Russian vs Greek view of Validity of RC Mysteries

[Irish Hermit]

[But that's the priest giving people the benefit of the doubt.  If a parishioner were to hand you a slip of paper with only 1 name for commemoration of the dead at Proskomedia, and you knew 100% that the person was Roman Catholic, would you say it?  Likely not.  I wouldn't - why make someone as accountable as all the Saints before the Dread Judgment Seat if they're not baptized? 

The question of the existence of the Holy Mysteries among the Roman Catholics is, in the Russian Church, a moot point.  It appears that for the last 500 years the Russian Church has accepted all Roman Catholic Mysteries (Baptism Eucharist, Priesthood) as authentic, per se and not per economia at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  This may not be the teaching of the Greek Church and I daresay it is not the teaching of all of the Russian Church (for example the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) but it is a teaching nonetheless.

[Irish Hermit]

Dear Father George,

This fleshes out what I was saying about the Russian acceptance of the authenticity of Roman Catholic sacraments.

Message 225

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,22406.msg342749.html#msg342749

[Fr. George]

[But that's the priest giving people the benefit of the doubt.  If a parishioner were to hand you a slip of paper with only 1 name for commemoration of the dead at Proskomedia, and you knew 100% that the person was Roman Catholic, would you say it?  Likely not.  I wouldn't - why make someone as accountable as all the Saints before the Dread Judgment Seat if they're not baptized? 

The question of the existence of the Holy Mysteries among the Roman Catholics is, in the Russian Church, a moot point.  It appears that for the last 500 years the Russian Church has accepted all Roman Catholic Mysteries (Baptism Eucharist, Priesthood) as authentic, per se and not per economia at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  This may not be the teaching of the Greek Church and I daresay it is not the teaching of all of the Russian Church (for example the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) but it is a teaching nonetheless.

The key phrase is "at the point of reception," and I dare say it does not include communion.

[Irish Hermit]

[But that's the priest giving people the benefit of the doubt.  If a parishioner were to hand you a slip of paper with only 1 name for commemoration of the dead at Proskomedia, and you knew 100% that the person was Roman Catholic, would you say it?  Likely not.  I wouldn't - why make someone as accountable as all the Saints before the Dread Judgment Seat if they're not baptized? 

The question of the existence of the Holy Mysteries among the Roman Catholics is, in the Russian Church, a moot point.  It appears that for the last 500 years the Russian Church has accepted all Roman Catholic Mysteries (Baptism Eucharist, Priesthood) as authentic, per se and not per economia at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  This may not be the teaching of the Greek Church and I daresay it is not the teaching of all of the Russian Church (for example the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) but it is a teaching nonetheless.

The key phrase is "at the point of reception," and I dare say it does not include communion.

I may not have expressed it well... overly succinct.

The dominant Russian teaching is NOT that Roman Catholic sacraments are valourised by economy at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  They are valid per se.  A baptized Catholic has received baptism.   A Catholic feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ from a Catholic priest as does any Orthodox from an Orthodox priest.  A Catholic bishop enjoys the same consecration and episcopal grace as any Orthodox bishop.  The Pope of Rome is truly a bishop consecrated by the Holy Spirit.  He is not a layman in expensive drag.

I myself was brought up in the school of "ekonomia" in these matters.  But others were not and I have to admit that their approach must be respected too.

[Michał Kalina]

The dominant Russian teaching is NOT that Roman Catholic sacraments are valourised by economy at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  They are valid per se.  A baptized Catholic has received baptism.   A Catholic feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ from a Catholic priest as does any Orthodox from an Orthodox priest.  A Catholic bishop enjoys the same consecration and episcopal grace as any Orthodox bishop.  The Pope of Rome is truly a bishop consecrated by the Holy Spirit.  He is not a layman in expensive drag.

Any quotes?

[Fr. George]

^ I'm interested in the quotes, too, as either approach (per se or by economy) is usually contingent on their coming into Orthodoxy - as long as they remain outside, regardless of creed or claims, it's not recognized.

[Irish Hermit]

The dominant Russian teaching is NOT that Roman Catholic sacraments are valourised by economy at the point of reception into Orthodoxy.  They are valid per se.  A baptized Catholic has received baptism.   A Catholic feeds on the Body and Blood of Christ from a Catholic priest as does any Orthodox from an Orthodox priest.  A Catholic bishop enjoys the same consecration and episcopal grace as any Orthodox bishop.  The Pope of Rome is truly a bishop consecrated by the Holy Spirit.  He is not a layman in expensive drag.

