Roman Catholic view of Orthodox Church

[deusveritasest]

Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?

Not that I represent their church or anything, but I'm about 95% sure the answer is "yes"; that any Sacraments that are performed not in union with Rome are illicit.

 

[GregoryLA]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

 

[deusveritasest]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

If they did so in the context of the ability to instead go to a church in union with Rome, yes, I would imagine that would be recognized as a sin, and probably unto judgment. I don't know how severe it would be understood to be.

 

[stanley123]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

 

[GregoryLA]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

Do you know if this is a majority opinion?  Is there any official teaching on this subject?

 

[LBK]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Are Eastern Orthodox sacraments considered illicit?

Not that I represent their church or anything, but I'm about 95% sure the answer is "yes"; that any Sacraments that are performed not in union with Rome are illicit.

It depends on the view within Catholicism. The view of the more ultramontanist faction is that any sacraments performed without the permission of the Bishop of Rome are automatically illicit. Because the Orthodox are in formal schism, this would render all their sacraments illicit.

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

 

[LBK]

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???: :

 

[WetCatechumen]

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???: :

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

[quote author="His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I"] Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53[/quote]

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

 

[GregoryLA]

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???: :

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

[quote author="His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I"] Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.
[/quote]

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.

 

[LBK]

^^
Like I said ...

it's possible to be a little bit pregnant.

R-i-i-ight.

 

[elijahmaria]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.  Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

 

[Irish Hermit]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.  Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?  In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

 

[WetCatechumen]

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???: :

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

[quote author="His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I"] Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.
[/quote]Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert. I think that sometimes, the Orthodox read too much into the term validity.

By accepting the ordination of priests from the Catholic Church, it indicates that the form of the sacrament has taken place and does not need to be repeated. To the Latin, this indicates validity. The nature of the priesthood specifically imparted by the Latin bishop would be viewed not to have its full meaning unless the priest is recognized by the Orthodox Church as a priest. The situation with baptisms and confessions seems to be the same.

The Eucharist is different, and most Orthodox I've spoken to on the internet would seem to believe that the Holy Spirit ignores the prayer of the Latin priest and refuses to transform the gifts, although the agnostic view is also prevalent.

I heard one analogy recently that compared Orthodox and Catholic sacraments by comparing two glasses, one empty, and one full. The full one is the sacrament in the Orthodox Church. I understood that analogy to mean that the form of the sacrament and its celebration was equivalent, hence valid (with the exception of the Eucharist). However, the sacrament loses its full meaning and wholeness outside of Orthodoxy. Priests do not have to be reordained because they already have the glass. However, there's something essential which is missing (the liquid). I don't quite understand what the liquid is suppose to represent, because except for some extremists, the Orthodox I've communicated with typically acknowledge some degree of grace outside of the Orthodox Church, but not necessarily sacramental grace.

 

[Sinner Servant]

Vatican ambassador to Russia urges Catholic priests to periodically attend Orthodox divine services

Moscow, June 18, Interfax – The Holy See ambassador to the Russian Federation Archbishop Antonio Mennini suggested that Catholic priests every now and then attend divine services in Russian Orthodox churches.

The nuncio said it addressing participants in a regular session of Russia's Conference of Catholic Bishops in Sochi, its general secretary Rev. Igor Kovalevsky told Interfax-Religion on Friday.

According to Fr. Igor, Archbishop Mennini pointed out that Orthodox-Catholic relations had significantly improved and urged to develop "fraternal relations between Catholic and Orthodox clerics."

The nuncio also stated that state-church relations improved after establishing diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level between Russia and Vatican.

The Conference of Catholic Bishops made a statement regarding abolishing religious symbols in public schools of Europe and pointed out that the cross is one of most important elements of European identity. The bishops mentioned Russia's tragic experience when struggle against religious symbols resulted in prosecutions of believers and moral decay of the society.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=7377

 

[elijahmaria]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary

 

[WetCatechumen]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary

Let us be fair. The only Orthodox bishop I know of to have communed with the Catholic Christians is Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae Corneanu of Banat, and he was clearly treated as a "maverick" by the rest of the Orthodox bishops.

It's clearly not regular.

 

[elijahmaria]

Generally, what are the consequences of taking illicit sacraments with full knowledge?  Is this considered a grave sin?  I ask this to ask if, even though Roman Catholics recognize Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid, do they consider the taking of those sacraments to be unto judgement and not salvation?

