www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question for Orthodox

I would be interested in finding out the current practice of the Moscow Patriarchate, since historically they (along with the Metropolia and the ROCOR, AFAIK) received RC converts through confession and profession of faith.

Anybody know?

Dave

I've already posted Met. Maximos's encyclical which directs all priests in the GOA Pittsburgh Metropolis to chrismate former Roman Catholics.

Priest Thomas

I shall be in Moscow in a couple of weeks and will inquire. I imagine it is by simple confession, which some in ROCOR still do, and was the norm in ROCOR until about 40 years ago, when association with former Athonites caused re-baptism to be re-introduced.

BTW, the practice of receiving RCs through confession dates to the time of Peter the Great, so calling it "historical" may be confusing. In the 12th century, the Church of Constantinople (which Russia was then a part of) received RCs by baptism. Constantinople ceased doing this at the time of the Council of Florence. Russia continued doing so until the trial of Patriarch Nikon when the Patriarch of Antioch, who was present for the trial, forbade it, instructing reception by Chrismation, which the Russian Church then adopted.

Today, in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, some monasteries re-baptize RCs; this includes all of Mount Athos (some places there they won't give Communion to anyone who was not baptized in the Orthodox Church, but that's the exception) and Father Ephraim's monasteries in the USA, which are part of the GOA. Concerning the latter, it should be noted that Father Ephraim started his monasteries under ROCOR, but switched to the GOA because of the insistence of Patriarch Bartholomew, but the former obtained the latter assurance that Athonite traditions would be preserved, which is the reason that re-baptism of RCs is tolerated, being quite an anomaly in the GOA.

Photius, Reader

Yes, thank you, Adminstrator, for posting this, which again, confirms what I said previously. Orthodox chrismate Roman Catholics who enter the faith - but this can be viewed as "completing that which is lacking" through the sacrament of chrismation.

It should also be noted, however, that this document is not universally binding or authoritative. It is only making recommendations.

Also, please know that I have just spoken to a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese who confirmed (no pun intended) that the normal mode of receiving Roman Catholics into the Greek Orthodox church (that is, in this country) is by Chrismation. He cites Odigos tou Ireos (The Priest's Handbook) published 1987 by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, P. 85-87.

I also just received an email from a "Fr. Michael" at the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website who has confirmed the same.

Dear Friends,

I am not trying to tell you anything that is not common knowledge. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from believing that Roman Catholic sacraments are grace-bearing. They certainly are and in my discussion with my converts, we certainly touch on these points. To think otherwise would be foolish! However, the original question, as posed, was "Does the Orthodox see Roman Catholic sacraments as valid?" to which I responded that we don't use that terminology (valid) and there is a bit of an uneven approach in the way we view certain sacraments.

We know these things to be certainly true:

1) Virtually all Orthodox Churches accept a baptism that is performed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," that is, according to sound Trinitarian theology (not JWs, Mormons, etc.). A few rebaptize, such as, I believe, on the Holy Mountain. (I might also note, however, that you may see this requirement become much more strict - the theology out there is so muddled, "God the Parent," etc., that you may see a reaction by the Orthodox to be very discerning concerning baptism and not have such a blanket policy.)

2) It is almost universally practiced that former Roman Catholics who enter into the faith are chrismated.

3) The way in which former Roman Catholic priests are received into the Orthodox church varies. For the last several hundred years, the Russian church (and her daughters) have recevied them by vesting. Some other Orthodox churches ordain them.

I cannot offer you any other proof than the abudance of proof that I have already offered you - encyclicals, clergy handbooks, and authoritative spokespersons. I am not citing heresay, annecdotes and wishful thinking.

This is not to say that this or that person, witnessed this or that priest, at this or that time, this or that variation on the way in which someone is received. But these are the facts and these are the practices.

Priest Thomas

I've read (I need to find out where!) that St. Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev, made this policy in his diocese; eventually, it spread throughout the Russian Church.

Dave

According to Fr. George Dragas [myriobiblos.gr] , Moghila's Trebnik of 1646 directed to receive Roman Catholics by chrismation.

See also the document [holy-trinity.org] by His Grace, Bishop Tikhon (OCA Diocese of the West) which cites historical evidence from the time of Peter the Great that Roman Catholics are to be received by chrismation.

Priest Thomas

I found it! Paul Meyendorff in his article "The Liturgical Reforms of Peter Moghila: A New Look" (from a St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly) states:

In light of Dr. Meyendorff's article, it would seem that Fr. Dragas is mistaken.

