To all the Orthodox readers of Byzcath.org:

Tim, the Reader, has recently written the following post in response to my question concerning the validity of the Roman Catholic eucharist:

Tim wrote:

"concerning the content of the myteries of Rome: one word; 'graceless'!
Timothy, the Orthodox reader

P.S. That is the teaching of the Orthodox Church and our Orthodox Bishops. This is not meant to be mean-hearted, but to be loving and truthful."


Is this the teaching of Orthodoxy? Are Catholics just plain cookie worshippers? Is their eucharist 'graceless?' Where can I find this Orthodox teaching? Is this the belief of the Orthodox participants on Byzcath.org?

Elias

Elias,

One of my very dear friends is a Russian Orthodox priest (ROCOR) and he tells me this is the opinion of his Church. It is clearly not the opinion of other Orthodox Churches such as those who signed the Balamand Agreement.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Fr. Deacon Ed,

So Orthodoxy is not united in what it teaches considering the validity of Roman Catholic eucharist.

So who represents true Orthodoxy for the Orthodox? Which Orthodox Church has authority to represent Orthodoxy? Can any Orthodox Church fully represent Orthodoxy? Where can I find Orthodoxy's platform or final theology on such matters?

If there are radically opposing differences in teaching within Orthodoxy, then Orthodoxy is not united as Tim, the Reader, would imply. Is this a mere opinion of theologians - theologoumenons? The 20,000+ separate churches within Protestantism and Evangelical Christianity has already proven that divisions are not the work of the Holy Spirit - maybe some other 'spirit' but not God's. Is this the same for Orthodoxy? Come on, you brothers and sisters in Orthodoxy! Teach me the truth! Why the silence??? Are you confused like me? Lukewarm?

Can ANY teaching on the validity of the sacraments within other Chalcedonian Churches be made in the context of schism? Schism is not a complete break - otherwise those on opposing sides of the 'break' would be justified in considering and teaching the complete lack of validity of the other's sacred mysteries. Does schism invalidate the validity of the other's eucharist? This begs the next question: whose eucharist is the invalid one? Who is guilty of cookie worship?

Help me out, people!

Elias

Dear in Christ Elias,

No, there is no ONE who can speak for Orthodoxy as a whole; but that is as the Church pleases since all truly ecumenical decisions came about as a result of the collegiality of the churches, not by way of a Fiat of one Patriarch. So it not surprizing that other than the "Symbol of Faith ( the Creed) upon which all Orthodox agree, there are a multitude practices within the various churches which make up Orthodoxy. There is also a multitude of opinion as to these practices and adherences, and range from modernist liberals to triumphal traditionalists, just as in the Roman church.
But to get to your question about the validity of the Roman Sacraments... I have to admit that the more conservative wing of Orthodoxy, who see themselves as the ONLY Orthodox, the others being heretics, will not accept the validity of Roman Sacraments and even require Baptism of converts from the Roman Church. The larger majority of the Orthodox Church take a more moderate view. This group would include the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, the Russian Patriarchal Church, the Antiochians, Serbs OCA....in other words most all of the Orthodox churches other than the most conservative Old Calendarists. This group, which our Reader Timothy has refered to as "world orthodoxy", will accept converts from the Roman Church by Chrismation; will accepts priests often by vesting, sometimes with blessing by the Bishop and a prayer of conditional ordination. These churches would not remarry couples. These practices of "economia" vary with each jurisdiction, and bishop. Less concerned sometimes with the "jot and tittle" of the law than with the condition of the human heart and soul, allowances are made on an individual basis.
There are jurisdictions which use every Canon in place when it comes to relations with the Western Church, but these are also the same who will wink at such Canons which disallow Orthodox to be treated by Jewish doctors. SO when you ask for a single Orthodox opinion on this matter, or any other, you are asking for trouble. Even the Orthodox cannot agree with one another on these matters. Of course there are those Orthodox who feel that if we do not agree with them, that we are not Orthodox at all, but heretics like the Romans.
I hope this has thinned the mud a little, I know it is not a totoally satisfying answer.


unworthy servant

+Kyrill

Elias,

As Fr. Kyrill has pointed out, there is no one who can speak for "Orthodoxy" as a whole. It simply isn't consistent with the Orthodox theology or praxis. Each of the Orthodox Churches must evaluate this position and arrive at a satisfactory solution.

