OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 24, 2014, 10:20:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Russian vs Greek view of Validity of RC Mysteries  (Read 5938 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #45 on: May 03, 2010, 12:17:20 PM »

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.

I think I get a very responsible answer to the question.  To those who are not in the Church and have no desire to enter it, what concern is their "validity" to you?  We pray for their souls, and hope the Lord has mercy on all His creation, even those who reject His Word.

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.

Again, "when they receive him/her into the Church."  That's not a statement of per se validity.

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.

Hardly.  No concelebration of the mysteries, so no recognition of validity.  No addition to the diptychs of the Church, so no recognition of validity.  I think at times Orthodox clergy have gone too far in the Ecumenical prayer services, but I'm not The Judge, and hence I will not judge them, and I pray that they will not judge me, so that He will not Judge me, but have mercy on me.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #46 on: May 03, 2010, 12:44:02 PM »

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.

In the early church, one finds two strands.

1) On the one hand, there is St. Cyprian and the Apostolic canons (the former very clear that rebaptism is necessary because the lines of the Church are easy to find and outside of those lines there are no sacraments or salvation; and the latter very clear that all heretics need to be baptized when entering the Church).

2) On the other hand, there is I Nicea 8, Laodicea 7, I Constantinople 7, Trullo 95, St. Basil 1, all of which allow for reception of different groups in different ways, while never fully explaining what that means to ecclesiological theories.

The two "strands" allow for three basic types of reception. Fr. George Dragas summarizes it this way:

Quote
According to these canons there are three ways of receiving heterodox into the Church: a) by re-baptism (actually, baptism), when the celebration of heterodox baptism is considered deficient or invalid either on account of deficient faith and/or practice, b) by Chrismation and signing of an appropriate Libellus of recantation of the particular heresy that the converts previously held, and c) by simply signing an appropriate Libellus or Confession of faith, whereby the errors of heterodoxy of the person received are properly denounced and the Orthodox faith is fully embraced.

Dragas, George D. "The manner of reception of Roman Catholic converts into the Orthodox Church with special reference to the decisions of the Synods of 1484 (Constantinople), 1755 (Constantinople) and 1667 (Moscow)." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 44, no. 1-4 (March 1, 1999): 235.

Since all three means of reception have been promulgated by Oecumenical Councils, it is always up to the Bishops and Synods of the day to decide which means of recption to emphasize and how to apply the tradition in the current age.

In his article, Fr. George argues that the Church decided to (re)baptize Roman Catholics starting as early as 1193. Many Byzantine and Latin sources confirm this. This also appears to be the practice employed in Russia at the time as well. Some sources list theological and liturgical reasons for rebaptism (e.g. sprinkling is unacceptable), but they also mention Rome's proselytizing actions in traditionally Orthodox lands, and, of course, the Fourth Crusade.

However, at the Great Synod of Constantinople in 1484, all of the Eastern Patriarchs agreed that reception of Roman Catholics should be by Chrismation and signing of a Libellus. The Synod published a service to that effect, in which the priest asks the person many doctrinal questions, performs a penitential chrismation, and then the person signs a Libellus.

What did this mean theologically, liturgically, or ecclesiologically? Different people interpret it different ways. While the Great Synod of Constantinople in 1484 allows for reception by chrismation and signing of Libellus, it also explicitly states that the Latins are heretics and it makes no attempt to explain if the former Latin Baptism was valid or invalid.

For the most part, it seems Orthodox Christians of all kinds adopted this practice and understood it as "economy" -- not much further explanation, nor much discussion of "invalid" or "valid," and no mention of "valorizing" previously empty forms. Things progress along these lines until the Synod of Constantinople in 1722. Fr. George summarizes the history this way:

