Moscow patriarchate's history is shrouded in story-telling, spin, propaganda, and political maneuvering of all kinds, the desire to promote a western friendly image abroad and the desire to seem soviet-obedient at home resulting in not always compatible images of the church being transmitted. The MP was all things to one men and chimeraic in its policies and representations of itself, so entangling truth from fiction in this matter is not likely to ever occur.

Can you provide anything to substantiate your suppositions? You must have read some material somewhere?