Catholic vs. Orthodox on the Sacraments

[NucleicAcid]

From what I understand, Catholics explicitly define "The Sacraments" as numbering seven, while Orthodox do not formally do so (though the same seven are recognized as sacraments). 

My first question has to do with baptism.  Catholics believe that a valid baptism creates an "indelible mark" on one's soul, and therefore a valid baptism cannot be repeated.  Where does the idea of "indelible mark" come from, and do Orthodox agree?

My next question is somewhat related to the first.  Catholics believe that valid baptisms are found in all churches that profess belief in the Trinity and use the Trinitarian formula.  They also believe that in an emergency (i.e. imminent death), anyone, even an atheist, can validly baptize someone, provided they have the right intent and use the right formula and matter.  How do Orthodox view the issue of the validity of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church?  To me, it doesn't really make sense that there would be valid sacraments outside of the "one true church", or that the "one true church" is defined in such a way as to allow valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and sacraments outside of its visible confines.  The Catholic Church holds the Orthodox Church to be in schism from the "one true church", yet it still is believed to have a valid priesthood and sacraments.  Also, how do Orthodox view the situation of non-Christians baptizing in emergencies?

Finally, from what I understand, Orthodox believe that Chrismation/Confirmation can be repeated, while Catholics believe that it can only be done once (perhaps related to the "indelible mark" idea).  Did one belief originate later in history?

Also, of course I'm speaking about Roman Catholics, and not Eastern Catholics

Thanks!

[Papist]

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

[NucleicAcid]

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.

[Papist]

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.

What about them? They don't even believe in the same kind of real presence that we do. And further, I don't think we can be sure that Christ doesn't some how unite himself to them through their communion services, in spite of their non-sacramental nature.

[Wyatt]

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.

What about them? They don't even believe in the same kind of real presence that we do. And further, I don't think we can be sure that Christ doesn't some how unite himself to them through their communion services, in spite of their non-sacramental nature.

Very true. We know that God works through the Sacraments, but He certainly is not limited to them.

[NucleicAcid]

So it makes sense to you that just because the EOs are out of commuion with the Pope, that some holy EO peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

Or the other way around: Just because Catholics are out of communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, then some holy Catholic peasant has no access to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood?

What about a holy Lutheran/Anglican/etc peasant? 

My issue perhaps lies in ecclesiology, and understanding how it is possible for a group, regarded as being in schism from the one true church (Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) can still be held as having a valid priesthood and valid sacraments, outside of the visible confines of that one true church.  If that is the case, then what is the schismatic church missing if they are able to maintain that priesthood and holy sacraments throughout the ages, apart from full communion with the one true church?

If Orthodox believe the same, then I would appreciate the Orthodox perspective on this as well.

What about them? They don't even believe in the same kind of real presence that we do. And further, I don't think we can be sure that Christ doesn't some how unite himself to them through their communion services, in spite of their non-sacramental nature.

Right, even if you're not sure that Christ doesn't somehow unite himself to them in their communion services, the Catholic Church doesn't regard them as having a valid priesthood or valid sacraments, right?

The issue then becomes, how much "change" is necessary for a church in schism of the one true church to no longer have a valid priesthood and valid sacraments?  Obviously some Anglicans (especially Anglo-Catholics) will dispute the claim that they don't believe in the same kind of real presence that Catholics do, and some will say that their churches have maintained apostolic succession through some lineage.

Anyway, all of this is missing the actual question (one of them) that I am asking:  How is it possible for a church that is in schism of the one true church to maintain a valid priesthood and valid sacraments?  What is it about that schismatic church that makes it different from, say, an Anglo-Catholic church, and in the grand scheme of things, if that schismatic church has the same access to a valid priesthood and sacraments as the one true church, then what is that schismatic church missing that the one true church has, and what does that missing thing(s) do that the schismatic church lacks?

[Wyatt]

I believe the issue with the Anglican Communion was that they made drastic changes to the Rite of Ordination to the point where it could no longer be considered the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Had this not happened, they (at least some of them) would probably still be considered by the Catholic Church to be valid Churches to this day. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it is considered schismatic by us, besides lack of Communion with Rome they have pretty much kept everything else preserved and in tact, which is why we consider them valid Churches (as we do for the Oriental Orthodox as well).

[NucleicAcid]

I believe the issue with the Anglican Communion was that they made drastic changes to the Rite of Ordination to the point where it could no longer be considered the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Had this not happened, they (at least some of them) would probably still be considered by the Catholic Church to be valid Churches to this day. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it is considered schismatic by us, besides lack of Communion with Rome they have pretty much kept everything else preserved and in tact, which is why we consider them valid Churches (as we do for the Oriental Orthodox as well).

Thanks!

So really the only thing (or perhaps the main thing?) that the Orthodox Church is lacking, from the Catholic perspective, is union with the Bishop of Rome? 

[Wyatt]

I believe the issue with the Anglican Communion was that they made drastic changes to the Rite of Ordination to the point where it could no longer be considered the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Had this not happened, they (at least some of them) would probably still be considered by the Catholic Church to be valid Churches to this day. As far as Eastern Orthodoxy, even though it is considered schismatic by us, besides lack of Communion with Rome they have pretty much kept everything else preserved and in tact, which is why we consider them valid Churches (as we do for the Oriental Orthodox as well).

Thanks!

So really the only thing (or perhaps the main thing?) that the Orthodox Church is lacking, from the Catholic perspective, is union with the Bishop of Rome?  

No problem.

And yes, I would say that that is basically the only thing, from our view, that separates us right now is their lack of union with the Bishop of Rome. Actually, this is what really makes sense as far as why we let the Eastern Orthodox can receive the Eucharist in our Church but they don't in theirs. To us, we are basically the same. To them, we are way, way off because they don't accept any of our dogmatic definitions after the schism, so in their eyes we have a lot of "innovations" that need to be removed before Full Communion could ever resume.

[Michał Kalina]

My first question has to do with baptism.  Catholics believe that a valid baptism creates an "indelible mark" on one's soul, and therefore a valid baptism cannot be repeated.  Where does the idea of "indelible mark" come from, and do Orthodox agree?

The Orthodox teach the same. Check the Creed.

My next question is somewhat related to the first.  Catholics believe that valid baptisms are found in all churches that profess belief in the Trinity and use the Trinitarian formula.  They also believe that in an emergency (i.e. imminent death), anyone, even an atheist, can validly baptize someone, provided they have the right intent and use the right formula and matter.  How do Orthodox view the issue of the validity of sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church?  To me, it doesn't really make sense that there would be valid sacraments outside of the "one true church", or that the "one true church" is defined in such a way as to allow valid apostolic succession, priesthood, and sacraments outside of its visible confines.  The Catholic Church holds the Orthodox Church to be in schism from the "one true church", yet it still is believed to have a valid priesthood and sacraments.  Also, how do Orthodox view the situation of non-Christians baptizing in emergencies?

We agree. No sacraments outside the Church.

[Papist]

The "No sacraments outside the Church" idea what work in a neat and tidy world. But this is not a neat and tidy world. "No sacraments ouside the Church" would make sense if there were no Christians outside the Church. But unfortunately, there Christians outside the Church.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Catholic vs. Orthodox on the Sacraments