From Vertograd Orthodox Journal, Newsletter No. 76, Oct. 21, 2009 (via the Irenikon listserv):
“To all intent and purposes, mutual recognition of each others Mysteries already exists between us. We do not have communion in the Mysteries, but we do recognize each others Mysteries”, declared Archbishop Hilarion (Alfeev) on the air during a broadcast of the program “The Church and the World” on the television channel “Russia”, on October 17th (video and text, http://vera.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=237432).
“If a Roman Catholic priest converts to Orthodoxy, we receive him as a priest, and we do not re-ordain him. And that means that, de facto, we recognize the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church”, explained Archbishop Hilarion.
Responding to the question of whether Roman Catholics can receive Communion from the Orthodox, or Orthodox Christians from the Roman Catholics, Archbishop Hilarion said that such giving of Communion should not take place, inasmuch as “eucharistic communion has been broken” between the Orthodox and Roman
Catholics. But, at the same time, he made clear that in some cases such
Communion is possible: “Exceptional cases occur, when, for example, a Roman Catholic is dying in some town where there is no Roman Catholic priest at all in the vicinity. So he asks an Orthodox priest to come. Then in such a case, I think, the Orthodox priest should go and give Communion to that person.”
Eirenikon 
In the time of Pius XII, it was taught in Catholic seminars, that a man unable to receive Sacraments from Catholics, even for a long time, even if not dying should ask an orthodox priest.
I know that from a now deceased Catholic priest. Bernhard Koch, may he rest in peace.
CCC 1399 “The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. ‘These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all–by apostolic succession–the priesthood and the Eucharist whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy’ (Unitatis redintegratio). A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, ‘given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authorities, is not merely possible but is encouraged’ (Code of canon law)”
I am agnostic on the grace (or lack thereof) of Catholic sacraments. It is sufficient to note that the Orthodox Church is not of one mind on the matter. With regard to communio in sacris, that is a no no until such time as unity of faith is restored. I am not opposed to a priest taking the confession of a Roman Catholic in case of a grave emergency (and vice versa trusting to the mercy of God) but I think that is as far as I would be comfortable going on the basis of ekonomia.
In ICXC
John
I believe that, in 1453, before the last battle against the Turks, Catholics and Orthodox participated in a common Liturgy and shared communio in sacris.
They certainly did. And there have been at various times much more recent instances of inter-communion. That something happens does not of course make it correct. I would also note that in 1453 the final breech in communion ha not yet been decreed. The schism can not properly be dated to 1054 as so many erroneously claim. It was a slow motion train wreck that occurred over centuries. I believe Dr. Tighe wrote about this on several occasions.
In ICXC
John
It is very unusual for Catholics to deny the reality of Orthodox sacraments. It was done by Teutonic knights, I think. THEIR outcome was Prussian Protestantism.
RC generally see in Protestants a way greater lack of necessities, such as sacramants and jurisdiction, than in Orthodox. Protestants lack all sacraments except baptism and marriage, which they do not recognise as a sacrament, Orthodox lack only union with the Church in administering their Sacraments. Thus far RC traditional position.
Which was also upheld recently by Benedict XVI. “Defectus” means, by the way, precisely lack, not wound.
A remark about “defectus which politely translates as wound” is thus dishonest. No wonder, Guardian is a Protestant paper, and they have more reason for offense than Orthodox of what was said.
When was the final breach in communion decreed?
The Pan Orthodox Synod of 1583 which definitively reaffirmed the canons of the OEcumenical Councils and repudiated as heresy the Western addition to the creed among other things.
In ICXC
John
If you have ready access to them, could you specifically cite the canons relevant to the filioque? I am not doubting you, but there are probably nuances involved. Any help you might offer would save me a lot of time trying to find the canons on my own through internet searches.
a good question, but my throat is sore
I am agnostic on the grace (or lack thereof) of Catholic sacraments.
I sure am glad I don’t have to share such agnosticism.
Sorry for bluntness, but if lack of charity toward one’s fellow apostolic Christians is a sign of the True Church, then I must be missing something.
One Internet Orthodox I know used to say much the same thing you do, John. “Don’t know; don’t care,” was his response to the question of the validity of Catholic Sacraments.
Today he is as disgusted by such an attitude as I am.
May your eyes be similarly opened.
Again, sorry for bluntness. I’ll never be made a member of the diplomatic corps, that’s for sure.
But I am weary unto death by the attitudes of so many Internet Orthodox. I am over it.
Schism is above all a sin against fraternal charity. No offense, but I’ll gladly cast my lot with the anti-schismatics, the promoters of Christian unity, like Pope Benedict and Archbishop Hilarion. THAT side is the side of the angels. I hesitate to conjecture what sort of spirits the defenders of disunity have aligned themselves with.
I think you may be being unfair to John. He admits to the “Don’t know” bit; specifically, he cites the absence of Orthodox consensus on the matter, so how can he “know?” But I don’t see anything in his post that suggests “Don’t care”. The fact that he considers it a significant issue and has in his own mind set certain limits suggests, on the contrary, that he does “care.”
My dear diane, I _was_ very pro-Hilarion until I read his polemics against the Catholic view of marriage as the sensuality of sex being primarily compensated by the good of offspring. He argues (in the Catechism in his website) that if so one would only have sex once a year or so. Which is wrong.
The attitude “primarily for offspring” requires us not to use any means of preventing conception while a couple is enjoying sex. Not to limit sex to “the only coitus in which a child is conceived” since it cannot be foreseen in each case if a child will be conceived or not, not even if a child has been conceived until menstruation does not come as usual.
St Robert Bellarmine was sure no Pope would legislate for what was in itself wrong. Contraception clearly belongs as much to that as usury or even more, and it is notorious that Orthodox used to be more lax on usury and are more lax on contraception than Roman Catholics.
MY problem with orthodox Church is not whether their sacraments have grace or not, but whether I need and will get these graces from their Sacraments. If ecumenic faction requires me to accept contraception and anti-ecumenic faction requires me to regard any Papism, including counterreformation and St Robert Bellarmine, as vile heresy, even requiring me to misconstrue like what St Robert Bellarmine says and loathe his theology for what they think is and I know is not in it, obviously I am no-where near getting any Orthodox Sacraments.
Especially if both factions require me to regret as heavily sinful what I think was righteous in my past and is righteous in my present.
This sunday I celebrated the Feast of Christ the King, last sunday before All Hallows day, instituted by Pope Pius XI in St Nicolas de Chardonnet. I have not been to an “Orthodox” liturgy since Pentecost, in the sermon of which it was probably Benedict XVI who was maligned as scandalously uncharitable, without the mention of a name, but with clear reference to recent media hubbub.
I know that being in communion with maligners will not get me to heaven.
That should be “wearied…by” or “weary…of” — not “weary…by.”
Must get one’s prepositions straight, mustn’t one? ;)
“…the gospel of division and exclusion.” That is how one ex-Orthodox-now-Catholic priest described the anti-Catholic / anti-ecumenical attitudes of some (by no means all) Orthodox.
Division and exclusion — the very definition of sectarianism. Thanks but no thanks, my friend John / Ad Orientem. You can keep it, with my compliments, on a silver serving platter with watercress around it.
And, on that note, I am going back out to enjoy the gorgeous fall foliage and bright October sunshine with my kids. Life is way to short to spend bickering on the Internet. ;)
God bless, all!
Diane
Well… I think this little video speaks volumes on East-West ecumenical and sacramental relationships in the face of death.
You are right, Michael. I was unfair to John. I guess even the “don’t know” part gets my Irish up, though. More on this later…gotta run now.
Diane
if you think that those who prefer the “Gospel of division and exclusion” are peculiar to Orthodoxy, I could introduce you to many in our Church who provide them with fierce competition. The problem is that when we get angry with them, we compound the problem rather than addressing it as Christ would. The Devil really has us sussed.
Catholicism is not ecumenism.
Lucian
have you been on the excellent Romanian schnapps somebody made me try a few weeks ago?
No.