From a Catholic perspective, of course, we recognize the validity of Orthodox mysteries based upon the oikonomia of apostolic succession. As long as the succession is valid the mysteries are valid (all other requirements being met).

From the conservative Orthodox side the possibility of apostolic succession ceases when there is a break from Tradition. Thus, from their perspective, the Roman Church broke from succession and was, consequently, left without grace. When the Eastern Churches joined Rome in her break they were left without grace as well.

The clear problem here is how the two groups see the resolution of the Donatist controversy. If, as Rome asserts, valid succession leads to valid, if illicit, sacraments -- then East and West are valid. However, if the position is that of the Eastern conservatives, then the Donatist controversy was resolved heretically.

Fr. Deacon Edward

Dear Fr. Kyrill,

Thank you for you response. I am aware of the wide range of liberal - conservative spectrum within Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Not everyone can be in total harmony. Yet 'economia' seems to be a key.

I take the ROCOR group to be in the same dilemna as the Roman Catholic SSPX and the Old Believers to some extent. I get concerned when the eucharist itself is considered to be invalid. Thank you for your answer - it is a relief to know the Holy Spirit is greater than ourselves and that both Eastern and Western Christians have been receiving our Lord's precious and life-saving Body and Blood for two millenia even though there has been an awful Schism for the last one.

God bless you in your ministry; and may God bless the Orthodox Churches in their relentless pursuit to bring Christ's message to all people.

Elias
a peon uniate

Dear Elias-

The Orthodox Church teaches that there cannot be any "sacraments", properly speaking, outside of the Church. I think that about says it all, and there is no reason to enflame peoples emotions with talk of "graceless" Eucharists. As an Orthodox Christian I am blessed to be where I am by the grace of God and hope and pray that others may find the faith also - but all men (and women) are still brothers and sisters in Christ and the reasons why all "do (not) believe and are (not) baptized" are a mystery better left NOT to speculation. Christ had much to say about this.
The question you (and others it appears) are wrestling with is, What is the Church? The "traditional" Orthodox simply follow the ancient and unchanged teachings of the Church in this regard, whilst the larger ecumenical "World Orthodox" have a variety of opinions depending on who you ask, and oftimes those answers change depending on the setting! At least from "tradtionalists" you have some consistency concerning "yeah" and "nay".
Anyway, as regards the ROCOR being an eqivalent of the SSPX, let me just say that the nature of Orthodoxy to be organized on the basis of "local churches" yet united by the Orthodox faith precludes that. The ROCOR bases her existence on being the Russian Orthodox Church and no other local Orthodox Church can demonstrate how the ROCOR has changed or compromised the faith she has always had. Since "theological change" is ALWAYS suspect within Orthodoxy - it is the innovators who have much more in common with any RC schismatics, despite their numerical and "canonical" advantage, and despite the fact that other ecumenically inclined Christians relate to them and give them the impression that they are the Church. They ain't. The Orthodox Church has never understood herself as simply a "communion" who can believe what they want. There are many levels and layers of truth, the more thoughtful will see that and let the Orthodox Church deal with these unresolved issues, such as the calendar (still not resolved), and participation in the ecumenical movement (still not resolved).
BTW I found Fr. Deacon Ed's remarks fascinating, particularly the "heretical resolution of the Donatist schism" - I might take that one up with my priest (who spent a number of years on Athos) and see how he understands these things. Charges of Doantism have been bandied about quite frequently as of late.

John
Peons unite!

