Are Catholic sacraments valid? EOC opinion.

[loser]

If this has been asked already, can you please give me the link, I can't find it.

Are Catholic sacraments valid? If so, does that mean that Catholics can go to heaven? How does the EOC recieve Catholic converts?
If you could provide references, that would be YAHOOOOOOOO!
Thanks.


Also please pray for me guys, this is a really really bad time in my life. But I really feel your prayers are making difference.

[Nero]

Lord have mercy!

As for Catholic Sacraments, I believe they are valid. I've always different after I walk out of confession, as opposed to when I go in. This is just my opinion though.

[Achronos]

From my readings into the matter there is a divided opinion. Usually I have heard it say "The Orthodox knows where the Holy Spirit is but does not know outisde of that." So the sacraments of the RC could be valid (can't put a limit on the grace of God).

But then again if you look at it as the Body of Christ being only one, and if you accept the EO being the Body of Christ, outside of that I would say no.

But I am ignorant on this topic, so take my response with a grain of salt.

[celticfan1888]

Herrens miskunn!

I wouldn't think so, considering they are not part of The Church and are in heresy (although this does not mean Catholics cannot go to heaven).

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

[ialmisry]

Unless they join the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it doesn't matter.

[Asteriktos]

Are Catholic sacraments valid? If so, does that mean that Catholics can go to heaven? How does the EOC recieve Catholic converts?
If you could provide references, that would be YAHOOOOOOOO!

There are varying opinions on the validity of Catholic sacraments, and varying ways to receive Catholics, so it really depends on who you ask. Regarding Catholics going to heaven, sure, whether their sacraments are valid or not, they still have a shot, like all of us.  The sacraments are like a medicine for the soul. Even if you don't have that medicine, it's possible that you could still get healthy, it's just more difficult. On the other hand, if that medicine is available to you, then it's certainly wise to use it, as it will help with the healing. Here are some of the first articles I found...

I Confess One Baptism - Fr. George Metallinos
Baptism and the Reception of Converts
Acceptance into the Orthodox Church - Bp. Basil (Rodzianko)

... just do a Google search with a mix of words like "Orthodox, Catholic, sacraments, baptism, valid, grace, etc." and you'll find all sorts of arguments and articles.

[loser]

Herrens miskunn!

I wouldn't think so, considering they are not part of The Church and are in heresy (although this does not mean Catholics cannot go to heaven).

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

Whoa! I am totally confused now. I thought sacraments were necessary for salvation. Isn't there a verse that says, "unless you are baptized you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."? Please tell me what the EOC church view is.


Also, this article says that Protestant baptism is accepted which completely goes against what I understood. I thought baptism must be given by an apostolic priest. But a Protestant have the lineage (laying on of hands) that Catholic and Orthodox priests recieved--passed down from generations from Jesus himself. Was I wrong? Can anyone baptize?

[Aindriú]

Unless they join the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, it doesn't matter.

What then of the many cases of schism and lack of communion between churches throughout history? Which one was the Church and which one was not? Especially when the churches later reestablished communion?

[celticfan1888]

Whoa! I am totally confused now. I thought sacraments were necessary for salvation. Isn't there a verse that says, "unless you are baptized you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."? Please tell me what the EOC church view is.

Most will tell you we really don't know if those outside of The Church can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, so there isnt a definite stance one way or another. But we do know that God is loving and forgiving, so I'm sure that those who are not members of The Church can enter the Kingdom.

"Does this mean that all now outside the Church will go to hell? No. Bishop Kallistos Ware suggests that "While there is no division between a `visible' and an 'invisible' Church yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense we cannot always say" (The Orthodox Church, p. 248, 1993 edition). Christ our God may be working in others in ways unknown to us and even to them, to bring them to salvation. And in due time, perhaps not till after death, they may recognize God and accept Christ and be united to His Body the Church-so that they can be saved.

This is in accord with the teaching of Christ. In the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25), notice that it is the "nations" (v. 32), the nonbelievers, who are being judged (this is obvious, because they are surprised to learn that Christ dwells in the needy), and some of them are welcomed into the "kingdom prepared for [them] from the foundation of the world" (v. 34).

Regarding God's mysterious work outside the Orthodox Church, we have nothing to say. We make no judgments about what God is doing there, or about what happens to the souls of those who are not Orthodox or not Christian on earth. It is all we can do to try to "work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)."

