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

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

"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

I have been delinquent in not paying much attention really to the Agreed Statements produced by the American Dialogue and generally speaking they never evince any response from the ancient patriarchates but I am pleased to see that in their Agreed Statement on Baptism and Economy, they make mention of the points I have been trying to make here of the decisions of the Council of the Four Patriarchs (Constantinople 1484) and the medieval Moscow Councils (particularly 1667.)

"There are, however, in the Orthodox tradition two important synodical rulings which represent the continuation of the policy articulated by Basil, and affirmed by the Synod in Trullo and later Byzantine canonists, rulings which we believe are to be accorded primary importance: those of the Synod of Constantinople in 1484, and of Moscow in 1667. The first ruling, part of a document marking the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate's formal repudiation of the Union of Ferrara-Florence (1439) with the Catholic Church, prescribed that Catholics be received into Orthodox communion by the use of chrism. In the service for the reception of Catholic converts which the Synod published, this anointing is not accompanied by the prayers which characterize the rite of initiation; we find instead formulas of a penitential character. The rite therefore appears to have been understood as part of a process of reconciliation, rather than as a reiteration of post-baptismal chrismation. It is this provision of Constantinople in 1484, together with Canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, which the Council of Moscow in 1667 invokes in its decree forbidding the rebaptism of Catholics, a decree that has remained authoritative in the East Slavic Orthodox churches to the present day."

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

One may ask who gave the Church this right not merely to change, but simply to abolish the external act of baptism, performing it in such cases only mentally, by implication or by intention at the celebration of the ‘second sacrament’ (i.e. chrismation) over the unbaptized. Admittedly, in special and exceptional cases the ‘external act’, the ‘form’, may indeed be abolished; such is the martyr’s baptism in blood, or even the so-called baptisma flaminis. But this is admissible only in casu necessitatis. Moreover, there can hardly be any analogy between these cases and a systematic connivance in another’s sensitiveness and self-deception. If ‘economy’ is pastoral discretion conducive to the advantage and salvation of human souls, then in such a case one could only speak of ‘economy in reverse’. It would be a deliberate retrogression into equivocation and obscurity for the sake of purely external success, since the internal enchurchment of ‘ineophytes’ cannot take place with such concealment. It is scarcely possible to impute to the Church such a perverse and crafty intention. And in any case the practical result of this ‘economy’ must be considered utterly unexpected. For in the Church herself the conviction has arisen among the majority that sacraments are performed even among schismatics, that even in the sects there is a valid, although forbidden, hierarchy. The true intention of the Church in her acts and rules would appear to be too difficult to discern, and from this point of view as well the ‘economic’ explanation of these rules cannot be regarded as convincing.

The ‘economic’ explanation raises even greater difficulties when we consider its general theological premises. One can scarcely ascribe to the Church the power and the right, as it were, to convert the ‘has-not-been’ into the ‘has-been’, to change the meaningless into the valid, as Professor Diovuniotis expresses it (Church Quarterly Review, No.231 [April 1931], p.97), ‘in the order of economy.’ This would give a particular sharpness to the question whether it is possible to receive schismatic clergy ‘in their existing orders.’ In the Russian Church adherents from Roman Catholicism or from the Nestorians, etc., are received into communion ‘through recantation of heresy’, that is, through the sacrament of repentance. Clergy are given absolution by a bishop and thereby, the inhibition lying on a schismatic cleric is removed. One asks whether it is conceivable that in this delivery and absolution from sin there is also accomplished silently - and even secretly - baptism, confirmation, ordination as deacon or priest, sometimes even consecration as bishop, without any ‘form’ or clear and distinctive ‘external act’ which might enable us to notice and consider precisely what sacraments are being performed.

Here there is a double equivocation, both from the standpoint of motive and from the standpoint of the fact itself. Can one, in short, celebrate a sacrament by virtue of ‘intention’ alone and without some visible act? Of course not. Not because there belongs to the ‘form’ some self-sufficient or ‘magic’ effect, but precisely because in the celebration of a sacrament the ‘external act’ and the pouring-forth of grace are in substance indivisible and inseparable. Certainly, the Church is the ‘steward of grace’ and to her is given power to preserve and teach these gifts of grace. But the power of the Church does not extend to the very foundations of Christian existence. It is impossible to conceive that the Church might have the right, ‘in the order of economy’, to admit to the priestly function without ordination the clergy of schismatic confessions, even of those that have not preserved the ‘apostolic succession’, while remedying not only all defects but a complete lack of grace while granting power and recognition by means of an unexpressed ‘intention’.

Fr John Erickson has argued that the understanding of economy which Fr Georges criticizes is itself a fairly new development in Orthodoxy, dating from the 18th century or so. See his essay "On the Cusp of Modernity [jbburnett.com]." Also see Fr John's essay "The Reception of Non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church [jbburnett.com]."

Thus, the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has provided translations of the text in Italian, French and German."

Yeah, but the chairman of the Catholic delegation is the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and as such, a close confidante of the Pope. Nothing goes out over his signature that has not already been approved by the Pope.

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.

"The Mystery of Baptism and the Unity of the Church"
By Fr Peter Alban Heers

An Address prepared for the Academic Conference
"Ecumenism: Origins, Expectations and Disenchantment"
University of Thessaloniki, September 20-24, 2004

http://uncutmountain.com/uncut/docs/heers_baptism.pdf

In fact, this is the best document posted so far, because Fr. Peter has clearly shown that those Orthodox who ascribe validity to schismatical and heretical "sacraments" per se have been influenced by Roman Catholic theology.