The New Martyr St. Hilarion (Troitsky) is squarely at odds with the statements of Archbishop Hilarion. You can read his text on-line at Orthodoxinfo.com. In his day, and even until today, in Russian theology he was (and is) considered a theological “star”. And, moreover, he was considered one of the leaders of the patristic revival in Russian theology at the turn of the century (1900-1920). He was a close and beloved advisor to St. Tikhon, as well.
Indeed, a whole host of Orthodox Saints would disagree with the Archbishop. His comments are not represenative of Orthodox ecclesiology and it is quite unsettling that he is representing the Russian Orthodox Church in the theological dialogue with the Vatican. It is also a shame, for they will not learn the truth, the true position of the Church.
Panagiotis,
I would like to respond with three observations, the third perhaps less charitable than the first two:
1. Who to admit or not admit to the eucharist is at the discretion of the ordinary. It has always been thus in both East and West. This authority to bind and loose is the very essence of the episcopal dignity. It would seem that you would reduce the bishop to a mere cipher, a mechanical instrument to apply inflexibly and without reflection abstract sacramental rites. Denial of communion is a disciplinary act, not a bureaucratic obligation. Even sinners and heretics can be admitted if they approach the sacrament in the proper frame of mind. A saint may disagree with an ordinary’s prudential judgment in a given case and choose another path, but he cannot argue patristically that a bishop is dogmatically inhibited from exercising judgment and discretion. If his brother bishops see scandal in his choices, they can remonstrate with him.
2. Similarly, if Metropolitan Hilarion’s brother bishops feel he is not doing justice to Orthodoxy, they can recall him as their representative. He enjoys this dignity at their pleasure, not by divine right.
3. Finally, a few years ago, I had to slap down (figuratively speaking, of course) a Ukrainian Catholic enthusiast who argued for recognition of patriarchal status for his major archbishop. I pointed out that there already was a Patriarch for his rite, residing in Moscow and to whom he and and his major archbishop would have to look to as his primate once reunion was achieved.
And yet I am confronted with the continuing use of the term “Russian Orthodox Church” which is, or at least should be, deeply troubling to Catholics, redolent as it is of phyletism and ethnic ecclesiastic hegemonism. If you would dialogue with Catholics, I would strongly recommend that you refer to the Moscow Patriarchate by its traditional title.
Anti-ecumenical Orthodox are fond of drawing up lists of things Catholics would have to conform to before reunion could be contemplated. Top of my list for Orthodoxy would be an end to the unscriptural, unpatristic and totally modernist perversion of “national” autocephally as an organizing ecclesiological principle. As a corollary, there would have to be a complete break with the hellenist apartheid practiced by the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem.
I can only commend Patriarch Kyril for his recent commitment to exercise a genuinely regional rather than national primacy, and spend half his time in Kiev from where he can minister to the half of his flock that resides in Ukraine without seeming to act as a Slavophile agent of Russian imperialism. All this is entirely consistent with the Patriarchate’s objection to recognition of an “independent” Estonian Church. If Kyril gets it, I don’t see why other Orthodox can’t.
Michaël,
Briefly in response to your points…
1. There is no canon that gives bishops sole authority over who to admit to communion. The Orthodox Church is both conciliar and synodal. Bishops do have some broad discretion in matters of ekonomia. However there is such a things as abuse of ekonomia. The canons generally give guidelines and at least hints when the bending of the normal rules is permissible. An example would be the reception of non-Orthodox without baptizing them. Although baptizing is normative the canons admit to the possibility of reception by Holy Chrismation which is an act of ekonomy.
On the other hand there are absolutely NO provision anywhere in church law, tradition (or Tradition), or among the Fathers or the saints for the admission of heretics to the Chalice. Such is absolutely and consistently forbidden. Yes some rules can be bent. But others can not or should not be. One might as well argue for the admissibility of 4th marriages or granting permission for priests or even bishops to marry. What you are basically arguing for is episcopal anarchism. Admitting heretics to communion is a very serious and sacrilegious act.
2. This is true. I have no reason to suggest +Hilarion should be recalled or suffer any discipline. His opinion on RC sacraments is not out of line with the opinions of many Orthodox hierarchs. However it is not the official position of the Church. The Church has no official position on the matter, although I note that at least some of the local churches have taken official stands at odds with the private opinions of +Hilarion.
3. The “Greek ethnic hegemony” in the Jerusalem Patriarchate is indeed a scandal. I say this openly and freely as an Orthodox Christian. And anyone else is free to express a similar opinion or to criticize the ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches. All that said, I have no authority over the JP. And neither does Rome. While you (and I) may not like it as a matter of private opinion, it is none of Rome’s business.
If there is ever going to be restoration of communion I would strongly encourage those on the Roman side of the fence to get used to the phrase “none of our business.” Because the first time you all try to tell the Eastern Churches how to order themselves you will get laughed at and see the prompt re-severing of communion.
And for the record our ecclesiology is no more unScrpitural or unPatristic than the top down divine right absolute monarchy you have running your church with one bishop and a bunch of mitered altar boys at his feet.
In ICXC
John
John,
Forgive me for continuing this conversation in this side thread. I just fear it will get lost otherwise. We are actually in almost complete agreement.
My point with respect to episcopal discretion is that there is no dogmatic bar against according communion to a heretic, particularly in extremis, IF he approaches the sacrament in a suitable state of mind. I am not suggesting open communion, and it could only be a gesture of ekonomia. Panagiotis seemed to be arguing the contrary and condemning Hilarion accordingly.
With respect to MYOB, I could not agree more. Even if I consider current Orthodox ecclesial praxis modernist and not fully scriptural or patristic, it is still what it is and it is still valid, and it is not a fundamental bar to reunion (though one might hope for progressive reform after reunion).
You might wish, however, to refer to Fr. Hopko’s long head-spinning “ecumenical wish list”, where he even presumes to dictate how Latins should choose their own bishops, perform their sacraments and private devotions, and order their clergy, and you will see how MYOB cuts both ways.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php#
There are limits, however, and in a united Church, the problem in Jerusalem would have to be addressed head on as there is no separate Catholic Byzantine Patriarchate to fuse with the Orthodox one (Melkites all being under Antioch). The Patriarch claims he is trying to move towards a solution that respects his Church’s constitution. There may now actually be a whole TWO Arab bishops in the Patriarchate (up from ONE last century). He claims that the problem lies in the lack of suitable Arab archimandrites and hieromonks to promote from within. I personally don’t buy that argument as his synod could just as easily pluck them from Antiochan monasteries as from Greek ones.
There is no way Rome would accept to stay in communion with a Church that operated this way, and I sincerely hope the Patriarchate deals with this matter aggressively on its own before it can itself become a Church dividing issue. Seriously, this is a ticking ecclesiological time-bomb. It doesn’t help that Jerusalem is already less than enthusiastic about reunion.
Finally, Catholic bishops are not the Pope’s “altar boys”, and you know it. There is an ultramontane temper in the Latin Church, but it is a minority current. The idea of treating all Latin bishops as “apostolic vicars” was actually infrequently mooted in the past but it would be extreme even for ultramontanes. Perhaps ironically, this idea disappeared before Vatican I which itself was the most ultramontane any Catholic council ever got.
Diane,
I echo Fr. Paul’s comments. Why are you always criticizing “internet Orthodox” as (despite your disclaimers) representative of Orthodoxy but never have time to acknowledge “internet Catholics” who take a similar hard line toward others?
Also: I think the complaint of a “lack of charity toward one’s fellow apostolic Christians” rings a little hollow. What is your Church’s (and, I suspect, your) teaching on the validity of Anglican orders? Yet, we know they consider themselves Apostolic and fly into a rage every time their orders are questioned by Rome. If there’s something untoward about giving offense when it comes to the sacramental validity of other churches, then the Vatican fails your own standard.
I’m not saying the Vatican is wrong. I’m just asking you to be consistent.
Phil,
Specifically with respect to Anglican orders, the Vatican IS being consistent. It applies the same rules it has always applied to all those claiming Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Church has no problems with Eastern or Oriental Orthodox orders, or those of the Assyrian Church of the East or, for that matter, with those of the Polish National Catholic Church.