Quote
in 1575 Patriarch Ieremias II (1572-1594) explicitly criticized in his correspondence with the Lutheran theologians of Tübingen the Baptism of single immersion or Baptism by sprinkling, but did not pronounce it as invalid. But in 1715 Dositheos of Jerusalem stated that the Latins who are not baptized by triple immersion run the risk of being regarded as un-baptized. In 1708 Patriarch Kyprianos (1708-1709) regards the Baptism of the Latins valid by economy. In 1718, Patriarch Jeremías III (1716-1726) was asked by the Russian Czar Peter the Great about the baptism of the Westerners. In his letter to the Czar dated 31 Aug. 1718 the Patriarch referred to a synodical decision by his predecessor Kyprianos (1708-1709, which stipulated that Chrismation should be the means for receiving Lutherans and Calvinists into Orthodoxy after their renunciation of their errors. As the time went by, however, and conditions changed in the life and relations of the Churches in East and West, liturgical practice also changed. Western aggression in East called for a new policy. In 1722 a Synod in Constantinople, in which Athanasios of Antioch (+1724) and Chrysanthos of Jerusalem (1707-1731) participated, decided for the rebaptism of the Latins as retaliation for the schism that the Latin missionaries caused in Syria.

The Horos of the Synod of Constantinople in 1755 is very clear, very Cyprianic in ecclesiology, and emphatic that Latin Baptism is totally empty, being mere "useless waters." Over the next 200 years, this way of thinking was repeated by many in the ancient Patriarchates, from monks to Patriarchs, but it was not universally accepted. As Fr. George shows, there were many exceptions in the 18th and 19th century. However, St. Nikodemos, along with all of the Kolyvades, were firm believers in the Cyprianic view espoused by the Synod of Constantinople in 1755, so the Pedalion (ca. 1800) makes it seem like (re)baptism of Latins is the only proper tradition of the Church. Thus, there are still many in the Greek speaking churches that hold to this view.

As for the Russian practice, it too punished the Latins for proselytizing at various points. For example, in 1620, a major Synod decreed that (re)baptism was necessary for all Latins and all Greek Catholics. But, not long thereafter, Peter Moghila published his famous Trebnik (1646), which called for reception by Chrismation, and several Synods of Moscow allowed for reception by Chrismation only. As far as I understand it, that's been the practice of the Russian Church ever since.

Now, what this all means theologically, especially for ecclesiology, is another matter. As I wrote above, the early sources, the Byzantine canonists, and the ancient Patriarchates, do little more than speak of "oikonomia." The Pedalion explains reception by some means other than Baptism this way:

Quote
[T]he two ecumenical councils employed economy and accepted the baptism of Arians and Macedonians and of others, but refused to recognize that of the Eunomians and of still others. This is because in the time especially of the Second Council the Arians and Macedonians were at the height of their influence, and were not only very numerous but also very powerful (...) Therefore, both in order to attract them to Orthodoxy and correct them the easier and also in order to avoid the risk of infuriating them still more against the Church and the Christians and aggravating the evil, those divine fathers thus managed the matter economically and condescended to accept their baptism.

In other words, it is "oikonomia" and it is employed because it (1) makes it easier for the heterodox to convert; and (2) it is more irenic, not producing ill will in the minds of others against the Church.

Again, no mention of "validity" or "invalidity" or "valorizing." In fact, Fr. George Metalinos, former Dean and current Professor at the School of Theology of the University of Athens, specifically rejects the idea that the Church teaches that Chrismation corrects or valorizes or supplements or makes whole a non-Orthodox Baptism, since this is not found in any early Fathers or Synods.

However, there are many later Russian sources that teach otherwise, starting in the early 19th century, as far as I've seen. Andrei V. Psarev published an article on this topic, and the earliest source he quoted with the full "valorizing" teaching was Aleksei Stepanovich Khomiakov (1804-1860), who wrote:

Quote
All Sacraments are completed only in the bosom of the true Church, and it matters not whether they are completed [...] in one form or another. Reconciliation renovates the Sacraments or completes them, giving a full and Orthodox meaning to the rite that before was either insufficient or heterodox, and the repetition of the preceding Sacraments is virtually contained in the rite or fact of reconciliation. Therefore the visible repetition of Baptism or Confirmation, though unnecessary, cannot be considered as erroneous, and establishes only a ritual difference without any difference of opinion. You will understand my meaning more clearly still by a comparison with another fact in ecclesiastical history. The Church considers Marriage as a Sacrament, and yet admits married heathens into her community without re-marrying them. The conversion itself gives the sacramental quality to the preceding union without any repetition of the rite. This you must admit, unless you admit an impossibility, viz., that the Sacrament of Marriage was by itself complete in the lawful union of the heathen couple.