Any quotes?

Christ is Risen!

1. Well, there is the statement by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokalamsk, Head of the Department of External Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church, about 2 months ago, that the Russian Orthodox Church acknowledges the validity of the Roman Catholic priesthood and that is why they are accepted without ordination.    Not by economy but because they are already, prior to conversion to Orthodoxy, valid and authentic Christian priests.   This caused a bit of a stir in some quarters in the West who were not aware that the Metropolitan is speaking out of centuries of Russian tradition.  Some in the West even sought to bring him down by saying that he is a disciple of the arch-ecumenist and pro-Catholic Metropolitan Nikodim of Leningrad, who died literally at the feet of the Pope in Rome.   The present Russian Patriarch is seen as a pupil of Metropolitan Nikodim and Metropolitan Hilarion is a pupil of the Patriarch.

A few weeks ago some extremist Russian faithful entered his church where he serves in Moscow ansd started screaming "heretic" at him.   The reason for their actions was their understanding that his statement on the Catholic Priesthood means just what I have been saying above - namely, that RC Orders are valid from the get-go, and not by reason of economy if they should convert to Orthodooxy.  I doubt if the protesters would have been yelling at him if they understood him to mean the second 'economy' option.

I am sure that this is all covered in a thread on the Forum somewhere.  I'll hunt it out.

2. It was interesting that Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, the External Relations Officer for the Russian Church Abroad, when challenged about this on a traditionalist list, defended Met Hilarion and wrote three or four copious responses with substantiating evidence, pointing out that Metropolitan Hilarion was merely holding fast to the Russian tradition which he had received.  I shall look for those messages of his also, although it is a Yahoo Group and Yahoo's search engine has been a total misery for many months past.  

3. Please have a look at this monograph on the OCA's Holy Trinity's website by the deceased Father Ambrose Pogodin.  He was actually in the delegation sent to the Second Vatican Council by Metropolitan Philaret of the Russian Church Abroad and a very learned man...

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch2.html

On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches
By Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)

Two - How the question of the reception of the heterodox was resolved in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Opinions and Church legislation on this question

I present these positions not because I necessarily hold them myself but because they are a part of the Church of Russia to which I belong.

A question if I may, to members of the Forum who are not members of the Russian Church - how do you and how do your hierarchs judge Pope Benedict of Rome?  Do you and your hierarchs accept him as a bishop?  Or do you judge him to be a bit of a charlatan and poseur in bishop's vestments?  I notice that when he visited Constantinople he was seated in an episcopal cathedra as a bishop and invited to bless the Orthodox faithful as if he held some genuine ordination? Are there any corroborating statements, either way, from your bishops and synods?  Or would we say that actions speak louder than words and statements and he is accepted as an authentic bishop and is certainly NOT judged to be a layman by the Ecumenical Throne.

[Michał Kalina]

I think Met. Hilarion was overinterpreted. He did not said anything like RC sacraments are valid per se. He did not explain how does the ROC recognise the RC sacraments but only said that they are not 'repeated'.

[Irish Hermit]

I think Met. Hilarion was overinterpreted. He did not said anything like RC sacraments are valid per se. He did not explain how does the ROC recognise the RC sacraments but only said that they are not 'repeated'.

Christ is Risen!

Metropolitan Hilarion- "The Orthodox and the Catholic Churches have only some differences in theology and models of church order. Thus, we do not recognize the supreme authority of the Pope of Rome over other Churches. However, the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not fundamental. We recognize the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. If a Catholic priest moves over to Orthodoxy we accept him as priest."

Der Spiegel issue No. 51, 2009.

I think it may be disingenuous to take Metropolitan Hilarion's statement to mean, we recognise the form of Catholic Baptism and Ordination and Confirmation and Penance but they are ceremonies empty of divine grace.  No Baptism has taken place, no priestly powers conferred, no Holy Spirit received, no sins forgiven.   We all know that he does not mean that.  He means just what his words say.

I disagree with the Metropolitan and I will continue to hold to what I was taught: extra ecclesiam nulla sacramenta (but with provision for the use of economy where needed -whether it be the mass conversion of the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" or individual conversions of Roman Catholics.