The problem with Anglican orders is linked to unique and specific historical circumstances. I hesitate to get into them in detail on a site devoted to Orthodox-Catholic ecumenism, and would prefer not to do so here without our host’s specific invitation.
With repsect to uncharitable “Internet Catholics,” yes they certainly exist. I find the “Nyah, nyah, we have valid orders and you don’t” level of triumphalist gloating on Damian Thompson’s Telegraph blog particulalry unedifying (not that Damian himself indulges in such puerilities).
If anyone was wondering what I am talking about, try:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/damianthompson/
Phil, Father Paul, and John (Ad Orientem): I do apologize. I was in a mood. Sorry.
But honestly, I do not much see the Catholic hard line y’all speak of, not even on the Internet. Does even the traddiest Trad deny that Orthodox mysteries are valid and Grace-filled? Do even the Feeneyites claim this? (And, even if they do [which I rather doubt], how does this represent Catholicism? Hard-core Feeneyites are self-excommunicated, aren’t they? How can non-Catholics represent Catholicism?)
I have certainly seen some real Catholic kooks on the Internet. But has any of them — any in communion with Rome, that is — ever said the sort of stuff Panagiotis says? I’m sorry, but there is a difference in both kind and degree — a dramatic difference — between the kind of stuff our Orthodox brethren say about us and the kind of stuff I’ve seen Catholics say about Orthodox. It takes my breath away, frankly.
Can you produce any quote from any Internet Catholic denying or even questioning the validity of Orthodox sacraments? If so, I will gladly eat my words. (Must be an actual Catholic, not a sedevacantist or a follower of Pope Pius XXV or whatever. ;))
At another forum, a woman named Rosemarie articulated my experience better than I can. She described how she waded into Catholic-Orthodox Internet dialogue with enthusiastic abandon, only too happy to be interacting with Christians “so close to us,” who share our veneration for Mary and the Saints, our appreciation for liturgy and hierarchy, our belief in the Real Presence, etc. Within a very short while, her illusions were shattered. She came up smack against “the gospel of division and exclusion” — one doesn’t have to search very far for it on the Internet — and it hit her like a punch in the stomach. She was told that the pope was anti-Christ, that Catholicism was graceless, and the whole nine yards.
I remember precisely the feeling of disillusionment she described. I know that punched-in-the-stomach feeling. It is a spiritual thing: When you read the rantings of Athonite monks describing your church as evil and satanic, it is disturbing and depressing beyond belief.
A woman at Catholic Answers forums described a similar experience to me. An Orthodox poster there actually PMd her privately — unsolicited, I might add — in order to tell her that Eucharistic Adoration was demonic. (She had posted publicly at CA about her love for Eucharistic Adoration and about the many graces she had experienced during it. She wasn’t addressing this Orthodox guy or anything; in fact, I believe she wasn’t even posting in the Eastern Christianity forum. She was just sharing her experiences, in a very heartfelt way…whereupon this guy PMed her to tell her how deceived she was, how demonic Catholicism is, and how especially demonic Eucharistic Adoratrion is. Seriously. I am not making this up. When she complained to the then-moderator, she was told, basically, to grin and bear it; that’s just the Eastern Way, or something. [Yep, abusive, unsolicited PMs; nothing wrong here; just mosey along now…] Thankfully that moderator is now gone.)
Siuch experiences are far more common than you’d think. Maybe women get hit with this stuff more often than men do; I dunno. All I know is that, when you’re exposed to enough of this stuff, it kind of colors your attitudes, whether you want it to or not.
Phil, you mention Anglican orders, but IMHO that’s a red herring. First off, how do you know we Catholics do not sympathize with our Anglican brethren? I don’t see many of us saying, “Nyah-nyah, your orders aren’t valid, so there, neener-neener.” Maybe it happens, but I haven’t seen much of it. Most Catholics at the fora where I hang out bend over backward to make ecumenical nice-nice. But maybe I’m just missing out on the really ripe fora where the battle-lines are more sharply drawn. ;) Secondly, as (presumably) an Orthodox(??), you know as well as I do that the Anglican situation is different. Elizabethan and Jacobean Anglicanism explicitly rejected the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the sacraments and especially of the Eucharist. The Thirty-Nine Articles (which still remmain in force in the CofE) explicitly reject the substantial Real Presence and the sacrificial / propitiatary nature of the Eucharist. this is a radical break with apostolic tradition, as both Met Jonah and Catholicism recognize. Therefore, as both Catholicism and Orthodoxy recognize, Anglicanism does not represent unbroken Apostolic Christianity. Acknowledging this does not represent anti-ecumenism or uncharity. It simply means that we have to draw the line somewhere. We must speak the truth in love…but we still have to speak the truth!
I hope this helps clarity where I stand.
Thanks….
Diane
P.S. A side note: From the Catholic POV, ISTM that it’s hard to find a happy medium among Catholics on the Internet. On the one hand, we have the EEMS hard-liners condemning all non-Catholics to Hell (yet still acknowledging the validity of Orthodox mysteries ;)). On the other hand, we have the ecumenical teddy-bears who go way too far in the other direction, essentially blurring all distinctions and assuming that Orthodoxy and Catholicism = “six of one; half dozen of the other.” Neither approach is ideal, although I think the truth lies more in the ecumenical-teddybear direction. However, I do think the teddy-bears go too far. The Holy Father’s nuanced statements point to a much sounder middle way, IMHO. Anyhoo….
Diane,
You must not get around too much. I routinely see very nasty comments from Romans about the Orthodox.
Patriarchs Bartholomew and Kiril should catch the next flight to Rome, crawl to St Peter’s on their blooded knees, kiss the Sacred Feet of the Supreme Pontiff, then kiss his ring.
After which, they can beg mercy and forgiveness for a thousand years of schism.
After which, they can prostrate themselves while the Holy Father pronounces absolution, with both his feet resting on their necks.
Then, and only then, will there be reunion.
Hey, a Papophile can dream, can’t he?
-From a comment on Rorate Caeli
In ICXC
John
John,
I think you might be missing on the (albeit unkind) humour intended in the post you cite. Papophile, whoever he may be, is satirizing blow for blow the tripe Catholics are regularly subjected to. Just check the posts by Mark in the “About” thread our host mercifully felt he had to shut down, where Catholicism is described amongst other things as “the worst heresy ever”. Being implicitly unfavourably compared to gnostics and bogomils is quite bracing, let me assure you.
as a traddy trad and exfeeneyite, I feel an obliga
As a traddy trad and an exfeeneyite, here goes:
a) traddy trads are not necessarily feeneyites: FSSPX (Mgr Lefèbvre of blessed memory), Le Barroux (Dom Gérard of blessed memory) et c hold with the catechism of St Pius X that someone in personnally innocent ignorance of the whole truth may yet have supernatural faith in truths he knows and belong if not to the body at least to the soul of the Church; two of the alternative Popes are/were non-feeneyite, to wit Gregory XVII of Palmar de Troya and Michael of Vatican-in-Exile.
b) feeneyites do not necessarily deny that grace may be given in Orthodox baptism, maybe only that it is lost in one who obeys a schismatic bishop rather than the Pope (I was never quite strong on feeneyite positions)
However, the question is about the sacraments that for validity require jurisdiction (according to RC theology, where this does not include marriage), that is confession and maybe chrismation. There are hardliners who say that as Orthodox lack jurisdiction … except in the case of faithful being near death and out of reach for Catholic priests with jurisdiction or when the absence of sacraments would otherwise be too much prolonged.
A woman at Catholic Answers forums described a similar experience to me. An Orthodox poster there actually PMd her privately — unsolicited, I might add — in order to tell her that Eucharistic Adoration was demonic.
BTW, this illustrates exactly what I am talking about. Have you ever seen a Catholic — ANY Catholic in good standing, no matter how traddie — PMing some poor Orthodox to inform her that the Jesus Prayer is demonic? If this ever happens, it’s gotta be pretty darned rare! And that is precisely my point. Thanks…
I don’t see many of us saying, “Nyah-nyah, your orders aren’t valid, so there, neener-neener.” Maybe it happens, but I haven’t seen much of it.