Quoted in: Psarev, Andrei V. "The 19th canonical answer of Timothy of Alexandria: on the history of sacramental oikonomia." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 51, no. 2-3 (January 1, 2007): 297-320.

NB: Even Khomiakov starts his explanation with an insistence on Cyprianic ecclesiology. That's partly why Psarev concludes his article in SVTQ:

Quote
My research leads me to the following conclusions: although in the practical aspect of reception the Church rather follows Augustine's understanding than that of Cyprian, nonetheless Cyprian's ecclesiology, that there are no mysteries outside the Church, was never refuted by the Orthodox Church. The attempt to reconcile this ecclesiology with existing grades of reception into the Church, as expressed by sacramental oikonomia, was only partially attended to by the Church Fathers (St Basil the Great, Blasteres, St Nikodemus). I was not able to find evidence that any of the Fathers who composed the canons held the position that in the reception of baptism performed outside the Orthodox Church, only the external form was accepted, and that this form might be filled by grace at the moment of reception...Nevertheless this theory enjoyed a place within the main body of Church law of the Russian and Romanian Orthodox Churches and was shared by noted authorities of Orthodox theology.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 01:06:02 PM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #47 on: May 03, 2010, 11:46:35 PM »



In my recent discussions with Antiochian Orthodox clergymen this past weekend, the general consensus of opinion was simply that the Roman Catholics have retained legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders through the centuries, but have nonetheless abandoned correct theological belief (Orthodoxis) long ago, while also generally departing from correct practice (Orthopraxis) in their administration and celebration of the Holy Mysteries.

The consensus of group opinion also expressed a unanimous belief that this unfortunate and sad scenario is clearly a direct result of their self-imposed isolation from communion with the other churches of Apostolic foundation in Holy Orthodoxy for such a long period of time to date.  Undecided

Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #48 on: May 03, 2010, 11:52:14 PM »

Quote
the Roman Catholics have retained legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders through the centuries
But how can this square with the principle of St Vincent of Lerins? Have the post-schism Popes and bishops "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox? I think not, given the significant differences in doctrine between Orthodox and post-schism Rome.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2010, 11:52:53 PM by LBK » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: May 04, 2010, 02:12:06 AM »

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.

I think I get a very responsible answer to the question.  To those who are not in the Church and have no desire to enter it, what concern is their "validity" to you?  .

Dear Father,

I have many Catholic friends, priests, nuns, school principals, caregivers, social workers, workers with immigrants, many of my own family..... when they ask me questions I believe that I must be able to give them a responsible answer.  They don't expect me to take on the role of the village halfwit and nor can I, knowing what I know of the long and tangled history of Catholic-Orthodx interaction and the thought and theology which has been devoted to this question.

As I understand what you have written earlier in the thread you yourself do not adopt an "I don't know" approach to the question of "validity."   You say that Catholic baptism is not valid but it gains its validity/valorisation/actualisation only when a Catholic enters the Orthodox church and economy is exercised by the receiving bishop. 
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 02:19:40 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Cosmos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 140


أيها الرب يسوع المسيح ابن الله, إرحمني أنا الخاطئ


« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2010, 02:16:03 AM »

Quote
the Roman Catholics have retained legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders through the centuries
But how can this square with the principle of St Vincent of Lerins? Have the post-schism Popes and bishops "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox? I think not, given the significant differences in doctrine between Orthodox and post-schism Rome.