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Orthodox/2005/03/Do-All-Non-Orthodox-People-Go-To-Hell.aspx

Also, this article says that Protestant baptism is accepted which completely goes against what I understood. I thought baptism must be given by an apostolic priest. But a Protestant have the lineage (laying on of hands) that Catholic and Orthodox priests recieved--passed down from generations from Jesus himself. Was I wrong? Can anyone baptize?

A lot of times there is the case of correctly performed Trinitarian baptisms of those who are not of the correct faith, and sometimes all that needs to be done is a "chrismation" and they're part of the Church. But this is, of course, up to the discretion of the bishop. Some may baptise all converts, some may only chrismate Roman Catholic converts and baptise Protestants, some may even only chrismate SOME Protestant converts (only those with the correct Trinitarian baptism, not Mormons for example).

Again, it's up to the bishop.

[loser]

A lot of times there is the case of correctly performed Trinitarian baptisms of those who are not of the correct faith, and sometimes all that needs to be done is a "chrismation" and they're part of the Church. But this is, of course, up to the discretion of the bishop. Some may baptise all converts, some may only chrismate Roman Catholic converts and baptise Protestants, some may even only chrismate SOME Protestant converts (only those with the correct Trinitarian baptism, not Mormons for example).

Again, it's up to the bishop.

Wow. thanks for clearing that up. I guess you're probably right, there is no official answer. I really wish there was. But then, can I go around baptizing people myself. If so, let me get my miter.

[TheMathematician]

i know in my particular case (ROCOR, Eastern American Diocese under His Eminence Hilarion) that I will be baptized, and i come from a roman background

however, other particular churches simply chrisimate, or even accept roman converts by a profession of faith.

[Fabio Leite]

The Orthodox faith regarding this issue is thus:

There is no eclesiastical grace outside the Church. You can find healings, miracles, in sum, God does love everybody even those outside the Church and obviously listens to those who call upon Him, upon the Son, the Holy Spirit and likewise do the saints, the Theotokos above all. The love of God is not an exclusive club.

Said that "love of God" and "action of the Holy Spirit" does not equate "Church". Church is the Body of Christ, physical and spiritual. Like any body, it has pretty much defined limits - if anyone shows a person whose body "we know where it is, but we don't know where it isn't" than we can both start thinking about applying this reference to the Church *and* we can call the quantic physicists because we will have found the so desired macroscopic ambiguity of sub-particles. But since the Church is compared to a body and not to an electron, it is still a very well delimited body. There may be fair disagreements if it is the Orthodox, the Romans or the Non-Chalcedonians, but surely not "I'm sure I'm in, but we may all be in , better not say that someone isn't" which explains away but explains nothing.

So the Church has a delimited body, and we do believe that this well-defined body is the confederation of national churches known as the Orthodox Church. Very well. The non-Orthodox churches may be communions of faith, some of its members may be better disciples than an Orthodox, but, there is no salvific grace in any of them. None at all. Which means that their sacraments are just beautiful, inspiring rites.

Why, then, different bishops receive people from different jurisdictions in different ways? That has *nothing* to do with the status of "validity" of their rites. It has to do with pastoral decision. The duty of the bishop is to facilitate entrance into the Church, not to prevent it. Many new converts are not mature enough in the faith to face the fact that, as pious as they may have been before, there was no salvific grace there. Most react with "then it was all useless!". Of course it wasn't useless, it helped bring the person into the Church. It also shaped and cultivated his personality to better adapt to the Church. But had them stopped there, there would be no salvific grace whatsoever. So, the rule is: they are all out of the house, and the duty of the bishop is to help them get in, even if it is through the window, the chimney a crack on the wall or whatever. It's full of wolves out there, you have to bring in as many as you can as fast you can. If, though, the bishop sees that this flexibility is being abused, he may resume the strictness of the admission and demand full baptism.

Now, the point that most people usually really want to know... if there is no salvific grace in their churches, then they are lost and damned forever? If a person dies as a Roman or Protestant is the person condemned to hell? Of course not. We see in Matthew 13:24-30 and Matthew 13:36-43. In fact all the parables in this chapter apply to the Church, because the Church is the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Everything said of the Kingdom applies to the Church. And what is it that we learn in these parables? That when the Last Judgment come, some who are in will be spilled out, and some who are out will be brought in. So, the Church is salvation itself, here, now, not in the future. But in this world and age, there are good seeds and tares in it. This is very easy to see. Likewise, when we look outside the church, we see lots of good seeds and also lots of tare. Last Judgment will put all the good seeds in the Church and all the tares out.