Here is the interview and I would be grateful to know where any mention of the acceptance of Catholic sacraments *by economia* occurs?

http://byztex.blogspot.com/2009/12/abp-hilarion-sits-down-with-der-spiegel.html

The interview is intended for the consumption of Western European Catholics.   If the Metropolitan did not intend his audience to understand the words with the very plain meaning that they have, then he is really rather guilty of a bit of verbal chicanery in stating something which he knows would lead his Catholic audience into a wrong understanding of our true perception of Catholic baptism and priesthood.

[Irish Hermit]

Christ is Risen!

I present these positions not because I necessarily hold them myself but because they are a part of the Church of Russia to which I belong.

Probably nobody is interested very much in my own position but I gave it in an earlier thread:

Message 111 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25542.msg401463.html#msg401463

[Irish Hermit]

Christ is Risen!

2. It was interesting that Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, the External Relations Officer for the Russian Church Abroad, when challenged about this on a traditionalist list, defended Met Hilarion and wrote three or four copious responses with substantiating evidence, pointing out that Metropolitan Hilarion was merely holding fast to the Russian tradition which he had received.  I shall look for those messages of his also, although it is a Yahoo Group and Yahoo's search engine has been a total misery for many months past. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/135729

Fr Ambrose wrote:
"On the other hand, you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the
Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it. Saint
Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion."

Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff replied:
"As I mentioned before, it is far more than the opinion of
St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

"Every Handbook for Clergy, every textbook on Canon Law,
Comparative Theology, Liturgics, and Pastorral Theology
published in Russia before the Revolution states that the
Roman Catholics have valid Mysteries and true apostolic
succession, and that in no way should Baptism and
Chrismation, or ordination of them be performed again.

"One can like it or not, but that was the official position
of the Russian Church, without question or exception."

An aside to Fr Anastasios:  this begins to provide an answer to your enquiry (Message 112 http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25542.msg401465.html#msg401465 ) about what information Fr Lebedeff provided.  It is hard to look for information on orthodox-tradition because of the malfunctioning of the search engine but I'll start looking manually.

[Cosmos]

Within the Antiochian Orthodox Church, converts from the Roman Catholic Church are typically received through Holy Chrismation alone, as their previous Roman Catholic Baptism is considered valid and sufficient. However, such converts may be baptized again by triple immersion if they wish to do so, and particularly if they think they might wish to enter the Orthodox monastic life or receive Ordination to Holy Orders at some time in the future.

+Cosmos

[Asteriktos]

Within the Antiochian Orthodox Church, converts from the Roman Catholic Church are typically received through Holy Chrismation alone, as their previous Roman Catholic Baptism is considered valid and sufficient. However, such converts may be baptized again by triple immersion if they wish to do so, and particularly if they think they might wish to enter the Orthodox monastic life or receive Ordination to Holy Orders at some time in the future.

I'd like to ask a question and make a comment here. First, are you sure that the Antiochians consider the baptism valid, or is it possible that they rather consider it to be filling with grace that which was graceless and an empty form before? Second, when I was brought into the Church via the Antiochians in 2001, I was discouraged from being baptized, even though I asked about the possibility of being received that way. And at the time--though it seems silly now (especially given my problems with doubts)--as a wild-eyed new convert, I had not ruled out either monasticism or a call to the priesthood.

[Cosmos]

Within the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, converts are normally received through Baptism by Triune Immersion, Holy Chrismation, and Confession of Faith.

Typically, Orthodox Baptism is of course required of all non-Christian converts. Among those entering from other Christian confessions, however, only Protestant converts are required to receive Orthodox Baptism, because their bishops and other clergy are viewed as lacking valid orders with legitimate Apostolic Succession, and thus also as lacking the capacity to properly confer a valid Sacramental Mystery of Baptism. Their baptisms are essentially viewed as the equivalent of a baptism performed by a layman in an emergency, such as the immanent death of an unbaptized infant for example.

For the same reason, Protestant clergy are similarly viewed as lacking the capacity to consecrate chrism and to legitimately confer the Sacramental Mystery of Holy Chrismation as well. Thus, Protestant converts are seen from the Orthodox perspective as having previously received an incomplete Christian Initiation which needs to be rectified.

Roman Catholic converts, however, are normally received through Holy Chrismation and Confession of Faith, without need of being baptized again, because their clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) are viewed as having valid Holy Orders with legitimate Apostolic Succession. They are therefore seen as possessing the capacity to confer valid Sacramental Mysteries such as baptism, even though they are no longer in full communion with Holy Orthodoxy.

