The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
EasternChristian19, James OConnor, biblicalhope, Ishmael, bluecollardpink
6,161 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 776 guests, and 84 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,511
Posts417,528
Members6,161
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
#80346 06/21/05 04:06 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
C
Member
Member
C Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
Quote
Originally posted by Fr. Thomas:
Let us be clear. The overwhelming practice of the Orthodox church is to receive RC converts by chrismation.
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

#80347 06/21/05 04:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Quote
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Fr. Thomas,

I came across that article by accident and only posted it since people had asked for verification of Fr. Anthony's statments. I don't have that issue of the Illuminator and the GOA Pittsbugh Diocese's website only goes back to 12/2002. They only publish 3 times a year so it should not be difficult to locate if anyone out their keeps all their back issues. However, it appears the OCIF article is citing an "Our Reader Ask..." column from the Illuminator which is answered by Metropolitan Maximos.

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

Priest Thomas

#80348 06/21/05 05:03 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335
P
Former
Former
P Offline
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335
Quote
Originally posted by Chtec:
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 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

#80349 06/21/05 05:09 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Quote
Originally posted by Administrator:
The document BAPTISM AND "SACRAMENTAL ECONO...atholic Theological Consultation - 1999 might be of interest to those following this discussion.
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.

Quote
4. That the Orthodox churches declare that the Orthodox reception of Catholics by chrismation does not constitute a repetition of any part of their sacramental initiation;
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.

Quote
The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese receives someone who is a baptized Roman Catholic by means of a confession of faith and chrismation.
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

#80350 06/21/05 05:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
C
Member
Member
C Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
Quote
Originally posted by Photius:
BTW, the practice of receiving RCs through confession dates to the time of Peter the Great...
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

#80351 06/21/05 05:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
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

#80352 06/21/05 05:53 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
C
Member
Member
C Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
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:

Quote
One of Peter's most significant contributions, and one which also has the most lasting effect, was his introduction of different rites of acceptance into the Orthodox Church. Prior to this, the general practice of the Byzantine Church was to reconfirm (chrismate) Catholics, though the current Muscovite practice was to rebaptize all non-Orthodox. Based on his belief that baptism and confirmation were indelible marks upon the soul--a traditional Latin teaching--Peter developed a three-strata approach in the Trebnik:

1. For non-Christians, as well as Socinian Anabaptists:
-a five day catechumenal rite
-a profession of faith, different for Jews, Saracens, and Socinians, whom he calls "Arians"
-baptism
-chrismation
-communion

2. For Protestants:
-a profession of faith, as well as an exorcism and insufflation
-absolution
-confirmation
-communion

3. For Roman Catholics, Uniates, and apostates:
-a confession of faith
-confession
-communion.

For apostates, the previous requirement of fasting for up to two years is reduced to a simple three-day fast, and Peter encouraged great leniency in this regard. Only unconfirmed Catholics were to be chrismated. The new system was a pastoral response to the contemporary situation where, for the first time, Orthodox and non-Orthodox lived side-by-side in large numbers. Peter's lenient approach was intended to encourage conversion and contrasted sharply with the Muscovite practice at this time of rebaptizing Roman Catholics and even Orthodox who has been baptized by aspersion rather than total immersion. In 1759, the entire Russian Church adopted Moghila's threefold approach, which it follows to the present day.

#80353 06/21/05 06:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
C
Member
Member
C Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010
Likes: 1
In light of Dr. Meyendorff's article, it would seem that Fr. Dragas is mistaken.

Dave

#80354 06/21/05 06:52 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
D
djs Offline
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Quote
It is almost universally practiced that former Roman Catholics who enter into the faith are chrismated
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"?

#80355 06/21/05 07:00 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Quote
Originally posted by Chtec:
In light of Dr. Meyendorff's article, it would seem that Fr. Dragas is mistaken.
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

#80356 06/21/05 07:19 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Quote
Originally posted by djs:
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"?
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:

Quote
Catechumens who previously have been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity in a manner recognized as authentic by the Church, after having completed the established catechetical instruction and making a personal affirmation of the Orthodox faith, are received through the Mysteries of Penance, Chrismation , and Holy Eucharist according to the prescribed ritual. This group includes Roman Catholics and some Protestants.
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

#80357 06/21/05 08:49 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
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

#80358 06/21/05 09:37 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
R
Member
Member
R Offline
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,301
Quote
Originally posted by Father Anthony:
Dear SPDundas,

Thank you for your charitable clarification. Your second explanation was clearer, and actually made sense. Your first one did wound very angry in tone frown . Few can argue with most of what you clarified.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Thank you Father Anthony.

-ray


-ray
#80359 06/22/05 11:03 AM
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
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


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
#80360 06/22/05 11:33 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
Member
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 441
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

Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0