LOL, I posted this before I saw Michael’s post…I must go and check out those comments at Damian’s blog. :o
Diane,
Sadly, the lack of charity from some Orthodox circles is not a purely Internet phenomenon. Apparently Patriarch Michael III (no relation!) described his Roman counterpart in official correspondence with the Emperor as a “heretical layman.” Mind you, this sort of statement just tends to make Catholics roll their eyes. Allude to problems with respect to Anglican orders, on the other hand, and stand prepared to witness the inevitable howls of apoplectic outrage. I still can’t figure out why Anglican even care what Catholics think of their orders. It’s as if we somehow owe it to them to accept their ecclesiology as our own.
All this gets us beyond the substance of the matter, however. Until some Pan-Orthodox council passes formal judgment on Catholic sacraments, we have to accept that there is a diversity of opinion on the matter within Orthodoxy, and put up with the Marks and (and noticeably more tame) Panagiotes of this world.
LOL, John, you’re right–I don’t get around too much. Ouch!!!
Michaël,
My comment wasn’t about the validity of Anglican orders per se (I’m not Anglican), but only about whether coming to the underlying conclusion – whatever the “rules” used to get there – necessarily meant having a “lack of charity” towards one’s fellow Christians. I don’t think it does, but, if it does, fingers can be pointed at both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Diane,
Well, that’s funny, I was going to use the same quote John gave. However, I don’t keep track of these comments (that one has just stood out in my mind), so I can’t give you one specifically targeted at the sacramental validity of Orthodoxy – which is why I just said “hard line.” Anyway: I don’t like to see that kind of thing coming from either side. My point was simply that drawing the line somewhere is likely to offend some well-meaning Christian group, and that Rome also draws lines (even toward the Orthodox, who are told that they are lacking, valid Mysteries notwithstanding, in the fullness of grace by virtue of being separated from the see of Rome). Perhaps it’s better to not take offense, even though that isn’t always easy to do. Just a thought from somebody who doesn’t always do a very good job of it himself.
Michaël,
I recall rather vividly the subject of the post at Rorate and the tone of the comments posted there. There was no humor in his post. While he may not have entertained any realistic hope of that coming to pass, that comment is a very accurate reflection of the gentleman’s sentiments towards us.
Which simply goes to the point that there are extremists and rude people on both sides of the fence.
In ICXC
John
John,
Well, that is certainly dismaying. I hope other Catholic posters called him to order. I don’t think I would be tempted to hang around that kind of site otherwise (not that I do as I never heard of it until now.)
Hans-Georg–I am so sorry your comment got cut off; I am really interested in your perspective on this!
BTW, I still maintain that, if one scoured the Internet and did a count, one could easily find 100 nasty comments by Orthodox re Catholicism for every one by Catholics re Orthodoxy.
But, as I have no desire to engage in such a dispiriting exercise, I’ll have to leave this claim unsubstantiated. I’m sure my Catholic confreres know exactly what I mean. ;)
crawl to St Peter’s on their blooded knees
and
with both his feet resting on their necks
must be taken as ruffian’s version of British humour, it is certainly nothing like canonical
the rest could be envisaged as an agenda, the reverse of which has also been envisaged in an amusing article about the Pope falling down on his face before Patriarchs of Moscow, Jerusalem and Constantinople, only to have to wait excessively long while all other orthodox patriarchs and sui juris metropolitans arrive, and disagree about who should be or not be present on that moment
I would venture to suggest that the quote John has found is the exception that proves the rule. One has to seek pretty far for such anti-Orthodox venom from the Catholic side. One doesn’t have to seek far at all for similar venom from the Orthodox side — in fact, it tends to reach out and slap one in the face when one least expects it. ;)
I have just skimmed Mark’s comments in ABOUT US, to which Michael alluded above. Whew.
No one can tell me that this sort of thing is not fairly common on the Internet. Mark is far from an isolated case. I suspect we all know that, really.
Michael,
Thanks for putting up with me ;-). . .
But, again it is not “me” that you are “putting up with”. Who am I, anyway – a nobody. But those Saints who so wrote. But, perhaps it isn’t right to “put up” with Saints (new martyrs, for instance), but rather “look up” to them.
If we did that we might actually get somewhere. . .
Panagiotis,
Please don’t feel offended if a treated you as part of a type rather than as a person. Unlike some ecumenical skeptics you do succeed in projecting sincerity with respect to desiring reunion. I genuinely value your perspective, even if I don’t see it as moving us towards the goal. It serves as a caution, however, and points to shoals that lie just below the water.
If you ever find a way to bring Old Believers and Old Calendrists back into the fold, do let us know. That trick might have wider application. ;-)
Panagiotis
in our Church we have no problem believing that saints can get it wrong (I would probably not choose to go to confession to the cure of Ars for example). Since you can find saints saying everythiung and its opposite – in your Church as in ours – and gaily contradicting each other, we mustr needs conclude that deification, at least before its heavenly consummation, does not necessarily confer a participation in divine omniscience, nor in divine inerrancy. Even a saint who had reached a sttate of perfection need not be without error except in the case of the kind of error which would lead hoim or her to sin.
I say people leaving those kinds of comments should go to one another’s services and stay for coffee hour (Catholics can come to our Vespers, since they have to fulfill their Sunday obligation and all that). Start a conversation not about Orthodox-Catholic relations, like music. Let’s see you be rude to someone’s face, especially if they enjoy classic rock just as much as you do!
Seriously, I think the most God-fearing people having to deal the this subject never lost sight of the fact that there are actual people “on the other side” who are loved by the Lord. Sadly, this can be shadowed by the over-zealous (“zeal not according to knowledge”).
…And it’s been only just recently that this tendency has not discouraged me deeply, but yeah, I know what diane means (I’m sure the Mother of God is tired of hearing me complain about it, at any rate).
As an Orthodox Christian who would like to see a restoration of communion between the churches, I welcome Vladyka Hilarion’s comments. I think mutual recognition of the validity of sacraments is the ice breaker that is needed.
zsc and AMM — may your tribe increase!!
Thank you. Your words are balm for a wounded soul. :)
AMM,
We are not a dinner party here, so an “ice breaker” is not what will help. Rather, the truth of things is what is called for. The question is whether or not Catholicism is the church, and thus has mysteries. (I don’t say “a” church, because there is only one, as we confess in the Symbol of Faith.) It is a matter of dogma, of ecclesiology, and the answer is not one you or I will “think up” or “like”, but have received from our Fathers. If we are not following them, accepting what they have received, we cannot call ourselves Orthodox. And, furthermore, we will never see the “restoration of communion” you seek if it is not based on the truth, on the Holy Tradition.
So, does Archbishop Hilarion represent the received teaching of the Church on the matter? Is he saying what they have said? If not, not only is it not an “ice breaker”, it is potentially a “communion breaker” – the communion of the Orthodox. For sure, he is saying something that even most Orthodox involved in ecumenism for years (like Fr. Florovsky or Fr. Staniloae) never said. But, moreover, search as you will, you will not find even one Orthodox Saint of the past 500 years who said what he said in that interview regarding their mysteries.
I think the statement of Archbishop Hilarion is based on the ground-breaking scholarship of Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev, whose major work, The Church of the Holy Spirit, has just been published in English.
Fr. Afanasiev essentially argues the ecclesiology must be based on eucharistic theology. In other words, the Eucharist is the foundation of the Church.
This view influenced Roman Catholic theologians such as Congar and is itself one of the primary inspirations of Vatican II.
It was also one of the primary inspiration for the liturgical renewal in the Russian Orthodox Church.
Fr. Afanasiev based his arguments on a deep study of the early Church’s eucharistic and ecclesiological theology.
The current ecumenical rapprochment between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is a reflection of this vision of the early, undivided, Church.
Quite a bit of the theology of the Orthodox Church in the last 500 years did not reflect this understanding about the early Church due, no doubt, to a loss of historical memory.
Saints do not and cannot replace historical memory nor can they be a substitute for sound, objective, scholarship. They live in particular places and times, reflecting the knowledge that is current. They may have an experience that is “outside” that time and place but they can only express that experience through the language of that time and place.
the answer is not one you or I will “think up” or “like”, but have received from our Fathers.