So, there is no salvation (and therefore sacraments) outside the Church, and yes we can know where the Church is now. We can also know who is in it and who is out. But, what we can't know is who will be kept in and who will be kept out, who will be spilled out and who will be brought in. Today good seeds and tares are mixed. After the Last Judgment they will be separated.

Therefore, if by salvation you mean the ultimate fate after the Last Judgment, there is no guarantee for anyone. If by salvation you mean the actual presence of the salvific energy of the Church, than it is exclusively in the Church that is One/Undivided, Holy, Catholic/Orthodox, Apostolic.

[Irish Hermit]

Dear Fabio,

Here is another side to the matter .... the historical and present day Russian synodal teaching and canons as regards Roman Catholic (and Miaphysite) sacraments.

It can be summarised succinctly by saying that it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Catholic or Miaphysite priest gives to his parishioners and the Pope and his bishops are genuine bishops.

This overview is from Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, the senior most priest of the Russian Church in the West.  (I have placed his messages in a group which allows public access.)


The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2943

The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2944

[Fabio Leite]

Dear Fabio,

Here is another side to the matter .... the historical and present day Russian synodal teaching and canons as regards Roman Catholic (and Miaphysite) sacraments.

It can be summarised succinctly by saying that it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Catholic or Miaphysite priest gives to his parishioners and the Pope and his bishops are genuine bishops.

This overview is from Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, the senior most priest of the Russian Church in the West.  (I have placed his messages in a group which allows public access.)


The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2943

The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2944

If the Archpriests' claim were true, could he give one single reason why a Catholic should convert to Orthodoxy? It seems to me that he, much like *many* Orthodox priests I've met here in Brazil, would just say to the Roman willing to convert: "don't do it. Your church also has salvific grace and valid sacraments. Stay where you are.". Even if the Archpriest doesn't say that in so few words, that's the logical inequivocal conclusion of his words. Also, for the many descedents who stop going to the Orthodox parish because it's too far and the priest too (pejorative adjective of their choice), and start going to the nearest Roman church, what does he have to say besides: "No, you have to go to the Orthodox church because it's the Church of your ancestors?".

Irish Hermit, if the Archpriest's interpretation were true, it would be a *sin* to turn our backs to the real body of Christ, to His real presence just because the leader of the Roman jurisdiction happens to be equivocated on a couple of theological issues. When people ask why Orthodoxy is not stronger in the West today, right there, in that reasoning, is one of the main reasons. Many among us, simply can't come up with a substantial motivation for being Orthodox since the differences between churches would be just the petty stuborness of pious but small people.

There are enough anathemas regarding Rome and the Non-Chalcedonians to prove, from a theological and canonical point of view, that they are heretics, and thus, all that has been said of heretics apply to them: no salvific grace, no sacraments.

[elijahmaria]

Dear Fabio,

Here is another side to the matter .... the historical and present day Russian synodal teaching and canons as regards Roman Catholic (and Miaphysite) sacraments.

It can be summarised succinctly by saying that it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Catholic or Miaphysite priest gives to his parishioners and the Pope and his bishops are genuine bishops.

This overview is from Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, the senior most priest of the Russian Church in the West.  (I have placed his messages in a group which allows public access.)


The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2943

The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2944

If the Archpriests' claim were true, could he give one single reason why a Catholic should convert to Orthodoxy? It seems to me that he, much like *many* Orthodox priests I've met here in Brazil, would just say to the Roman willing to convert: "don't do it. Your church also has salvific grace and valid sacraments. Stay where you are.". Even if the Archpriest doesn't say that in so few words, that's the logical inequivocal conclusion of his words. Also, for the many descedents who stop going to the Orthodox parish because it's too far and the priest too (pejorative adjective of their choice), and start going to the nearest Roman church, what does he have to say besides: "No, you have to go to the Orthodox church because it's the Church of your ancestors?".

Irish Hermit, if the Archpriest's interpretation were true, it would be a *sin* to turn our backs to the real body of Christ, to His real presence just because the leader of the Roman jurisdiction happens to be equivocated on a couple of theological issues. When people ask why Orthodoxy is not stronger in the West today, right there, in that reasoning, is one of the main reasons. Many among us, simply can't come up with a substantial motivation for being Orthodox since the differences between churches would be just the petty stuborness of pious but small people.