With Light and Love in Christ ~

+Cosmos 

[Asteriktos]

Ok, thank you for clearing that up

[username!]

Within the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, converts are normally received through Baptism by Triune Immersion, Holy Chrismation, and Confession of Faith.

Typically, Orthodox Baptism is of course required of all non-Christian converts. Among those entering from other Christian confessions, however, only Protestant converts are required to receive Orthodox Baptism, because their bishops and other clergy are viewed as lacking valid orders with legitimate Apostolic Succession, and thus also as lacking the capacity to properly confer a valid Sacramental Mystery of Baptism. Their baptisms are essentially viewed as the equivalent of a baptism performed by a layman in an emergency, such as the immanent death of an unbaptized infant for example.

For the same reason, Protestant clergy are similarly viewed as lacking the capacity to consecrate chrism and to legitimately confer the Sacramental Mystery of Holy Chrismation as well. Thus, Protestant converts are seen from the Orthodox perspective as having previously received an incomplete Christian Initiation which needs to be rectified.

Roman Catholic converts, however, are normally received through Holy Chrismation and Confession of Faith, without need of being baptized again, because their clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) are viewed as having valid Holy Orders with legitimate Apostolic Succession. They are therefore seen as possessing the capacity to confer valid Sacramental Mysteries such as baptism, even though they are no longer in full communion with Holy Orthodoxy.

With Light and Love in Christ ~

+Cosmos  

Are you a bishop? Is that why you sign your name with the +?  typically the way you've just written the rules of your archdiocese and then sign it with "with light and love in Christ"  +cosmos it looks like every memo I've ever seen a bishop write.  Just curious.  And if you aren't the bishop could you provide a quote for your information as it would be unfair to speak for the entire Antiochian ORthodox Archdiocese on such a matter without a proper reference.  I'm asking as a poster, not as a moderator.

[Cosmos]

Dear username!

I am an old Antiochian Orthodox clergyman, but not a bishop. Hence, the inclusion of the + with my name.

The information I posted is what I have observed and experienced during the many years that I have served as such in parishes within the Antiochian Archdiocese. If you doubt the accuracy of my information, please feel free to research same at your leisure.

Kind regards ~

+Cosmos

[Irish Hermit]

Christ is Risen!

I am disturbed that this discussion is now being framed as something confrontational between the Russian and the Greek Orthodox.

As we see from the manner in which the Ecumenical Throne addresses the Pope of Rome and treats the Pope of Rome it is more than clear that the Church of Constantinople accepts the validity of the Pope as a bishop.   From that there flows an enormous number of things.  If the Greeks treat the Pope as an authentic bishop, then all the rest of the Catholic bishops are authentic and all the Sacraments which flow from the Catholic episcopate -Ordination, Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation- are legitimate.

If we are going to juxtapose the Greek and Russian view (although I believe this is a false dichotomy) would the Greeks onboard say something about this....

[arimethea]

Christ is Risen!

I am disturbed that this discussion is now being framed as something confrontational between the Russian and the Greek Orthodox.

As we see from the manner in which the Ecumenical Throne addresses the Pope of Rome and treats the Pope of Rome it is more than clear that the Church of Constantinople accepts the validity of the Pope as a bishop.   From that there flows an enormous number of things.  If the Greeks treat the Pope as an authentic bishop, then all the rest of the Catholic bishops are authentic and all the Sacraments which flow from the Catholic episcopate -Ordination, Eucharist, Confession, Confirmation- are legitimate.

If we are going to juxtapose the Greek and Russian view (although I believe this is a false dichotomy) would the Greeks onboard say something about this....

Indeed he is risen!

Please forgive father! It was I who renamed the the thread because it seems from reading the post that this was a Greek vs. Russian view of the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church in light of reception practices.

It is the practice of Orthodox from the "Greek" tradition to receive Roman Catholics via Chrismation. It is the practice of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America (in cases when ordination is being sought) and the Greek Archdiocese of America (in all cases) to perform a crowning ceremony for those couples who were married in the Roman Catholic Church. If marriage is not recognized then I think that goes along way to saying that the sacraments are viewed as invalid.

Within the Patriarchate of Antioch there is some fluidity with reception of Latins and Melkites based on the  situation in the Middle East. On Athos they would insist on the Roman Catholic being baptized.