Dave

Dear Father Thomas., could you clarify what you mean here by "chrismated". I have seen reception into the OCA by an elaborate chrismation for Protestants, but by a simple anointing for RC's. Is this distinction in practice common? Are both practices properly called "chrismation"?

No so sure about that.

According to Bishop Tikhon's article, there is in the Russian Trebnik a distinction between the reception of those who were entering from the "Latin Rite" (that is, Roman Catholics) and those who were termed "Uniates" (that is, Eastern Catholics). Roman Catholics (what the Trebnik called "Roman Catholics of the Latin Rite") were received by chrismation, as opposed to Eastern Catholics (what the Trebnik calls "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite") who were already chrismated, and thus received by confession of faith and communion. The term "unless they have not been chrismated" referred to those of the Latin rite - those whom we refer to today as Roman Catholics.

There is nothing to indicate in Bp. Tikhon's article that Roman Catholic confirmation was accepted as chrismation.

Priest Thomas

There was a booklet published by the OCA "On the Reception of Converts" maybe 10 or so years ago (?) which deontes, if I recall correctly (I don't have the booklet here at home, I'll have to look it up at church) that Roman Catholics (I think) were to be annointed "on the forehead only" with the Holy Chrism.

However, it seemingly contradicted, depending on the use of the term "chrismation," the clergy guidelines of the OCA which states:

Unfortunately, I can't tell you if this distinction is common, since I'm not aware of every practice of every diocese. The diocesan bishop is the final authority in such matters and he directs his priests accordingly.

Priest Thomas

More to DJS's question about the "annointing vs. chrismation" question, I've been doing some reading, so...

I want to back track a bit, or at least tweak one previous comment, that chrismating "Roman Catholics" is a virtually universal practice. The Russian practice, it seems, or so it is interpreted by some, does in fact receive "Roman Catholics" who are "chrismated" (I think this is the term in question) by confession of faith, not chrismation. However, I still think there is some question about this and what it actually means, and I will try to have it answered, at least somewhat. I think there may be considerable disagreement as to how this is interpreted, as is evidenced by the OCA's rather novel mode of anointing only on the forehead, what John Erickson [jbburnett.com] calls a sort of "amalgamation" of the Russian practice of not chrismating Roman Catholics (accoridng to his interpretation) and the Greek practice of chrismating Roman Catholics.

What I propose to do at this point is to talk to some Moscow Patriarchate priests and see what the current practice is, as well as some ROCOR priests. This might help to shed light on the subject.

Priest Thomas

Thank you Father Anthony.

-ray

Fr. Thomas,

I do not see a direct correlation between believing in the validity of the Catholic Sacraments and believing that Catholic converts should Chrismated. One could believe in both with no contradiction.

As I am sure you know, Chrismation was used for receiving back even cradle Orthodox who had apostacized, went in to schism, or fell into heresy. Surely, the Church is not claiming that the previous Orthodox Chrismation was defective or nullified. Therefore I do not see requiring Chrismation of Catholic converts as a declarartion of the nullity of or unknow-ability of grace in Catholic Sacraments. The issues are seperate.

I think the problem arises from imposing the Scholastic teaching of only "7" Sacraments on the Eastern Church, which historically never narrowed things down so precisely. Chrism is used for rites other than initiation Chrismation. That it would be used for the reception of lapsed Orthodox or converts from a Church the Orthodox view as in error should not be surprising. However, it should also not be interpreted as redoing the initiation Chrismation. The teaching that Chrismation supplies the grace lacking in Catholic Sacraments is a late idea that lacks good theology. The prayers are (or at least were) different and are penitential in nature and not initiatory. Nor should it offend Catholics.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

Certainly if one chose to subscribe to the terminology and thought behind "validity" one could indeed believe both things.

And there is no doubt that chrismation is also used as a rite of reconciliation for those who enter (or re-enter, as in the case of those who apostatize) the church.

But one should not take the Russian position after Peter the Great as the apex of thought on the subject. It is one view point, that has it's own hisorical, even political realities. There is obviously a wide variety of opinions on the subject.

Since I have never left the church, and never intend to, I can only imagine that those who enter the church from various faiths, including the Roman Catholic, might disagree a bit with you about your view that the chrismation by which they enter the church makes up that which is lacking to be bad theology.

Priest Thomas