No, they most certainly have not "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox. Their theology is a significant departure from the united Orthodox Faith of the first millennium, but aside from all prejudice which Orthodox believers may rightly feel towards them accordingly, they appear to have retained a legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders, unlike the Protestant confessions, IMO.  Undecided

Logged

Κύριε Ἰησοῦ Χριστέ, ἐλέησόν με!
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #51 on: May 04, 2010, 02:21:24 AM »

No, they most certainly have not "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox. Their theology is a significant departure from the united Orthodox Faith of the first millennium, but aside from all prejudice which Orthodox believers may rightly feel towards them accordingly, they appear to have retained a legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders, unlike the Protestant confessions, IMO.  Undecided

With great respect to you, Father, but isn't Apostolic Succession not only the physical laying on of hands, but the passing down of the imprimatur of correct teaching of the Christian faith? Following the principle I've bolded above, then that would give legitimacy to all sorts of uncanonical and vagante groups who use the term "Orthodox" in their descriptions. This can't be right, any more than it's possible to be a little bit pregnant.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 02:22:06 AM by LBK » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: May 04, 2010, 02:41:29 AM »

Quote
the Roman Catholics have retained legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders through the centuries
But how can this square with the principle of St Vincent of Lerins? Have the post-schism Popes and bishops "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox? I think not, given the significant differences in doctrine between Orthodox and post-schism Rome.

I am not fond of the idea myself, but in 1922 the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognised the validity of Anglican Orders.  A logical corollary is that they would also accept Roman Orders and hence Roman Apostolic Succession.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,184


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #53 on: May 04, 2010, 02:44:38 AM »

Quote
the Roman Catholics have retained legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders through the centuries
But how can this square with the principle of St Vincent of Lerins? Have the post-schism Popes and bishops "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox? I think not, given the significant differences in doctrine between Orthodox and post-schism Rome.

I am not fond of the idea myself, but in 1922 the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognised the validity of Anglican Orders.  A logical corollary is that they would also accept Roman Orders and hence Roman Apostolic Succession.

But what does this recognition actually mean? It's not like the Ecumenical Patriarch and Anglicans are communing every chance they get. Also, St. Raphael of Brooklyn was also very friendly with the Anglicans, but he eventually changed his mind. Do you really think that the Ecumenical Patriarch(s) haven't also changed their mind(s), given that they don't have intercommunion with Anglicans?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 02:45:23 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: May 04, 2010, 03:01:58 AM »

How do we deal with this dichotomy? - some say Catholics have sacraments, some say they do not. 

It is not a Russian vs Greek matter as the thread's title says since members of both camps may be found in both Churches.

There is an incident in the UK recorded by the (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury
(Lord Runcie if I remember) in an issue of "Eastern Churches Quarterly."

At a meeting in England of Anglican and Russian Orthodox bishops, the Anglicans
asked at supper: "Do you believe we are baptized?" The Orthodox asked to have
the night to think about it. At breakfast in the morning the Anglicans asked: "So,
what do you think? Are we baptized?" The Orthodox replied, "We do not know."


 
 
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 03:09:46 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: May 04, 2010, 03:17:15 AM »

Quote
the Roman Catholics have retained legitimate Apostolic Succession in their Holy Orders through the centuries
But how can this square with the principle of St Vincent of Lerins? Have the post-schism Popes and bishops "rightly divided the word of Truth" identically to the Orthodox? I think not, given the significant differences in doctrine between Orthodox and post-schism Rome.

I am not fond of the idea myself, but in 1922 the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognised the validity of Anglican Orders.  A logical corollary is that they would also accept Roman Orders and hence Roman Apostolic Succession.

But what does this recognition actually mean? It's not like the Ecumenical Patriarch and Anglicans are communing every chance they get. Also, St. Raphael of Brooklyn was also very friendly with the Anglicans, but he eventually changed his mind. Do you really think that the Ecumenical Patriarch(s) haven't also changed their mind(s), given that they don't have intercommunion with Anglicans?
Christ is Risen!