[Iconodule]

If we accept this Russian perspective, then what is it that maintains grace in the RC sacraments? Is it simply a mechanical succession of laying on of hands, without any consideration of faith? Why wouldn't the Anglicans also possess apostolic succession?

[Irish Hermit]

..... and the Greek Archdiocese of America (in all cases) to perform a crowning ceremony for those couples who were married in the Roman Catholic Church. If marriage is not recognized then I think that goes along way to saying that the sacraments are viewed as invalid.

If the Church of Constantinople recognises the validity of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, then how can it deny the validity of Roman Catholic marriage?

[arimethea]

Within the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, converts are normally received through Baptism by Triune Immersion, Holy Chrismation, and Confession of Faith.

Typically, Orthodox Baptism is of course required of all non-Christian converts. Among those entering from other Christian confessions, however, only Protestant converts are required to receive Orthodox Baptism, because their bishops and other clergy are viewed as lacking valid orders with legitimate Apostolic Succession, and thus also as lacking the capacity to properly confer a valid Sacramental Mystery of Baptism. Their baptisms are essentially viewed as the equivalent of a baptism performed by a layman in an emergency, such as the immanent death of an unbaptized infant for example.

For the same reason, Protestant clergy are similarly viewed as lacking the capacity to consecrate chrism and to legitimately confer the Sacramental Mystery of Holy Chrismation as well. Thus, Protestant converts are seen from the Orthodox perspective as having previously received an incomplete Christian Initiation which needs to be rectified.

Roman Catholic converts, however, are normally received through Holy Chrismation and Confession of Faith, without need of being baptized again, because their clergy (bishops, priests, deacons) are viewed as having valid Holy Orders with legitimate Apostolic Succession. They are therefore seen as possessing the capacity to confer valid Sacramental Mysteries such as baptism, even though they are no longer in full communion with Holy Orthodoxy.

You conclusion are all wrong. The validity of baptism has nothing to do with validity of orders in the Antiochian practice. You actually get it right with you said

Their baptisms are essentially viewed as the equivalent of a baptism performed by a layman in an emergency

because it is based on formula. If a baptism occurs in an emergency situation as presented then that person still needs to be brought to the church and just chrismated, not re-baptized, by the priest to complete the mystery. So any Christian who is baptized by a Christian in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is recognized as being baptized. So it ends up being Protestants being baptized because of the lack of using the right formula and Catholics are received by Chrismation because they use the right formula. 

[Irish Hermit]

If we accept this Russian perspective, then what is it that maintains grace in the RC sacraments? Is it simply a mechanical succession of laying on of hands, without any consideration of faith? Why wouldn't the Anglicans also possess apostolic succession?

Christ is Risen!

In the eyes of the Russian Church they do possess a pipe-line apostolic succession.  But because of the gross heresies which have fallen upon the Anglican Church no bishop will receive an Anglican priest without ordaining him.  So they have a mechanical hands-on-head succession which would enable the Russian Church to accept them all by economy without re-ordination if they wanted to convert en masse.  However, that is highly unlikely these days.

If we go back to the times immediately prior to the Revolution we can find significant Russian theologians and hierarchs arguing for the outright validity of Anglican Orders.  This even includes the first Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky.

[arimethea]

..... and the Greek Archdiocese of America (in all cases) to perform a crowning ceremony for those couples who were married in the Roman Catholic Church. If marriage is not recognized then I think that goes along way to saying that the sacraments are viewed as invalid.

If the Church of Constantinople recognises the validity of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, then how can it deny the validity of Roman Catholic marriage?

It is a mindset. What is perceived by some to be recognition is in their minds just playing nice. You can let them dress up how ever they, sit in a nice tall chair, say the creed; but unless their is communion it means nothing.

[Irish Hermit]

..... and the Greek Archdiocese of America (in all cases) to perform a crowning ceremony for those couples who were married in the Roman Catholic Church. If marriage is not recognized then I think that goes along way to saying that the sacraments are viewed as invalid.

If the Church of Constantinople recognises the validity of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, then how can it deny the validity of Roman Catholic marriage?

It is a mindset. What is perceived by some to be recognition is in their minds just playing nice. You can let them dress up how ever they, sit in a nice tall chair, say the creed; but unless their is communion it means nothing.

So, apart from the Athonites who are certain (at least the majority of them) that the Pope is simply a layman are there any official or semi-official statements from other segments of Constantinople to that effect? 