A Catholic priest told me that Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion  in an Orthodox Church provided he has the right intention and he has permission of the priest and has observed the fasting regulations of that Church.  It would be wrong for a Catholic to do so without first informing the Orthodox priest that he is a Catholic. Also, a Catholic is supposed to have the right intention which is the love of Our Lord and the salvation of his soul, avoidance of sin, etc.

As mentioned by others, I'm afraid intention and preparation don't matter a hill of beans, as no Orthodox priest in his right mind would commune a non-Orthodox during a Divine Liturgy.

Then in some parts of the world and also this country there are Orthodox clergy that are stark raving mad by your estimations....or at least they do not see things as you do.   Do you have an objective criteria for judging those who do inter-commune or are your comments and assessments all pretty much based on what you think and believe?

Mary

Have these priests received permission from their bishops to commune non-Orthodox or are they acting as mavericks?   In what way would they be different to Milingo or other dissident Catholic priests and bishops who act against the will of the Pope?

  Some of the ARE bishops, Father.  That should be obvious.  And if not then the bishops are turning a blind eye or semi-blind eye....I mean how blind can one be..really.

The point is that Orthodoxy is not unified in its estimations of grace in the Catholic Church...and it is not an insignificant point, as you know from your own lived experiences, regardless of your personal likes and dislikes.

Mary

Let us be fair. The only Orthodox bishop I know of to have communed with the Catholic Christians is Metropolitan Bishop Nicolae Corneanu of Banat, and he was clearly treated as a "maverick" by the rest of the Orthodox bishops.

It's clearly not regular.

It may not be regular in raw numbers, and there's more than one who does,  but if you count the blind eyes as well, it is not all that uncommon.  And I wonder if those priests and bishops who would allow inter-communion are less Orthodox than those who would not?  In your understanding of "not regular"...does that mean "not Orthodox" or does it indicate more than one or even more than two different approaches to the Catholic Church within Orthodoxy?

Mary

 

[Irish Hermit]

Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose

 

[elijahmaria]

Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose

This proves no rule.  It simply indicates that Orthodoxy is divided when it comes to understanding the nature of the Catholic/Orthodox schism.  Even here on the Internet the laity is divided in terms of what they think is heresy or not or what disturbs them about Catholic teaching and what does not.  I am always surprised...sometimes pleasantly.  But since the time of the schism there's never been any solid, absolute and final wholesale condemnation of the Catholic Church.  There's always been ambivalence and there's always been unionists.  Some of the unionists resumed communion, some have not but would like to do so sooner rather than later.

At any rate that does not address the question of how the Catholic Church views Orthodoxy.

Mary

 

[WetCatechumen]

Well, the Orthodox Church recognizes Catholic Sacraments as valid, simply by virtue of accepting the ordinations and baptisms of convert.

Dear WetCatechumen,

What you have written will not stand as a general principle.

in my lifetime I have baptized two Roman Catholic priests (and a nun.)  These baptisms were performed on the instructions of my Serbian Orthodox bishop.  In the case of the priests, both of them were received into the Orthodox Church as laymen.  Neither their baptism nor their ordination were recognised.


There are numerous instances we could cite.  For example, in the 1970s when the French Catholic patristic scholar and Trappist monk Fr Placide Deseille and 6 or 7 of his brother monks converted to Orthodoxy, they went to Athos to be received.  The Ecumenical Patriarch deputised a bishop to first of all baptize these Catholic monks and then to ordain those who had been in Catholic Orders into Orthodox Orders.

For more on that incident (which caused a major ecumenical upset in France) see message 27 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14020.msg197731.html#msg197731

Fr Ambrose

Father Ambrose;

I am honored that you have responded to my post. You are certainly infinitely more educated in Orthodoxy than I am. However, I've heard more often the view that Catholic baptism is devoid of sacramental grace, but the form is still accepted and filled with grace by Orthodoxy upon conversion. While the Orthodox have been rebaptizing Catholics baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity since well before His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Michael Cærularius was excommunicated, there are still the numerous examples of the form of Catholic baptism being accepted, to be filled by Orthodoxy.

Are you saying that every instance of a Catholic convert being received into the Orthodox Church by chrismation or confession only, and of clergymen being received by vesting only, is an instance of economy?

From where I stand, and I say this only as how I see it, and not to be condemnatory, that there is a streak of Donatism in Orthodoxy. In the thread you linked, there was a catechumen who was anticipating a third Trinitarian baptism. Orthodoxy seems, as Mary said, terribly divided on the issue. You yourself have posted evidence of the MP accepting the validity of Catholic orders and baptisms.