Saint Raphael wrote a detailed epistle to the American flock explaining why he had changed his former views.   To my knowledge Constantinople has not repudiated its official statement.
Logged
CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 04, 2010, 11:08:02 AM »

I was rather surprised to hear from a priest of the Finnish Orthodox Church this evening that if a Roman Catholic were to enter the Orthodox Church in Finland, his RC baptism and confirmation/charismation would be recognized, and therefore the sacrament of conciliation to Orthodoxy would be confession. How widespread is this practice through other jurisdictions? I thought that the issue of receiving through charismation was already contentious enough.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,944



« Reply #57 on: May 04, 2010, 11:12:05 AM »

...his RC baptism and confirmation/charismation would be recognized...

Recognised per se or through economy?
Logged

CRCulver
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159


St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi


WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 04, 2010, 11:33:44 AM »

I guess the mods have a right to merge my post with whatever thread they want, but my question was not about the theological debate on the matter as much as about which jurisdictions receiving through confession is currently being done in.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #59 on: May 04, 2010, 11:51:11 AM »

It depends. I guess that if RC priests are received by mere vesting sometimes, then a lay RC could be received by mere confession.
Greek Catholics in 1948 were received as they were, without chrismation or anything, by confession of faith.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: May 04, 2010, 11:52:10 AM »

Here is something well worth  a read by Father George Dragas.  For those who have the time to peruse it (31 pages) it should prove very informative

http://jbburnett.com/resources/dragas_baptism.pdf

The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church
with Special Reference to the Decisions of the Synods of 1484 (Constantinople),
1755 (Constantinople), and 1667 (Moscow)


Extract:

According to these canons there are three ways of receiving heterodox into the Church:

a) by re-baptism (actually, baptism), when the celebration of heterodox baptism is
considered deficient or invalid either on account of deficient faith and/or practice,

b) by Chrismation and signing of an appropriate Libellus of recantation of the particular
heresy that the converts previously held, and

c) by simply signing an appropriate Libellus or Confession of faith, whereby the errors of
heterodoxy of the person received are properly denounced and the Orthodox faith is fully
embraced.

The reception of Roman Catholics into the Eastern Churches, which occurred after the great
Schism of 1054, was done in any one of the three above-mentioned ways. Practice varied
according to times and circumstances. The key issue in determining the manner of reception
was the Orthodox perception of the Roman Catholic baptism. This perception changed for
various reasons, including Roman Catholic practice, and it seems that such a change became
an important factor in determining the manner of reception of Roman Catholics into Orthodoxy.
Acceptance of some validity of Roman Catholic baptism meant that Roman Catholic converts
would be received by the economy of Chrismation, whereby what was lacking in Roman
Catholic baptism would be supplied by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Non-acceptance of such
validity, on the other hand, meant that the akribeia of the canons had to be applied, on which
occasion Roman Catholic converts were (re-)baptized. What, however, made Roman Catholic
Baptism partially valid or invalid was not always clearly spelled out, although it was implicitly
suggested.
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,360


metron ariston


« Reply #61 on: May 04, 2010, 12:09:56 PM »

Saint Raphael wrote a detailed epistle to the American flock explaining why he had changed his former views.   To my knowledge Constantinople has not repudiated its official statement.

The two are quite different. St. Raphael had encouraged the faithful in general, when in areas with no Orthodox priest, to actually receive Episcopal sacraments: marriages, baptisms, and, if dying, confession and communion.

The encyclical by Patriarch Meletios IV of Constantinople had nothing to do with those things, offering the opinion that Anglican Orders were "valid," meaning that "if priests, ordained by Anglican Bishops, accede to Orthodoxy, they should not be re-ordained, as persons baptized by Anglicans are not rebaptized."

Also, the letter was not a pastoral directive, but an inquiry sent to all the Autocephalous Churches, asking for their input and opinions on the matter. As you know, not all churches responded, although, eventually, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Church of Cyprus agreed. Later, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, at that time also under Pat. Meletios IV, concurred, as did the Patriarchate of Romania in 1936.