I agree with you no both counts:
– My opinion is essentially insignificant and meaningless in deciding what ultimately will happen.
– The fathers of the undivided church should be our guide.
“On both counts” that is.
AMM,
Thanks for your comments.
One note, if I may?
Is there a time when the Church was or can be “divided”? If not, why the reference to the “undivided church”?
Can we ever speak of a time when the church was or is divided? Can it be the Church, then, which we confess is “one” in the Symbol of Faith?
Evagrius,
Fr. Afanasiev’s ecclesiology was not adopted by the likes of Fr. Florovsky, nor is it consistent with the Patristic approach to ecclesiology, which is not agiopnevmatiki but christologically-based. It is the BODY OF CHRIST, not the BODY of the HOLY SPIRIT. And the Fathers who speak of the CHurch this way are not only those of the last 500 years. BUt, the reason why their contribution matters is that during this time the question of the mysteries of the “Latins” (as they referred to Catholicism) was especially discussed. So, no, under no circumstances can we brush aside their witness with theories “peri istoriki mnimi” and what they can and cannot discuss or contribute. Which, in any case, smacks of arrogance and academic elitism. Fr. Afanasiev and all the Fr. Afanasievs of the Church are authorities in the Church not because they wrote a “ground-breaking” study but because they ascended to theoria and spoke from experience – yes, even on this matter of ecclesiology. No academic theologian can claim that on the strength of his bright-mindedness and research.
And, in any case, why do you think that Fr. Afanasiev can express the experience of the fathers outside of his time and place – the spiritually impoverished 20th century?
Panagioti
of course as a heretic living ungraced and without mysteries, and with pretentions to be an academic theologian to boot, my opinion and my questions can be of little concern to you. Could you nonetheless be so kind as to answer me one question?
Your charismatic view of church authority (for such it is, notwithstanding your scorn for the contemporary “charismatic” movement) seems to be the brain child of a few (academic) theologians of the (spiritually impoversihed) 20th century. On what grounds therefore do you make it an “articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesiae”. Or who taught it before Romanides and Florovsky?
By the way, i though “christomonism” in ecclesiology was supposed to be a Latin fault, resulting from the filique…
Mr. Dimitriadis,
I’m a little confused as to what you’re arguing. Fr. Afanasiev bases his thesis on the Eucharist, not the Holy Spirit. You should read the book.
The experience of “theoria” does not remove ignorance. If that were so, then we would not have the present situation.
Is there a time when the Church was or can be “divided”?
Good question, and if Catholic priests for instance are received in their orders as Vladyka states, one must ask is the division is sacramental or administrative. Perhaps our problem is identifying exactly where division starts and ends as stated by Fr. Florovsky; in other words, what are the limits of the church and do we always clearly recognize them?
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/limits_church.htm
It should be noted that a number of Orthodox patiarches and bishops also thought for a time that Anglican orders were valid in much the same way. the good bishop’s view doesn’t of itself move the ball down the field one way or another.
Panagiotis,
I don’t understand your sacramental ecclesiology. Let’s say for the sake of argument, and as it has happened in the past, that one Patriarch excommunicates another. Who is in the Church and who is not? Does membership in the body of Christ somehow cease with excommunication? If you fail to commune for whatever reason, have you left the Church? What role does baptism play in defining who is or is not part of the body of Christ? If even one baptized Christian is excluded or falls away, is not the Church divided as a result? Or is his incorporation in the body of Christ somehow washed away?
It should be noted that a number of Orthodox patiarches and bishops also thought for a time that Anglican orders were valid in much the same way. the good bishop’s view doesn’t of itself move the ball down the field one way or another.
If Vladyka Hilarion is saying that in practice Catholic priests are (and not would be) received in their orders and through a profession of faith alone, then I think that is something other than the speculation on Anglican orders; some who which is documented on Project Canterbury
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.html
Clearly at least in some isolated cases, there was more than speculation
http://orthodoxhistory.org/?p=1123
Oh blast, I can’t type.
“some of which is documented”
Perry: Thankfully the Catholic Magisterium had too much sense ever to think Anglican Orders were valid. ;)
Impishly,
Diane
Diane and Fr. Paul,
I regard as valid both Catholic as well as traditional Anglo-Catholic orders.
Diane,
the reason Orthodox don’t construct human chains or walls outside abortion-clinics is the same as why we don’t proselytize (and no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Turks or with the communists).
Anglo-Catholic orders valid?
If an Orthodox bishop gives orders to Anglo-Catholic priests, maybe so. Then Rome too recognises his orders as valid.
Problem: Anglo-Catholicism is as within the Anglican community a novum of the 19th C.
Can a cheirotonia become valid after generations of non-valid cheirotoniai, as the Anglicans had had when regarding Calvin and Bucer as true reformers?
Then idea is that they mantain the custom, and haven’t given up on it. Some Lutheran Churches had valid ordination at the beginning (when entire national Catholic churches became Lutheran), but then later gave up on the notion of bishoprick and adopted a presbyterian mentality. The idea is to maintain the practice, since there can be, *strictly* speaking, no apostolic succession of priests or bishops where the apostolic faith has been given up (Catholicism, Monophysism, Anglicanism) — otherwise Arianism would’ve had “valid orders” also, for instance.
Lucian,
I know this might sound impertinent, but since you are not in a position to admit Catholic or Anglo-Catholic clergy into Orthodoxy (with or without orders), your view of the matter won’t carry much weight. To the extent that it differs from views offered by other Orthodox, it just adds to the confusion.
There just isn’t a consistent Orthodox position regarding the validity of particular sacraments performed outside the bounds of Orthodoxy. This is a matter on which Orthodoxy could usefully come to a common mind. It need not reciprocate Catholic recognition of Orthodox sacraments, but the lack of a common Orthodox position makes it difficult to agree exactly on the nature, cause and significance of the schism, and so the steps required to heal it.
We are of one mind. Just that that one mind is neither that heresy is blameless, or that doctrines don’t matter, or that I can commune with people obviously fallen in error, or tolerate their error; nor is it that what they’re doing is worthless, meaningless, grace-less, merely symbolical etc.
Lucian,
Ok, but let’s look at it in a practical sense, sticking to Catholic sacraments alone:
1. Are Latin baptisms valid? If so, should not the practice of rebaptising Catholics be banned?
2. Are Latin confirmations valid? If so, should Catholics not be admitted to Orthodoxy on the basis of a simply profession of faith?
3. Are Latin ordinations valid? If so, should not absolute reordination of Catholic clergy be banned?
4. Is the Latin eucharist valid? If so, and recognizing that validity does not negate disciplinary restrictions associated with schism or the possibility of doctrinal error, should not Orthodox be allowed in extremis to seek communion from a Catholic priest if an Orthodox one is not available?
5. If Latin sacraments are valid, one what basis can they be treated differently than the sacraments of Eastern Catholics?
Insofar as I can tell, there is no consistent Orthodox practice on these questions.
That said, unity of faith is more important to me than provisional or economic extension of communion in extremis. But generalized acceptance of the validity of Catholic sacraments would at least limit the field of essential discussion to doctrinal differences, leaving aside their liturgical expression as important but inessential.
the same as why we don’t proselytize
By “proseytize,” do you mean “evangelize”? Did not the Lord Himself command us to preach the Gospel to the four corners of the earth and make disciples of all nations? Am I missing something here? How do the Church and the Faith spread without evangelization? [Diane scratches head]
Michael, (and Fr Paul)
the answer to Your questions is ‘no’, for the reasons already spelled out, though probably not thoroughly explained.
Take for instance the Baptism controversy between the Pope of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage: they argued for opposite, extreme views, based on their local customs. The Second Ecumenical Council, on the other hand (universally acknowledged, and not merely on a local level) opted for a more nuanced, balanced way with regards to the Baptisms and ordinations done by various heretical groups.
If we >”re”-everything< every single Catholic, Anglican, or Monophysite coming into Orthodoxy, we do nothing wrong; but we're not obliged to. It's at our liberty to do as we please, as we see fit, as we judge right, given the various situations that might occur.