There are enough anathemas regarding Rome and the Non-Chalcedonians to prove, from a theological and canonical point of view, that they are heretics, and thus, all that has been said of heretics apply to them: no salvific grace, no sacraments.

A serious problem with Catholics becoming Orthodox is that at some point the person is going to look in the mirror and say "The Catholic Church cannot have Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments...If they do then I converted for nothing!!...and THAT cannot be possible!"

That kind of black and white thinking is very destructive to both the individual and to corporate perceptions of what is true and what is not.

It is the kind of thinking that our bi-lateral discussions are eventually going to need to address.

[loser]

The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2943

You know, Irish Hermit, that is what I've always believed and the impression I've recieved from being an OO. EOC, OOC and RC sacraments are all valid but there is no Protestant denomiation that has valid sacraments. Also no Protestant can enter the kingdom of heaven (unless he is martyred) but these three groups can enter. I've heard many stories of miracles in the three churches, including some miracles which suggest sainthood. For example, there are people (saints) who recently died in each of these three churches whose bodies are preserved (they didn't rot) to this day.

It is my feeling that no such miracle has happened in any Protestant church. Has anyone heard of any?

[Irish Hermit]

There are enough anathemas regarding Rome and the Non-Chalcedonians to prove, from a theological and canonical point of view, that they are heretics, and thus, all that has been said of heretics apply to them: no salvific grace, no sacraments.

Except that this is not the official teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church.  It acknowledges mysteriological grace in the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Miaphysites.

[Fabio Leite]

Dear Fabio,

Here is another side to the matter .... the historical and present day Russian synodal teaching and canons as regards Roman Catholic (and Miaphysite) sacraments.

It can be summarised succinctly by saying that it is the true Body and Blood of Christ which a Catholic or Miaphysite priest gives to his parishioners and the Pope and his bishops are genuine bishops.

This overview is from Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, the senior most priest of the Russian Church in the West.  (I have placed his messages in a group which allows public access.)


The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2943

The Russian Church and Catholic Sacraments #2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/celt-archive/message/2944

If the Archpriests' claim were true, could he give one single reason why a Catholic should convert to Orthodoxy? It seems to me that he, much like *many* Orthodox priests I've met here in Brazil, would just say to the Roman willing to convert: "don't do it. Your church also has salvific grace and valid sacraments. Stay where you are.". Even if the Archpriest doesn't say that in so few words, that's the logical inequivocal conclusion of his words. Also, for the many descedents who stop going to the Orthodox parish because it's too far and the priest too (pejorative adjective of their choice), and start going to the nearest Roman church, what does he have to say besides: "No, you have to go to the Orthodox church because it's the Church of your ancestors?".

Irish Hermit, if the Archpriest's interpretation were true, it would be a *sin* to turn our backs to the real body of Christ, to His real presence just because the leader of the Roman jurisdiction happens to be equivocated on a couple of theological issues. When people ask why Orthodoxy is not stronger in the West today, right there, in that reasoning, is one of the main reasons. Many among us, simply can't come up with a substantial motivation for being Orthodox since the differences between churches would be just the petty stuborness of pious but small people.

There are enough anathemas regarding Rome and the Non-Chalcedonians to prove, from a theological and canonical point of view, that they are heretics, and thus, all that has been said of heretics apply to them: no salvific grace, no sacraments.

A serious problem with Catholics becoming Orthodox is that at some point the person is going to look in the mirror and say "The Catholic Church cannot have Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments...If they do then I converted for nothing!!...and THAT cannot be possible!"

That kind of black and white thinking is very destructive to both the individual and to corporate perceptions of what is true and what is not.

It is the kind of thinking that our bi-lateral discussions are eventually going to need to address.

The Roman Church, as the Non-Chalcedonians and even the Anglicans (until, of course the women/gay ordination thing) have a succession of imposition of hands to the Apostles. But so did the Arians, and Nestorians etc. Apostolic Succession does not equate real sacraments.

[Fabio Leite]

There are enough anathemas regarding Rome and the Non-Chalcedonians to prove, from a theological and canonical point of view, that they are heretics, and thus, all that has been said of heretics apply to them: no salvific grace, no sacraments.

Except that this is not the official teaching of the Russian Orthodox Church.  It acknowledges mysteriological grace in the sacraments of both Roman Catholics and Miaphysites.