So, that's five different Autocephalous Churches that, at one point, agreed. However, what did that mean in practice, and what does it mean today? All of the Synodal statements stipulate that they are provisional and that the matter needs to be examined by all Orthodox churches. They are provisional position papers, not policy. Also, they emphasize that this recognition flows from the fact that their official Anglican interlocutors have agreed with or offered comprehensive confessions of Faith that are fully in accord with Orthodoxy (e.g. on matters like "Apostolic Succession, Holy Orders, Holy Eucharist, Holy Mysteries in general, and Tradition and Justification," as the Romanians wrote in their Synodal statement). Was that really the case, and is it so today?

As you probably know, for several generations (1880s to 1950 or so), there were large groups of very conservative Anglo-Catholics in the Establishment, including many Bishops, priests, theologians, and lay people, with their own printing presses, associations, etc. Sometimes, they managed to convince the Orthodox that they represented Anglicanism in general. So much so that, in 1917, the Russian Great Sobor started a permanent commission dedicated to union with Anglicanism. And, shortly before Constantinople's initial letter, the ECU, one such large Anglo-Catholic group, issued a "Declaration of Faith," addressed to the Ecumenical Patriarch that reads like an Orthodox catechism.

In hindsight, it's clear that even then such Anglo-Catholic groups represented no more than 50 percent of the Anglican church at any point. Nowadays, who knows? Much less...although the 3rd world church is growing.

So, how does one apply this today? SCOBA's Ecumenical Guidelines make a distinction between "the Anglo-Catholic portions of the Anglican Communion" and other Protestants. Even so, Anglo-Catholic clergy are still received by Chrismation and Ordination -- so, their orders are not recognized. I'm not 100% sure about Romania, but I'm sure Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Cyprus do not receive Anglicans in orders. So, basically, the previous statements are little more than items of historical interest, just like the many different Synodal opinions, back and forth, about reception of lay heterodox over the centuries.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,772


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #62 on: May 04, 2010, 12:25:36 PM »

It depends. I guess that if RC priests are received by mere vesting sometimes, then a lay RC could be received by mere confession.
Greek Catholics in 1948 were received as they were, without chrismation or anything, by confession of faith.

As were the Greek Catholics who came into the Faith first from the efforts of St. Alexis (now the OCA) in the late 19th and early 20th century and later through the late Metropolitan Orestes (now ACROD) in the 1930's.
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #63 on: May 04, 2010, 12:29:13 PM »

Quote
I'm not 100% sure about Romania, but I'm sure Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Cyprus do not receive Anglicans in orders.
You can be 100% sure that they don't. Not that many Anglican clergy seeks reception in our church, either, but those that do are considered laymen.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,772


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 04, 2010, 01:26:00 PM »

It depends. I guess that if RC priests are received by mere vesting sometimes, then a lay RC could be received by mere confession.
Greek Catholics in 1948 were received as they were, without chrismation or anything, by confession of faith.

As were the Greek Catholics who came into the Faith first from the efforts of St. Alexis (now the OCA) in the late 19th and early 20th century and later through the late Metropolitan Orestes (now ACROD) in the 1930's.

I forgot to mention that the first wave of Greek Catholics were received into Orthodoxy under the omophor of the Russian Church and the ACROD group came to Orthodoxy through the Ecumenical Patriarchate where then-Father Chornock went to Constantinople in 1938 to be consecrated as Bishop. He was not reordained prior to his elevation to the episcopacy.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 01:27:32 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,359


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #65 on: May 04, 2010, 01:58:22 PM »

I can solve this problem. Our Sacraments are indeed valid. The Pope said so.  Grin  Cheesy Wink
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,473


« Reply #66 on: May 04, 2010, 06:04:01 PM »

I was rather surprised to hear from a priest of the Finnish Orthodox Church this evening that if a Roman Catholic were to enter the Orthodox Church in Finland, his RC baptism and confirmation/charismation would be recognized, and therefore the sacrament of conciliation to Orthodoxy would be confession. How widespread is this practice through other jurisdictions? I thought that the issue of receiving through charismation was already contentious enough.

In Poland it would be normal.

Have you forgot about the Synod of Polotsk (1839)? Neither of them was baptised/chrismated/ordained.
Logged
Tags: Catholic sacraments 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.111 seconds with 49 queries.