I just feel like I'm not getting a straight answer on this.

 

[Irish Hermit]

I just feel like I'm not getting a straight answer on this.

There are two issues today on which the Orthodox will give you varying answers - ecumenism (our relationship with heterodox Churches) and the calendar.  It is not that you are not getting a starlight answer.  It is simply that Orthodoxy has varying answers.  This may be resolved, if only for a while, if the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council addresses the issue of heterodox baptism.  I say "if only for a while" because you will find that there will be some Orthodox who will return to earlier practices and ones which can be quite justifiably based on tradition and the Ecumenical Councils.  I would not count on the diversity of Orthoox practices being done away with.

 

[deusveritasest]

and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP.

I don't see how...?

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

These seem to be inconsistent realities. How can a church that is overall illicit perform licit ordinances?

 

[deusveritasest]

The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome.

Seeing as how episcopos means "overseer", I don't know that calling someone a bishop necessarily means that one recognizes them as having Holy Orders.

[quote author=WetCatechumen"]
The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term.
[/quote]

No, the standard teachings differ. Typical Roman teaching is that rites outside of union with Rome can be valid and efficacious but not licit. On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

 

[deusveritasest]

Now, one of the conflicts in Russia is the sending of bishops to administer to the needs of Latin Catholics there. The MP objected on the grounds that it was infringing upon their jurisdiction, and Rome claimed that the bishop was appointed only to minister to the needs of the Latin Catholics. This would indicate that Rome recognizes the local jurisdiction of the MP. Hence, it implies that they have the authority to perform sacraments in their jurisdiction.

That would imply to me that the sacraments of marriage and confession in the Orthodox Church are considered licit for Orthodox Christians in the Catholic view, although as a whole, the state of schism would render the Orthodox Church illicit.

So by this remarkable reasoning, it's possible to be a little bit pregnant. R-i-ight. ??? ???: :

I intended only to explain the reality of the situation, which is quite contradictory. The Ecumenical Patriarch received the Pope as a fellow bishop. I cite the homily as evidence:

[quote author="His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I"] Truly, particular and wholehearted gratitude fills our hearts toward the loving God, for today, on the festive commemoration of the Apostle founder and protector of this Church, the Divine Liturgy is attended by His Holiness our brother and bishop of the elder Rome, Pope Benedict XVI, together with his honorable entourage. Once again, we gratefully greet this presence as a blessing from God, as an expression of brotherly love and honor toward our Church, and as evidence of our common desire to continue—in a spirit of love and faithfulness to the Gospel Truth and the common tradition of our Fathers —the unwavering journey toward the restoration of full communion among our Churches, which constitutes His divine will and command. May it be so.

source: http://www.holytrinityorthodoxchurch.org/load.php?pageid=53

He was acknowledged by one prominent Orthodox Bishop as the bishop of Rome. The Orthodox position, which I'm led to believe that Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would espouse, is that all sacraments outside of the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term. However, there is a certain recognition of a semblance of legitimacy to Pope Benedict's claim to being the rightful bishop of Rome, even if it is considered technically illicit by the canons.

Of course, there are many who were dismayed by the behavior of His All-Holiness, including the venerable monks of the Holy Mountain. However, clearly, the reality of what is licit and what is illicit is more complex than "the Orthodox Church is outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore all her sacraments are invalid".

An alternate explanation might be that Rome views it as economical to grant jurisdiction for the sacraments to the Eastern Churches not in communion with her, for the salvation of their faithful. I understand that this interpretation is objectionable to those with anti-Papal views.

I get what you're saying.  I think though that the common view is not that "all sacraments outside the Orthodox Church are illicit, to use the Latin term" but that all sacraments are possibly INVALID outside the Orthodox Church, to use the Latin term.
[/quote]

No, there are really three commonly cited properties: validity, efficacy, and licitness. What all rites outside of the Orthodox Church are is possibly inefficacious, while some are certainly recognized as being valid. "Validity" referring to the form of Sacraments; "efficacy" referring to their sanctifying substance.

 

[stanley123]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

 

[Irish Hermit]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

 

[stanley123]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

So the OO Church is the true Church of Christ?

 

[scamandrius]

^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D

 

[stanley123]

^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D

One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

 

[WetCatechumen]

^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D

One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." - St. Augustine of Hippo

;D

 

[GregoryLA]

^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D

One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

I'm not quite sure DeusEstVeritas qualifies as an OO poster. He hasn't been received into any OO church and his opinions as pertains the EO are often not shared by OO posters on this forum. He has also criticized OO hierarchs of been too liberal when it comes to the EO.