Therefore they don't have any good reason why a Roman or Non-Chalcedonian should convert to Orthodoxy? Their message to Latin-America is "stay where you are". I'll not be surprised if Russia gets consacrated to the "Immaculate Heart" then. Because the Romans do not have this "tolerance" toward us and always come up with several reasons why Romans should not turn to Orthodoxy and Orthodox should convert to their communion.

Plus, if they really believe it, keeping the Pope out of the Orthodox communion is an unnamable blasphemy. Plus, if the Pope, believing what he believes and acting on it, does not loose grace, it's because it's true. The same stands for the Non-Chalcedonians. To say it is true in a "mysterious way" is just to dodge the issue. And dodge in a direction the Fathers didn't in relation to the Non-Chalcedonians and many other authorities didn't either in relation to the Romans.

[Irish Hermit]

 Apostolic Succession does not equate real sacraments.

The Russian Church teaches that Catholics and Miaphysites have Apostolic Succession and mysteriological grace in their sacraments.

I do not agree. I was taught differently by my spiritual father in the Serbian Church, but I cannot deny that this is what the Russian Church holds (and also a large segment of the Serbian bishops.)

For my views see message 73
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555976.html#msg555976

[Fabio Leite]

 Apostolic Succession does not equate real sacraments.

The Russian Church teaches that Catholics and Miaphysites have Apostolic Succession and mysteriological grace in their sacraments.

I do not agree. I was taught differently by my spiritual father in the Serbian Church, but I cannot deny that this is what the Russian Church holds (and also a large segment of the Serbian bishops.)

For my views see message 73
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555976.html#msg555976

I understand. Well, the Russian Church just lost a couple of points for me now. Does the Ecumenical Patriarchate have any similar official statements?

[Irish Hermit]

 Apostolic Succession does not equate real sacraments.

The Russian Church teaches that Catholics and Miaphysites have Apostolic Succession and mysteriological grace in their sacraments.

I do not agree. I was taught differently by my spiritual father in the Serbian Church, but I cannot deny that this is what the Russian Church holds (and also a large segment of the Serbian bishops.)

For my views see message 73
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35132.msg555976.html#msg555976

I understand. Well, the Russian Church just lost a couple of points for me now. Does the Ecumenical Patriarchate have any similar official statements?

Hopefully a member of Constantinople will offer an answer.

[Sleeper]

I suppose it depends on one's ecclesiology. It seems that, unfortunately, many Eastern Orthodox have adopted Rome's skewed ecclesiology, where the Church is understood as a worldwide, spatially universal organism made up of all believers, of which our local gatherings are but parts of the whole. In this context, anyone who is not a part of this worldwide organism, i.e. not in "communion", is not part of the Church. But the reality is that every assembly of baptized/chrismated Christians gathered around their bishop to celebrate the Eucharist is the manifestation of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church; the eschatological, pre-eternal, mystical Body of Christ. In that sense then, from a truly Orthodox viewpoint, there is no "Orthodox Church" but there are, rather, "Orthodox Churches" who are in communion with one another. It is not the Orthodox Communion that makes up the Body of Christ, the One True Church, it is the local gathering around their bishop for the Eucharistic offering.

In that sense, then, any assembly who has gathered around their bishop (if he has genuine Apostolic succession) in the Eucharistic offering is the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church, regardless of whether or not they are in geopolitical communion with the other Catholic Churches. And in some sense, whether or not they hold to heretical beliefs, etc.

An historical example illustrates this well.

In the case of Cornelius and Novation (in the wake of persuctions in the late 3rd century, Rome found herself without a bishop. Cornelius was elected to the episcopacy by the Roman clergy, but a few days later the controversial presbyter Novation announced his own claims and managed to get himself consecrated by three distant Italian bishops) it was obvious who the “real” bishop of Rome was: the one who was recognized by all the other bishops, starting with those who represented the ancient and principal Churches. But what would happen if the episcopate was in fact divided on which bishop to be in communion with? (hint: this happened in Antioch).

Where would the Church be? How could one tell which one of the orthodox bishops was to be sided with? With the strict and pure (Novationists)? With those who went along with the governmental appointees (the Arians)? With those who were in communion with Rome (Paulinus)? Or with those who received support from neighboring bishops (Meletius)? In hindsight, it seems that Meletius can be recognized as the true orthodox and catholic bishop of the Church in Antioch, but does it mean that those who participated in the other Eucharists did not also participate in the invisible and transcendent communion of saints? (After all, St. Jerome was ordained by Paulinus).