Father George should be able to tell us since he has his seminary training fresh in his mind (whereas it takes me half an hour every morning to persuade it to wake up :-) and he has said, if I recall correctly, that there are no sacraments -and hence no bishops- outside Orthodoxy.

[augustin717]

If we accept this Russian perspective, then what is it that maintains grace in the RC sacraments? Is it simply a mechanical succession of laying on of hands, without any consideration of faith? Why wouldn't the Anglicans also possess apostolic succession?

Unlike Roman Catholics, Anglicans are just Protestant sectarians in fancier dress and generally, with bigger bank accounts.

[Irish Hermit]

Unlike Roman Catholics, Anglicans are just Protestant sectarians in fancier dress and generally, with bigger bank accounts.

The Romanian Synod of bishops seem to have taken a more positive view once upon a time..

"His All Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople having notified the
Sacred Synod that he had recognized the Validity of Anglican Orders, and
having requested our Sacred Synod to examine that question and to inform
him in reply of its opinion:

1. Accordingly, the Sacred Synod of the Orthodox Church of Rumania replied in
1925:

a. That from the historical point of view no obstacle exists to the recognition of the
Apostolic succession of Anglican orders......

http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/romania.pdf

[Altar Server]

^ It seems His All Holiness is treading some dangerous waters with this one.
     How can any Orthodox Patriarch accept the validity of Anglican orders/Sacraments since the tragic incedents of the recent past?

[Irish Hermit]

Please forgive father! It was I who renamed the the thread because it seems from reading the post that this was a Greek vs. Russian view of the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church in light of reception practices.

Not to worry.  It looks as if we are going to be sidetracked into an Anglican discussion anyway.   

[augustin717]

Unlike Roman Catholics, Anglicans are just Protestant sectarians in fancier dress and generally, with bigger bank accounts.

The Romanian Synod of bishops seem to have taken a more positive view once upon a time..

"His All Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople having notified the
Sacred Synod that he had recognized the Validity of Anglican Orders, and
having requested our Sacred Synod to examine that question and to inform
him in reply of its opinion:

1. Accordingly, the Sacred Synod of the Orthodox Church of Rumania replied in
1925:

a. That from the historical point of view no obstacle exists to the recognition of the
Apostolic succession of Anglican orders......

http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/romania.pdf

That is just a  dead letter, as it has always been.
They probably did that also under the influence of queen Mary, who was Anglican. I don't really know. But what I said is the quasi-unanimous attitude towards Anglicans now.

[username!]

Dear username!

I am an old Antiochian Orthodox clergyman, but not a bishop. Hence, the inclusion of the + with my name.

The information I posted is what I have observed and experienced during the many years that I have served as such in parishes within the Antiochian Archdiocese. If you doubt the accuracy of my information, please feel free to research same at your leisure.

Kind regards ~

+Cosmos

                     

Thank you for the clarification. You never can tell on the internet and sometimes one has to ask where someone else is coming from.

[Iconodule]

Please forgive father! It was I who renamed the the thread because it seems from reading the post that this was a Greek vs. Russian view of the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church in light of reception practices.

Not to worry.  It looks as if we are going to be sidetracked into an Anglican discussion anyway.   

Sorry, my intention was not to sidetrack the discussion into Anglicanism. I just wanted to ask, "If RC sacraments are valid, even after the Church considers them heretical, then where do we draw the line?"

[Irish Hermit]

^ It seems His All Holiness is treading some dangerous waters with this one.
     How can any Orthodox Patriarch accept the validity of Anglican orders/Sacraments since the tragic incedents of the recent past?

There is a pragmatic aspect to this recognition by Constantinople and Romania which should be brought to light.

These discussion with the Anglicans were taking place in the inter-war period.

People did not have aeroplanes for travel.  Contact was very limited in those days.

The Anglicans basically conned the Orthodox (sorry to use that lowlife word but it is appropriate.)  It was only High Church Anglicans who travelled to Istanbul and Bucharest to hold talks with the Orthodox.  The Orthodox were given the impression that these High Church clergy were typical of the Anglican Church and represented its faith and its belief in a sacramental Priesthood.

The very opposite was true - while a significant percentage of Anglican clergy were indeed High Church the overwhelming percentage of Anglicans were Low Church and had absolutely no belief in either a sacrificing Priesthood or in any Eucharistic presence of Christ.