But why should it be surprising or confusing that both the EO and OO should consider themselves correct? 

 

[deusveritasest]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, no, I am speaking of the EO perspective. The actual problem is that you are confusing validity with efficacy. Validity commonly refers to the rite having proper form, which the Latins theorized necessitates it being efficacious. EO Christians disagree, generally thinking that rites outside of the Church are not efficacious, though they may be valid in the sense of having proper ritual form. The properties that you are seeing as interconnected are actually efficacy and licitness, not validity and licitness.

 

[deusveritasest]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

The OO Church to the exclusion of the EO.

 

[deusveritasest]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

So the OO Church is the true Church of Christ?

Yes.

 

[deusveritasest]

Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?

Not really. What qualifies the OO or EO as the Church of Christ is not a simple matter.

One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated.

We're essentially both saying that rites outside of the Church are liable to not be efficacious.

This is getting to be confusing.

I don't see what's so confusing. You say the Roman church is the Church. Why is it so confusing if other historical faith communities make similar claims about their own?

 

[deusveritasest]

^No, it's the EO, of course! ;D

One says the OO is the true Church of Christ, the other says the EO. Is there a simple proof which shows that it is one and not the other?
One OO poster says that Sacraments outside of the OO Church are not efficacious. An EO poster says that Baptism and other Sacraments outside of the EO Church are not valid and Baptism has to be repeated. This is getting to be confusing.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle." - St. Augustine of Hippo

;D

It depends on what they mean by "Catholic". If they mean the standard watered down meaning of it being equivalent to Romanist, I would point out the nearest Romanist church. If they really meant "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic", however, I would most certainly point them to the nearest OO church. So that quotes not applicable.

 

[Irish Hermit]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, no, I am speaking of the EO perspective.

In that case you are not correct.  Do some reading on the Orthodox refusal to employ the Roman Catholic distinction of validity and liceity, even a refusal to use the words themselves.

The actual problem is that you are confusing validity with efficacy. Validity commonly refers to the rite having proper form, which the Latins theorized necessitates it being efficacious. EO Christians disagree, generally thinking that rites outside of the Church are not efficacious, though they may be valid in the sense of having proper ritual form. The properties that you are seeing as interconnected are actually efficacy and licitness, not validity and licitness.

 

[Irish Hermit]

On the other hand, the standard Eastern teaching is that rites outside of union with the Church of Christ can be valid but not licit nor even efficacious.

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

I think that Chris is speaking from an OO point of view since the RC distinction between validiy and liceity is generally not admitted by Eastern Orthodox.

Actually, no, I am speaking of the EO perspective.

What of the OO perspective which presumably you are more knowledgeable about?

Coptic Orthodox baptize Roman Catholics, and it is not because they consider their RC baptism invalid but because they consider the form unacceptable - in other words they refuse to accept a form of baptism which is not by triple immersion.

Now the weird (to me) thing is that they accept the validity of RC baptism.  In rebaptizing Roman Catholics Copts are simply administering the correct form.  No actual baptism takes place with the Coptic ceremony.  No grace is conferred since the RC baptism was already valid.

Could you say something about this?

 

[stanley123]

So the OO Church is the true Church of Christ?

^No, it's the EO, of course!

BTW, which is the Church of Christ? Is it the OO Church or the EO Church?

The OO Church to the exclusion of the EO.

I don't see what's so confusing. You say the Roman church is the Church. Why is it so confusing if other historical faith communities make similar claims about their own?

Because the claims are different.
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the Sacraments of the EO and OO as valid and helpful to salvation.
The OO Church, being the true Church of Christ does not recognize the Sacraments of the EO or RC as being efficacious?
The EO Church, being the true Church of Christ according to a poster here, does not recognize even the Baptism outside of the EO Church and demands that it be repeated on entry into the EO Church.
Now shouldn’t a person concerned about his eternal salvation  be able to determine which is the Church of Christ and which Church has the efficacious Sacraments?  But when I ask you how we are going to determine this, you say:

What qualifies the OO or EO as the Church of Christ is not a simple matter.

[/quote]
Why would God make it so difficult for a person who is concerned about his eternal salvation and who is concerned about receiving valid, efficacious and true Sacraments from his Church? Is it reasonable to suppose that God would set it up  like this so that it is impossible to determine which Church has the true Sacraments ?