Is it personal holiness, orthodoxy of faith, legitimacy of election and consecration or communion with other Churches that determines the true manifestation of Christ’s body in a community?

They aren't easy answers, much as we'd like them to be, but I don't see how one can argue with the fact that we must recognize Rome's sacraments; for she has unquestioned Apostolic succession and does not deny Christ came in the flesh. The actions of hierarchs do not have the power to ontologically affect the Church of Christ. Regardless of what externally or doctrinally divides us, wherever baptized Christians offer the Eucharist around their Apostolic bishop, the One Holy Catholic Church is made manifest and salvation is opened to all.

[PeterTheAleut]

A reminder to our RC posters that this is the Convert Issues board and that the OP asked for an Eastern Orthodox perspective, NOT a Roman Catholic one. Let us therefore keep our posts appropriate. Thank you.

[Shanghaiski]

What do you mean by "valid?"

I don't know what Roman Catholics get when they receive the Eucharist--probably only the form of the sacrament, and not the whole substance, not the body and blood of Christ. But, it's a rather moot point, since the Orthodox Church has all the fullness of Christ, which you won't get anywhere else. There is no sacramental grace outside the Church, and the Church does have clear boundaries. These are generally enshrined in a couple ways--the diptychs of the autocephalous churches, the Orthodox confession of faith, and the faithfulness to holy tradition. So, while some--not Roman Catholics of Protestants, but Orthodox groups not in communion with the other patriarchates--may not be on the diptychs, they have the latter two--iow, they're schismatics, but they are not received through baptism, but through repentance and confession, and sometimes Chrismation. That this is often interpreted very broadly and confusingly today does not do much to illustrate the point.

[Irish Hermit]

There is no sacramental grace outside the Church, and the Church does have clear boundaries.

Shanghaiski,  please don't take this post of mine as positing any personal belief of mine, but are you as a member of Antioch giving us the teaching of your Patriarch and bishops or do you simply hold a personal position which is at variance with theirs?

[Shanghaiski]

There is no sacramental grace outside the Church, and the Church does have clear boundaries.

Shanghaiski,  please don't take this post of mine as positing any personal belief of mine, but are you as a member of Antioch giving us the teaching of your Patriarch and bishops or do you simply hold a personal position which is at variance with theirs?

Haha. Yeah, I am not in agreement with several Antiochian policies/practices, but then, not all Antiochian priests and even bishops are. I try to hold to the teaching of the Universal Church. Does the Church teach against what I have said? I have not heard such.

[pasadi97]

God does the last judgement and I did not ask God about validity of sacraments outside Church. So this is from what I read and it can be fantasy.

1.To go to Heaven you need baptism. There are several ways of baptism. Normal baptism is by an eastern orthodox priests from the Church established by Jesus in year 33. Because Baptism is so important God allowed people like me and you that are baptised to perform emergency baptism even if we are no priests and not ordained. However we must specify we baptise in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So protestant baptisms may be in this category. Any baptism beside Eastern Orthodox can be playing dice.

Monks on Athos that speak face to face with Holy Virgin say all baptisms outside Eastern orthodox Chutch are invalid and require new baptism. This is something people need to think about since they are not allowed to lie and also they speak with people from Heaven and angels and they know more. So I would look at them for getting close to the truth.

[pasadi97]

Baptism is not performed actually by people. Baptism and sacraments are perfomed by God. Priest and people allowed to perform baptism, are simply praying to God to come and make the previous man child of God able to enter Heaven.

Something similar with sacraments is Holy water where Priest prays to God to come and bless the water. So in Romano Catholicism there were some changes and water may become spoiled and after changing the blessing of water, the prayers they needed to add salt to preserve water which before was not needed. So changing several words, may mean God is not asked to come and nothing actualy happens even on the surface normal people may not sense any difference. So beautiful Cathedrals, beautiful clothes but on the invisible world things may be bad. So to see what I am talking about take Holy water from Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodox, label them and taste them AFTER 2 months. Also by changing words, and having unordained priests in protestantism things may turn into Blasphemy and people there, participating them may take part into Blasphemy and this is why Eastern orthodox people at least in Romania are cautioned against going to religious meetings outside Eastern Orthodox Church.

[pasadi97]

In the end the thing that matter is what Church says.

[Papist]

So, what does the Church say?

[LizaSymonenko]

A serious problem with Catholics becoming Orthodox...

The only "serious problem" is that they take too long to realize Orthodoxy is the True Church!