It was only later when Orthodox bishops began to visit Britain and gained a clearer picture of the true state and true beliefs of Anglicans that they withdrew from their earlier positive statements and preferred to let the matter die a natural death.

[Altar Server]

okay thanks for clerifying Father I thought this was recent 

[Irish Hermit]

Please forgive father! It was I who renamed the the thread because it seems from reading the post that this was a Greek vs. Russian view of the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church in light of reception practices.

Not to worry.  It looks as if we are going to be sidetracked into an Anglican discussion anyway.   

Sorry, my intention was not to sidetrack the discussion into Anglicanism. I just wanted to ask, "If RC sacraments are valid, even after the Church considers them heretical, then where do we draw the line?"

I'm sure that we'll all enjoy the discussion whatever direction it takes.

[Asteriktos]

Unlike Roman Catholics, Anglicans are just Protestant sectarians in fancier dress and generally, with bigger bank accounts.

This doesn't at all describe the Anglicans I have met over the past 12+ years, including Ebor, Keble, and Doubting Thomas.

[Alveus Lacuna]

This doesn't at all describe the Anglicans I have met over the past 12+ years, including Ebor, Keble, and Doubting Thomas.

A few Anglo-Catholics on the internet who are even aware of Orthodoxy are not the norm by any stretch. All of the Episcopalians I have met have hardly even seemed to qualify as Christians in the broadest sense. They were all very interested in the social gospel, human rights, and sometimes even pomp in services, but they never seemed very interested in prayer or real holiness. I didn't "judge" this for myself, they open stated that prayer wasn't terribly important, and that was mattered the most was "making the world a more fair and more just place." Church was about social interaction and communal bonds, not about mutual submission to the Life Creating Trinity.

[Asteriktos]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/135729

Fr Ambrose wrote:
"On the other hand, you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the
Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it. Saint
Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion."

Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff replied:
"As I mentioned before, it is far more than the opinion of
St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

"Every Handbook for Clergy, every textbook on Canon Law,
Comparative Theology, Liturgics, and Pastorral Theology
published in Russia before the Revolution states that the
Roman Catholics have valid Mysteries and true apostolic
succession, and that in no way should Baptism and
Chrismation, or ordination of them be performed again.

"One can like it or not, but that was the official position
of the Russian Church, without question or exception."

An aside to Fr Anastasios:  this begins to provide an answer to your enquiry (Message 112 http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25542.msg401465.html#msg401465 ) about what information Fr Lebedeff provided.  It is hard to look for information on orthodox-tradition because of the malfunctioning of the search engine but I'll start looking manually.

I can’t access the link without joining the group. Does Fr. Alexander give more specific information on the list? I mean specific references, like when and where St. Philaret made statements accepting the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, what books exactly in pre-revolutionary Russia explicitly said that Roman Catholic Sacraments were valid, etc.?

[Asteriktos]

This doesn't at all describe the Anglicans I have met over the past 12+ years, including Ebor, Keble, and Doubting Thomas.

A few Anglo-Catholics on the internet who are even aware of Orthodoxy are not the norm by any stretch. All of the Episcopalians I have met have hardly even seemed to qualify as Christians in the broadest sense. They were all very interested in the social gospel, human rights, and sometimes even pomp in services, but they never seemed very interested in prayer or real holiness. I didn't "judge" this for myself, they open stated that prayer wasn't terribly important, and that was mattered the most was "making the world a more fair and more just place." Church was about social interaction and communal bonds, not about mutual submission to the Life Creating Trinity.

Ok, I admit that I haven't met many Anglicans in my daily life, and my experiences are mainly based on internet interactions.

[Irish Hermit]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/135729

Fr Ambrose wrote:
"On the other hand, you will find Orthodox who accept the "validity" of the
Roman Catholic episcopate and the Sacraments which flow from it. Saint
Philaret Metropolitan of Moscow is of this opinion."

Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff replied:
"As I mentioned before, it is far more than the opinion of
St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow.

"Every Handbook for Clergy, every textbook on Canon Law,
Comparative Theology, Liturgics, and Pastorral Theology
published in Russia before the Revolution states that the
Roman Catholics have valid Mysteries and true apostolic
succession, and that in no way should Baptism and
Chrismation, or ordination of them be performed again.

"One can like it or not, but that was the official position
of the Russian Church, without question or exception."

An aside to Fr Anastasios:  this begins to provide an answer to your enquiry (Message 112 http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25542.msg401465.html#msg401465 ) about what information Fr Lebedeff provided.  It is hard to look for information on orthodox-tradition because of the malfunctioning of the search engine but I'll start looking manually.