We cannot, on the verge of death, add one more totally unnecessary sin to burdain our souls with: commune from the table of heretics: we will be judged by God together with the ones we sit down at the table and eat, just like it happened with that prophet in the Old Testament.
We do not appreciate the unrepentant hardening of the heart: if you find out that something's wrong and yet nonetheless continue to do it, this is a sin against the Holy Ghost: that's why we can never partake with heretics. They may not know or be aware of their heresy, but you are, and as such, you can't pretend not to. — Just because God hasn't totally and utterly forsaken them does NOT mean that just because some-One gives you a finger you have to take the whole hand, by continuing to persist in your wrong ways, mistaking God's mercy and long-suffering for an encouragement to further indulge unhindered in your mistakes.
———-
Diane,
I don't know; the difference lies in our attitude towards those to whom we witness: we have to respect them and their wishes, and to do it in meekness and love, without trying to force them.
The irony of all this is that Our Lord, Jesus Christ, “communed” with “heretics” and sinners. Simply by being present with them He “communed” with them.
Preaching the Gospel to heretics and sinners in view of conversion and repentance is one thing; communing with them after rejecting the Christian message and believing that it doesn’t really matter anyway is quite another.
Lucian,
Can you quote these canons of Constantinople providing this “nuanced” approach to rebaptism? The West only recognizes four canons, and none of them deals with this topic.
If you recognize a baptism as valid, what possible legitimate rationale would you have for rebaptizing? What exactly would this repetition of the rite be intended to convey? Why not rebaptize after each confession, just to make sure?
You are presupposing that Catholics are heretics, btw. If you could point me to any pan-Orthodox council making this determination, I would be grateful.
You are presupposing that Catholics are heretics, btw.
Heck, he seems to be presupposing we aren’t even Christians! Viz: “communing with them after rejecting the Christian message and believing that it doesn’t really matter anyway is quite another [matter].”
So now we’ve rejected the Christian message. LOL! ;)
Can you quote these canons of Constantinople providing this “nuanced” approach to rebaptism?
I linked to the exact canon above.
If you recognize a baptism as valid, what possible legitimate rationale would you have for rebaptizing?
Because they’re not really cusher to begin with, so rebaptizing them is not necesarilly (or not really) rebaptizing them.
You are presupposing that Catholics are heretics, btw. If you could point me to any pan-Orthodox council making this determination, I would be grateful.
Catholics belong to a trinitarian heresy, which directly contradicts the clear and universal teaching of the Eastern Fathers. (I think I have to repeat: of the Eastern Fathers). Their heresies were anathemized at the so-called eighth and ninth ecumenical councils (which aren’t really as ecumenical as the first seven, but nonetheless rank higher than other pan-orthodox synods).
Lucian,
Go back to the page you linked to and click “previous.” Then tell me again that this canon is “universally acknowledged, and not merely on a local level”.
Even if one were to accept it as a given, however, it provides specific and consistent rules for each form of heretic. It doesn’t allow for different jurisdictions treating the same type of heretic differently. Indeed the whole point of hte exercise would have been to ensure that all jurisdicitons DID treat the same form of heretic the same way.
“Because they’re not really cusher to begin with, so rebaptizing them is not necesarilly (or not really) rebaptizing them.”
Then why not use chrismation or a profession of faith as some Orhtodox jurisdictions do? It’s the lack of consistency that is the problem, not the terms for readmission per se.
“Their heresies were anathemized at the so-called eighth and ninth ecumenical councils (which aren’t really as ecumenical as the first seven, but nonetheless rank higher than other pan-orthodox synods).”
That council anathemized an INTERPRETATION of the filioque to which Catholics do not and have never subscribed. The canon also doesn’t specifically accuse Latins of subscribing to this anathemized interpretation. You will note that the papal legates had no problems signing the relevent canon. Surely this should be a clue that the Latin West didn’t feel targetted by it.
The Quinisext is ecumenical as far as we’re concerned (since You were curious as to why and how WE do what WE do).
As I’ve said and You’ve confirmed, some are stricter, and some more balanced: it’s not wrong to be either way, since the Fathers are both ways, depending on custom or situation.
No, and probably because there was no reason for the then-Orthodox pope of Rome to feel so; which is more than I can say for his Frank successors.
You reject the Orthodox message. (I was speaking more broadly above, because what I said or wrote there applies to many other situations as well, out of which this is only a part or a peculiar aspect).
R U saying that filioque is per se a heresy?
Which of the Seven Councils condemned it?
Or that it lacks support from Orthodox Fathers “before the Franks” supposedly changed Latin theology?
I am born in 1968. That is EXACTLY 1600 years after the heavenly birthday of St Hilary of Poitiers (who is in the calendar of the here Roumanian metropoly). He died before the Second Council, he unified the clergy of Gaul. And he believed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the TWO OTHER Persons.
He lived under persecution from Arians. So did St Athanasius. Who certainly did not write as a creed the Quicumque vult, but who wrote and believed it as a true explanation of the faith.
Why is it in Latin only, not in Coptic or Greek? Written in exile in Trier.
Why is it not his usual style, but clumsy? Written in the Latin he knew only from that exile in Trier, no longer than two years.
Why is it preserved only in the Occident? Written under the exile in Trier.
Why was the filioque promoted by the Franks? Because of their piety to Sts Athanasius and Hilary, both of whom were certainly Orthodox, not to mention the somewhat later Saints of hippo Regia and Rome.
The first canon of the Sigillikon of 1583 attacks not only the then Pope and his faithful theologian St Robert Bellarmine, not only St Augustine and St Leo the Great, but also St Hilary and St Athanasius.
Which of the Seven Councils condemned it?
I have to repeat to You what I already said to Michael: it completely contradicts the unified dogmatic teaching of the Eastern Fathers on the Trinity: once something does that, it’s automatically a heresy. The Synods had a practical purpose, each being a response to a certain specific heresy… not to any possible heresy that might ever occur, or something like that. (Giving communion to animals, for instance, was never condemned at any Council: what do You suggest? That we ‘give it a shot’?).
I have gone to jail with Orthodox who took part in the construction of human chains and walls outside abortion-clinics. I was not Orthodox at the time.
Orthodox are involved in the mainstream Right to Life movement.
Before RICO laws changed the game and “rescues” were used to shut death mills down, Orthodox regularly took part in those activities. After RICO laws were brought into effect, those few who still engaged in such activities were given long jail sentences. Some years ago I heard that an Orthodox man I had met in the more radical wing of the pro-life movement was among those serving a long sentence, but I have not been able to find out where he is. Knowing him, it would not surprise me if he did go that route.
Even among the Catholic group “Lambs of Christ,” there were a couple of occasional Orthodox participants, as well as some Prots.
To my knowledge, all of the Orthodox I ever met who were involved in the pro-life movement, from mainstream to more creative levels, did so with the blessing of their priest and/or bishop. Obviously, none of them were directly under the Ecumenical Patriarch.
All that said, credit is due where credit is due, there would be no pro-life movement in the United States today were it not for Catholics, particularly a few devoted priests (I have been in jail with several Catholic priests and one retired bishop as well). There would probably not even be wide-scale pro-life sentiments of a sort which keep our abortion rates lower than in other Western countries. The Orthodox witness against the murder of unborn children in this country is abysmal. There is no aspect of popular Orthodox antinomianism which disgusts me more than a spiritualizing nonchalance with regard to the state sanctioned slaughter of innocents.
I say this as one who recognizes that some Catholics almost make a religion in itself out of the pro-life “cause.” I am not one interested in “causes.” But having held in my arms babies that are alive today because of the work of side-walk counselors and crisis pregnancy center volunteers, I know that there is a reality at stake here beyond the petty ephemera of political causes, and most people you meet who do the real work within pro-life groups (I mean those who do real things – not just the letter writers and those who stand once a year with a sign) are not activist sorts. They simply feel an obligation to act in a manner which might save a human life.
I regard as valid both Catholic as well as traditional Anglo-Catholic orders.
Lucian, at one time I believed the same about the latter. I came to the belief that Leo XIII got it right though.