 

[pasadi97]

If you want to know the truth pray to God:

Dear God please save me and as many humans as possible and also please let me know the truth of all religions and the validity of Romano Catholic sacraments.

God will let you know.

There was on Mount Athos Romano Catholics celebrating with Eastern Orthodox Holy Liturgy, with Eastern Orthodox being forced and God destroyed 2 Churches to show his displeasure and the bodies of people did not decompose but turned black and nails and hair growed having a terible stench . This would be Traditional Romano Catholic before 1450. These bodies are on Mount Athos.

One Eastern Orthodox Chuch went to Romano Catholicism and in Holy liturgy wine became water.

[pasadi97]

This is a vision of St John Kronstadt about a NEW CHURCH and errors named heresies. I don't know if the Church after Vatican II or Protestant Church is what this is about:

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/vision-of-st-john-of-kronstadt.html

[elijahmaria]

If you want to know the truth pray to God:

Dear God please save me and as many humans as possible and also please let me know the truth of all religions and the validity of Romano Catholic sacraments.

God will let you know.

There was on Mount Athos Romano Catholics celebrating with Eastern Orthodox Holy Liturgy, with Eastern Orthodox being forced and God destroyed 2 Churches to show his displeasure and the bodies of people did not decompose but turned black and nails and hair growed having a terible stench . This would be Traditional Romano Catholic before 1450. These bodies are on Mount Athos.

One Eastern Orthodox Chuch went to Romano Catholicism and in Holy liturgy wine became water.

 

[theistgal]

Monks on Athos that speak face to face with Holy Virgin say all baptisms outside Eastern orthodox Chutch are invalid and require new baptism. This is something people need to think about since they are not allowed to lie and also they speak with people from Heaven and angels and they know more. So I would look at them for getting close to the truth.

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

Are you saying that the Orthodox Church bases its doctrines about the sacraments on private revelations to the Monks of Athos?

[Irish Hermit]

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

I don't know of any Catholic doctrines based on Lourdes or Fatima.  What are they?

[Basil 320]

If as in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and in the churches of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, the baptism of Roman Catholics are accepted for purposes of their conversion to Orthodoxy (wherein the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation is administered), these churches accept the validity of the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Holy Baptism, and thus, the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, and the work of the Holy Spirit within Catholicism, for Roman Catholics.  I recall there is discussion of the concurrence of both churches in documents issued by the official international dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  There is however, as indicated in the discussion of this topic, disagreement within Orthodoxy of this matter.  It should be noted too, that a pan-Orthodox Synod has never deemed Roman Catholicism to be in heresy.

[elijahmaria]

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

I don't know of any Catholic doctrines based on Lourdes or Fatima.  What are they?

It is often said in general terms that the Catholic faith is based upon private visions and visionaries.

The two specific things that come to mind are the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception.

These accusations are often delivered in the most mocking way...I am sure you know what I mean.

M.

[Irish Hermit]

If as in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and in the churches of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, the baptism of Roman Catholics are accepted for purposes of their conversion to Orthodoxy (wherein the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation is administered), these churches accept the validity of the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Holy Baptism, and thus, the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, and the work of the Holy Spirit within Catholicism, for Roman Catholics.  I recall there is discussion of the concurrence of both churches in documents issued by the official international dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  There is however, as indicated in the discussion of this topic, disagreement within Orthodoxy of this matter.  It should be noted too, that a pan-Orthodox Synod has never deemed Roman Catholicism to be in heresy.

We have a very missionary minded Greek Metropolitan Amphilochios here, a holy bishop, and he has built concrete baptismal fonts around the country and on the islands. He says that all Catholics are unbaptized and he and his priests baptize them.  

There is no uniform teaching on this matter in the Ecumenical Patriarchate (although much can be explained if we bring in the theory of "economia.")

[Irish Hermit]

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

I don't know of any Catholic doctrines based on Lourdes or Fatima.  What are they?

It is often said in general terms that the Catholic faith is based upon private visions and visionaries.

The two specific things that come to mind are the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception.

These accusations are often delivered in the most mocking way...I am sure you know what I mean.

M.

My apologies!  When theistgal said 'doctrines' I took her to mean 'doctrines.'  I did not realise that word covers 'devotions' as well. So much to learn about Catholicism <sigh>

[elijahmaria]

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

I don't know of any Catholic doctrines based on Lourdes or Fatima.  What are they?