I can’t access the link without joining the group. Does Fr. Alexander give more specific information on the list? I mean specific references, like when and where St. Philaret made statements accepting the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, what books exactly in pre-revolutionary Russia explicitly said that Roman Catholic Sacraments were valid, etc.?

I would be so grateful if you signed up and helped to search.  For the past few months the search engine on Yahoo groups has been functioning so badly.   It must have taken me up to 15 minutes to find the post which I posted above.  I'll write to Fr Alexander and hope that he has his messages handy and can send them on.  But I imagine he is a busy man with all his duties in the Russian Church.

[Irish Hermit]

Interesting monograph by Fr Georges Florovsky on an official website of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

In it Fr Florovsky basically rubbishes the concept that the baptism and ordination (of Catholics and Nestorians) are valourised by economy upon entrance to the Orthodox Church.

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm
 
The Limits of the Church
Archpriest George Florovsky (1893-1979)

Father George Florovsky was a prominent Russian theologian. He left Russia after the Revolution and went on to pursue a distinguished academic career, first as Professor of Patristic studies (1926-39) and Dogmatics (1939-48) at the St Sergius Institute in Paris, then as Dean of St Vladimir's Seminary in New York (1950-55), and then as Professor of Divinity at Harvard University.

[Fr. George]

Fr. Ambrose,

Christ is Risen!

I think you are over-simplifying the position of the RO church viz-a-viz RC sacraments.  If the R.O. Church believed that RC sacraments are valid and efficacious per se (without the caveat I provided earlier - "at the point of reception," that is, into Orthodoxy), then you could and would commune RC's without conversion - for their baptism and chrismation would be effective and complete.  I do not believe this has happened in the MP, therefore they do not believe that anyone's sacraments save those of the Orthodox Church are "valid" per se.

[Irish Hermit]

Fr. Ambrose,

Christ is Risen!

I think you are over-simplifying the position of the RO church viz-a-viz RC sacraments.  If the R.O. Church believed that RC sacraments are valid and efficacious per se (without the caveat I provided earlier - "at the point of reception," that is, into Orthodoxy), then you could and would commune RC's without conversion - for their baptism and chrismation would be effective and complete.  I do not believe this has happened in the MP, therefore they do not believe that anyone's sacraments save those of the Orthodox Church are "valid" per se.

He is Risen indeed!

It actually is not that complex and may be decided by a simple question  -- is the bishop of Rome an authentic bishop or is he a layman?

If he is a genuine bishop then the unavoidable corollary is that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are authentic.... genuine baptisms, genuine Eucharist, genuine priesthood and episcopate.

If he is a laymen, then there is no baptism, no Eucharist, no priesthood and episcopate.

Of course there are Orthodox people and theologians who want to swing both ways - "well, he is a genuine bishop but not quite..."

What say the professors of Saint Vladimir's and Holy Cross?  Bishop or unbaptized layman?

[Fr. George]

What I usually find in Greek circles is something along the lines of, to paraphrase, "Who cares?  He is outside our Church, and so he is no concern of ours (w/ regards to validity/etc.)."  That's my point: the perspective I've encountered most often is that we can't begin to talk about validity of other sacraments until that person is asking to become Orthodox.  Until then, it is God's business - we will continue to proclaim the Truth, Life, and Light in the world, our Lord and Savior, with deeds and words, for this is our business.

[Irish Hermit]

What I usually find in Greek circles is something along the lines of, to paraphrase, "Who cares?  He is outside our Church, and so he is no concern of ours (w/ regards to validity/etc.)."

Doesn't sound as if you are getting a responsible answer to the question.  Another such brush-off answer is:  They're as valid as they can be.

Greek bishops have to make decisions about this every time they decide in what way to receive a Roman Catholic from the flock of the Pope.

After all, if they decide to rebaptize a Catholic who has a valid baptism, the canon calls for the bishop's deposition as not discerning true baptism.

The actions of the Ecumenical Patriarch in concelebrating with the Pope the Liturgy of the Catechumens several times in Rome complete with a fully participating Greek deacon indicates strongly that the Patriarch does not share this "it's no concern of ours" attitude.  By his actions he is making a positive statement about the validity of the Pope's consecration as a bishop.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Russian vs Greek view of Validity of RC Mysteries