Your job is not to save babies or to feed the poor; your job is to save the souls of the women heading for an abortion; it’s them that have to be saved, not the infants (that’s why Orthodox living in Orthodox countries don’t make recourse to such methods as building human chains: if they’re hard-headed, and if their hearts are hardened, and their souls are darkened, and they won’t listen, then let them do as they please: he who desires to come after me let him take up his Cross and follow Me: we force no-one; not that there’s anything wrong with your methods though…). It is they, and not me or my grandmother, that have to live eternally with that tar on their conscience, for ever and ever, world without end, Amen.
I came to the belief that Leo XIII got it right though.
A broken pot laughs at a shard… Well, at least it’s not the other way around.
Lucian,
Before laughing, you should read the relevant documents. If you then still consider Anglican Orders in Leo’s time valid, then I would have to question your understand of Apostolic Succession.
The situation has admittedly changed somewhat since Leo XIII, however, after Anglicans received ordination from Old Catholic bishops. It doesn’t clear up all difficulties, however, as belief in the real presence and the sacrificial nature of the mass are not mandatory (and seemingly never has been) for Anglican bishops, but are a prerequisite for forming the intent to ordain validly. Nevertheless, if the claimant can establish an unbroken chain of ordination by eucharistically orthodox bishops stretching back to those early Old Catholic ordinations, then his orders “might” be valid. As a result Anglican clergy who convert are now often conditionally ordained.
I’m not the one laughing; the Pope is.
Michaël,
Dr. Tighe recently told me that only three Anglican bishops in the last 50 years have been conditionally reordained. He said that all or virtually all of the incoming Anglican convert priests who will come into the RCC via the new Anglican ordinate will be ordained, not conditionally reordained.
Those Orthodox who have recognized Anglican orders as valid in the past did so because they were mistaken, and often led to be mistaken by certain parties within the Anglican communion. Dr. Tighe’s thoughts in this thread are helpful –
http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-recent-anglican-matters.html#links
In that thread Tighe notes:
“…[Kinsman] mentions the persistent Orthodox misapprehension that Anglo-Catholicism, especially in theological matters, represented “real” Anglicanism, and also the Anglican reluctance to disabuse the Orthodox of this notion (rather the contrary); of how the Orthodox, always very pleased to learn that they and the Anglicans shared so many theological ideas, would often ingenuously suggest that the Anglicans should make such matters — invocation of the Theotokos and the saints, prayer for the dead etc. — more explicitly a part of their Prayer Book and its rites; and of how such suggestions were met by public reserve and private embarassment, sometimes accompanied by expressions of a “why can’t we just accept one another as we are” sort, on the Episcopalian side. Plus ca change …”
That sounds about right, but I suspect the number of conditionally ordained priests is much greater. The bar is quite high as the claimant has to do all the research in proving the orthodoxy of all those in his chain of ordination.
In any case, many Anglo-Catholics choose to remain convinced that Rome somehow has this unique animus towards them manifest in this non recognition. Sensibly, evangelicals don’t seem to care as much.
Your job is not to save babies or to feed the poor
So, Mathew 25: 31-46 is not in the Orthodox Bible?
I am frankly stunned. Lucian, surely your views do not represent Orthodoxy!
Diane,
the reason we feed the poor is not to save them, but to save ourselves. And the reason we fight abortions is not to save the babies, but their mothers. (Matthew 6:28-34 and 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 for the poor; and 1 Timothy 2:15 for the later).
Owen,
I checked your blog and am impressed. How do your Orthodox participants manage to avoid the nasty anti-Catholicism that sometimes creeps into this one despite its ecumenical vocation? Is it the vocation itself that attracts those disposed to trollishness?
the reason we feed the poor is not to save them, but to save ourselves. And the reason we fight abortions is not to save the babies, but their mothers.
Um, can’t it be both? To save the poor and ourselves? To save the mother and the baby? Is there something wrong with saving the baby from a gruesome, horrific death??
I don’t get your reasoning. I am at a loss. It escapes me.
And, as Ochlophobist says, there are Orthodox involved in pro-life activities with the blessing of their priests and bishops, so clearly your views are just that: views, not Orthodox Teaching.
The primary reason is to destroy sin: in ourselves and in others. To break ourselves and others free from the chains of selfishness, self-centeredness, egotism, greed, and materialism (which passions are primarily responsible for both lack of charity for the needy, and getting an abortion). Communism and capitalism tended to view these things through a wordly and superficial lens of pragmatism: but this doesn’t deliver the soul from under the power of sinful passions.
In any case, many Anglo-Catholics choose to remain convinced that Rome somehow has this unique animus towards them manifest in this non recognition.
In my experience it was not really viewed as an animus, but a misunderstanding on the part of Rome that could eventually be explained or presented in such a way that the obstacles could be overcome. When I looked at it though, I could not get over the issue of the Edwardine Ordinal. There are other modern issues, aside from gender and sexuality (the obvious ones), that make the issue of orders very complicated.
I think the ordinate may be limited in its appeal because of this issue of orders, the reason being I think there will be no or next to no conditional ordinations. Divorce and re-marriage will be another issue that looms large, and will hold many back. The ordinate at least would allow those converting to maintain their liturgical and theological patrimony; if they looked at the Orthodox side they would face essentially forced Byzantinization and among many quarters (particularly among the convert heavy segments of Orthodoxy) reflexive and at times almost hysterical anti-westernism.
They will face no such things, since the Western rites were created especially for such situations.
conversiaddominum.blogspot.com
(And since a great many Anglicans are already in love with the riches and beauty of the Eastern rite, which they even try to copy, I don’t think that they’ll have a problem with the other option either).
Even the absolute ordination rite as applied to former Anglican clergy doesn’t actually require them to repudiate their previous Anglican orders (whatever those trying to dissuade them may claim).
The current hazy uncertainty associated with the Dutch Touch allows them to view their own individual previous orders as having been grace-filled even if they have been unable to demonstrate this to the Church’s satisfaction. As a result, I can see some submitting to reordination as an act of humility aimed at removing any doubt.
As you point out irregular marriage would add further complications for many, but there are other individual peculiarities that might cut the other way. Formerly Catholic clergy (with thus valid orders) are probably disproportionately present among Anglo-Catholics who might come obver, for example.
All this is rather specualtive, however, and we will have to see how the Apostolic Constitution is phrased and then implemented.
In any case, none of this has any implications for reunion with Orthodoxy as the prospect of insurgent liberalism driving orthodox Orthodox to Rome is remote. Even if this were to occur, the structures to accommodate such a flow already exist in the Eastern Catholic Churches. A more likely outcome would be defection to new Old Believer or Old Calendrist-style jurisdictions.
They will face no such things, since the Western rites were created especially for such situations.
Maybe “forced” was the wrong word. Perhaps pressure to adopt Byzantinizations in order to appear Orthodox or fit inmay be a better term. I do know the western rite exists, but my impression is it is small. Why haven’t more adopted it if those converting can bring their western traditions directly in to it? The conversation linked to here above says it is essentially fruitless for Orthodox leaders to even try and engage Anglicans in such conversations about conversion.
Even the absolute ordination rite as applied to former Anglican clergy doesn’t actually require them to repudiate their previous Anglican orders (whatever those trying to dissuade them may claim).
There is no repudiation. I think it boils down to if one would be comfortable with the idea of past ministry being an exercise where grace is present, just not a valid sacrament. I think the self-consciousness of many Anglo-Catholics just can’t come to terms with this. It’s not somebody feeding them bad information.
In any case, none of this has any implications for reunion with Orthodoxy
I think it does in that the old ideas of unity probably have to go out the window. In this case that if Anglicans want to be Catholic, they should just accept the Pauline mass and get on with things. The Magisterium has already discounted the idea of Unia as a model of reconciliation. I think this is another step in the evolution of how unity can be achieved, both between east and west and within the west itself.
Why haven’t more adopted it if those converting can bring their western traditions directly in to it?
We don’t “adopt” things forcefully or for facade: those that wanted to do so did it; but, as I said, only some (not all) Catholics and Anglicans (and even Lutherans) are interested in them.
Lucian, what do think has limited interested in the WR? Do you think it’s the ordination issue?