It is often said in general terms that the Catholic faith is based upon private visions and visionaries.

The two specific things that come to mind are the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception.

These accusations are often delivered in the most mocking way...I am sure you know what I mean.

M.

My apologies!  When theistgal said 'doctrines' I took her to mean 'doctrines.'  I did not realise that word covers 'devotions' as well. So much to learn about Catholicism <sigh>

 

Nice try!!...It is the Orthodox who are most strident who can't seem to make any kind of distinction about the Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, with respect to faith, doctrine, dogma or devotion...It all gets stirred up into the same stinking negative stew...and you are a ring leader in pot-stirring...

[Irish Hermit]

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

I don't know of any Catholic doctrines based on Lourdes or Fatima.  What are they?

It is often said in general terms that the Catholic faith is based upon private visions and visionaries.

The two specific things that come to mind are the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception.

These accusations are often delivered in the most mocking way...I am sure you know what I mean.

M.

My apologies!  When theistgal said 'doctrines' I took her to mean 'doctrines.'  I did not realise that word covers 'devotions' as well. So much to learn about Catholicism <sigh>

 

Nice try!!...It is the Orthodox who are most strident who can't seem to make any kind of distinction about the Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, with respect to faith, doctrine, dogma or devotion...It all gets stirred up into the same stinking negative stew...and you are a ring leader in pot-stirring...

May I ever sit at your ancient feet!   

You were the one who knew theistgal was speaking of 'doctrines' and you fudged it and skewed and pretended she was speaking about 'devotions.'   

[elijahmaria]

Interesting!  I've seen other Eastern Orthodox posters here at OC.net make fun of the RC's for basing doctrines on private revelations, such as Lourdes or Fatima.

I don't know of any Catholic doctrines based on Lourdes or Fatima.  What are they?

It is often said in general terms that the Catholic faith is based upon private visions and visionaries.

The two specific things that come to mind are the devotion to the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Conception.

These accusations are often delivered in the most mocking way...I am sure you know what I mean.

M.

My apologies!  When theistgal said 'doctrines' I took her to mean 'doctrines.'  I did not realise that word covers 'devotions' as well. So much to learn about Catholicism <sigh>

 

Nice try!!...It is the Orthodox who are most strident who can't seem to make any kind of distinction about the Catholic Church, the Church of my Baptism, with respect to faith, doctrine, dogma or devotion...It all gets stirred up into the same stinking negative stew...and you are a ring leader in pot-stirring...

May I ever sit at your ancient feet!  

You were the one who knew theistgal was speaking of 'doctrines' and you fudged it and skewed and pretended she was speaking about 'devotions.'    

I have an 80 year old mother messin' with my head these days as she comes out of three pretty substantial surgeries and attending narcotics...So that's all I need of elder abuse for the time being... ...thanks!!

LOL.....

[ialmisry]

If as in the case of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and in the churches of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, the baptism of Roman Catholics are accepted for purposes of their conversion to Orthodoxy (wherein the Sacrament of Holy Chrismation is administered), these churches accept the validity of the Roman Catholic Sacrament of Holy Baptism, and thus, the validity of Roman Catholic sacraments, and the work of the Holy Spirit within Catholicism, for Roman Catholics.  I recall there is discussion of the concurrence of both churches in documents issued by the official international dialogue between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  There is however, as indicated in the discussion of this topic, disagreement within Orthodoxy of this matter.  It should be noted too, that a pan-Orthodox Synod has never deemed Roman Catholicism to be in heresy.

Council of Constantinople IV 879.  Condemned the Filioque and those who held it.

Council of Constantinople V 1341 and 1351.  Condemned the teachings of the Vatican as expoused by Balaam of Calabria.

The Council of Constantinople c. 1453.  Condemned Florence, and the ecclesial communion which held it.

Council of Iaşi /Jassy 1642.  Approved "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic Church" of Met. St. Peter Movila/Mohyla/Moghila only after Vaticanisms removed from it.

Synod of Jerusalem 1672.  Reaffirmed Council of Iaşi.  Condemned in the main the Vatican's Calvinist cousins, but the Vatican comes into question, e.g. "Further, that by the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION the manner in which the bread and the wine are transmade into the body and blood of the Lord is not explained; for this is altogether incomprehensible and is impossible except for God Himself; and attempts at explanation bring Christians to folly and error." The Vatican at Trent had already dogmatized transubstantiation.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: Are Catholic sacraments valid? EOC opinion.