Nothing “has limited” the interest: it was just never there in huge proportions to begin with, that’s all. Frederica Matthews-Green’s husband was an Anglican, but he didn’t convert to Orthodoxy in the WR. Few do. Seemingly, the ER (no cinematographical pun intended) blows them away (don’t ask me why). BUT, there ARE (and have always been) a few people who were blown away in a negative manner by the complexity and by the exotic outlook of the ER, and for those people does the WR exist (again, don’t ask me why: there’s nothing complex or exotic about it, but that’s how people in the West perceive it: for them, if the Priest prays Psalm 50 while incencing around the Altar while the Reader [again, no pun cinematographical intended] reads the Epistle and people venerate icons and light candles … well, doing all these things at once just short-circuits their little brains, and they have like this huge culture-shock, … or whatever…)
Quoting Lucian:
a) not so
b) So Eastern Fathers are enough, even if contradicting Western ones (I mean pre-schism, and recognised by Eastern Orthodox as Orthodox)?
c) Was St Athanasius of Alexandria somehow NOT Eastern or NOT a Father?
Thank you for defending St Thomas Aquinas’ defence of filioque!
According to him, the Second Council wanted to make not a complete answer against all errors about the Holy Spirit, but only an answer to all Macedonian errors.
Saying that the Holy Ghost proceed not from the Father is a Macedonian error, thus it was condemned.
Saying that the Holy Ghost proceed not from or through the Son also was back then not an issue between those who accepted that he proceeds from the Father. Which is why filioque was added only later, just as the Second Council added explanations to the final words of the Creed, which from the first council ended “…and in the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
Sts Athanasius and Hilary of Poitiers very clearly were pro-filioque back then, and the Photius who wrote “Mystagogy” was not born yet for centuries.
the a) not so
= a) not so, it does not completely contradict them, it does not even contradict at all most Eastern Fathers before Sts Maximus and John of Damascus, and even them it does not completely contradict.
Quoting again Lucian:
Lutherans strictly speaking, from the beginning, thought that a priest could be ordained by any priest (including of course a priest called by human convention bishop). Also that ordination is no Sacrament. Also that Mass is no Sacrifice, and that Christ is not offered up for us in Mass. Only Sweden – which back then included Finland and somewhat later Estonia and Latvia – retained bishops so named. Their ordinations go back to one Catholic bishop being forced by the extorsion of Gustavus Wasa to ordain one of the Petri brothers, whose writings reveal that he had no distinction about theology from other Lutherans.
Should have ended blockquote after the words “otherwise Arianism would’ve had “valid orders” also, for instance.”
The rest of the post is mine, not the words from Lucian.
That’s why I’ve said the Eastern Fathers. (And I don’t understand what passages of St. Athanasius you have in mind when saying that he confessed to the Filioque…)
Pater est Deus. Filius est Deus. Spiritus Sanctus est Deus. Sed non tres Dei sed unus Deus. … Pater procedit a nullo. Filius nascitur a Patre. Spiritus Sanctus ab utroque procedit.
From the text Quicumque vult which I already explained why I believe it perfectly genuine and why to my mind there remains no serious doubt about its genuineness.
St Hilary of also has “ab utroque procedit” or “ab utroque procedens”.
Pope St Leo I wrote to bishop Turribius of Astorga using these words, and Pope Leo III used the same theologoumenon when answering Charlemagne about not introducing filioque into the creed.
Eastern Fathers include many who have said that the Holy Ghost proceeds “from the Father through the Son” or “from the Father and reposes in the Son”.
To repeat my qualification on St Athanasius given above:
Who certainly did not write as a creed the Quicumque vult, but who wrote and believed it as a true explanation of the faith.
Why is it in Latin only, not in Coptic or Greek? Written in exile in Trier.
Why is it not his usual style, but clumsy? Written in the Latin he knew only from that exile in Trier, no longer than two years.
Why is it preserved only in the Occident? Written under the exile in Trier.
Why was the filioque promoted by the Franks? Because of their piety to Sts Athanasius and Hilary, …
I can add: it is mentioned by St Caesarius of Arles, who was monk in Lerins, like the Vincent of the Commonitorium before becoming bishop of Arles.
Between St Athanasius in Trier and St Caesarius ther is about as much time, or less than between Sts Matthew, Mark and Luke and St Papias. And Caesarius was clearly a Roman.
I already explained why I believe it perfectly genuine
Well, it isn’t. (Sorry).
The fact that it’s known (as a text, word by word) only in the West might be explainable by his composer’s exile there… but the fact that its very ideas are unknown anywhere else, that DOES present a problem (to lack knowldege of the Filioque would be just like lacking knmowledge of the existence of the Holy Ghost, for instance, were Filioque to be true).
a – is the idea unknown everywhere else?
Orthodox liturgy includes a hymn in which the Holy GHost is adressed: thou who proceedeth from the Father and resideth in the Son.
Which as clearly as “proceeding from both” says there is an eternal relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost.
To say the Holy Ghost proceeds “from the Father through the Son” as the Cappadocians said, as clearly as the filioque expresses there is some kind of dependence not only of both Son and Holy Ghost from the Father, but also of the Holy Ghost on the Son.
b – is it necessarily as important an issue as the existence of the Holy Ghost, if true?
Maybe these notions as such, but not the exact choice of which expression. Or maybe not even the notion as such.
c – does even everyone except Latins and Eastern Catholics think it heretical?
If so the Copts would consider the Latins heretical. They would not link as freely to Latin Church Teachers like St Francis of Sales on the facebook group Pères de l’Eglise (if that is by a tawheedo Copt and not by a Copt Catholic, but it links to Shenooda III as well, so …)
The Copts do have problems with the filioque, but these are of a different order than those usually expressed by Byzantine Orthodox. This is understandable as Photius’ polemic Trinitarian theology is not received by Oriental Orthodox generally.
Hans-Georg,
Before you go too far with Lucian on this, you should appreciate that he is not a patristic scholar. Few of us here are. His views are not necessarily fully internally consistent and it is fairly easy to knock logical holes in them (even if he won’t readily admit to any deficiencies).
Lucian is, however, doing his best in offering an Orthodox perspective on many of the issues being discussed here, and it is the lack of Orthodox perspective that handicaps much Catholic reflection on ecumenical issues. To that extent, we should listen to him and respond without trying to convince him that he is wrong (except insofar as he might be wrong about Catholicism, a subject on which we can speak with greater authority).
Lucian’s isn’t the only possible Orthodox take on these matters, and his perspective, such as it is, could of course be better and more rigorously articulated by a trained Orthodox theologian or Church historian. Nevertheless, until weightier Orthodox scholars enter the field on this site, it is better to accept what he can offer us with a view to the insights we might gain from it. Catholics and Orthodox don’t talk to each other enough as it is.
1) Please stop making sub-coments & sub-sub-comments. (Post your comments in serial canonical fashion, like normal people do).
2) Through is not from. (Since we obviously say what we say, and also mean what we say when we say it, it follows that there’s a non-filioquist unerstanding of these words… which also happens to be the same as the base meaning of the words used in that expression).
The Ghost is fully-formed when He is being poured out of the Father, and then He indwells the Son, and abides over Him, and in Him, and annoints Him, and shines forth through Him: but He does not derive His being from Him. (He already has His full being from the Father before entering the Son).
3) You have to understand that just like there are quarks with a fractional electro-magnetical charge, and just like there are religions that are only partly true, there are also sacraments that are only partly grace-filled.
Catholic exorcisms work, but Catholic holy water doesn’t maintain its freshness. Grace is not lacking in Catholic Mass (or schismatic old-calendarist liturgy), but when someone experiences Orthodox Liturgy he feels something unspeakable. — I think I’ll leave the rational dissection and logical analysis of what this might mean in your charge: you’re the scholastics, you tell me.
Okay, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness … Lucian, as owner of the blog, not only do I not have a problem with commenters using the “sub-comment” feature, I think it might be helpful if everyone started using it!
[…] policy that the Eastern churches have (for the most part anyhow, c.f. Archbishop Hilarion’s comments on the possibility of Catholics receiving from the Orthodox chalice as well as the Statement of the […]