Dear Elias-

The Orthodox Church teaches that there cannot be any "sacraments", properly speaking, outside of the Church. I think that about says it all, and there is no reason to enflame peoples emotions with talk of "graceless" Eucharists. As an Orthodox Christian I am blessed to be where I am by the grace of God and hope and pray that others may find the faith also - but all men (and women) are still brothers and sisters in Christ and the reasons why all "do (not) believe and are (not) baptized" are a mystery better left NOT to speculation. Christ had much to say about this.
The question you (and others it appears) are wrestling with is, What is the Church? The "traditional" Orthodox simply follow the ancient and unchanged teachings of the Church in this regard, whilst the larger ecumenical "World Orthodox" have a variety of opinions depending on who you ask, and oftimes those answers change depending on the setting! At least from "tradtionalists" you have some consistency concerning "yeah" and "nay".
Anyway, as regards the ROCOR being an eqivalent of the SSPX, let me just say that the nature of Orthodoxy to be organized on the basis of "local churches" yet united by the Orthodox faith precludes that. The ROCOR bases her existence on being the Russian Orthodox Church and no other local Orthodox Church can demonstrate how the ROCOR has changed or compromised the faith she has always had. Since "theological change" is ALWAYS suspect within Orthodoxy - it is the innovators who have much more in common with any RC schismatics, despite their numerical and "canonical" advantage, and despite the fact that other ecumenically inclined Christians relate to them and give them the impression that they are the Church. They ain't. The Orthodox Church has never understood herself as simply a "communion" who can believe what they want. There are many levels and layers of truth, the more thoughtful will see that and let the Orthodox Church deal with these unresolved issues, such as the calendar (still not resolved), and participation in the ecumenical movement (still not resolved).
BTW I found Fr. Deacon Ed's remarks fascinating, particularly the "heretical resolution of the Donatist schism" - I might take that one up with my priest (who spent a number of years on Athos) and see how he understands these things. Charges of Donatism have been bandied about quite frequently as of late.

John
Peons unite!

One note based on my catechumenical instruction that may add fodder for discussion. I was told that canon law speaks for what happens IN the Church. Being in the Church is the guarantee of the validity of the sacraments. What happens outside is undefined. Whether God wishes to dispense His grace on Roman sacraments would be up to Him, but not subject to His promise to be in the Church since, canonically, they are not according to most Orthodox theologians.

Clearly Rome and Orthodoxy are schismed from each other, but whether Rome is heretical to the Orthodox universe is currently indeterminant since no Ecumenical council has declared the new Roman dogmas as such yet. I believe several national and local synods have addressed various Roman and Protestant beliefs, but they do not hold "Ecumenical" weight yet. However I fail to see how Rome cannot consider the Orthodox to be heretical since several dogmas introduced since the schism are basically rejected by the Orthodox or are simply considered "pious opinion."

Greetings to one and all in Christ,

This is an interesting thread about the validity of sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. I would like to recommend an excellent book that discusses this issue and the viewpoints of Fundamentalists. The book is called "Orthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View" written by Fr. John Morris which can be obtained from Light and Life Publishing Company. This has always baffled me about the validility of non-Orthodox sacraments. However, I have come to the conclusion there are Orthodox truths embedded in Catholicism even though I do not espouse Catholicism as a whole or even complete. For example, Baptism performed in Catholic Church in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is an Orthodox teaching and we would have it no other way. No Orthodox in his or her right mind can speak against the Trinitarian formula performed in the Catholic Church even though it remains outside the fold of Orthodoxy. The understanding of grace in the Roman Catholic Church has a radically different view than Orthodoxy. I would dare challege anyone to learn about the view and understanding of grace found in Orthodoxy.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

The calendar issue has been solved already. Just follow what has previously been proclaimed and you would be okay. We all know that the Pan-Orthodox Councils of the sixteenth century put under anathema the use of the New Calendar. Why not obey their decision until an Ecumenical Councils is called? Its like saying; although murder is against the law, we will go ahead and commit murder until it is further defined! That is rediculous.

The difference between the Old and New calendar Orthodox Churches is not a matter of 13 days ( the calendar), but the reason for the calendar change. Which is the propagation of the "branch theory". That all heterodox denominations are "the Church".

I have to go right now to take my daughter to school. But I would like to talk more about it sometime as needed.

God bless!

Timothy, reader

P.S. It is my prayer that "ALL" people will be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth!

What about the 50th Apostolic Canon?

Timothy,

You wrote: "Why not obey their decision until an Ecumenical Councils is called?"

Should Rome be invited? The Canons list Rome first! Yet you consider them to be a 'graceless' church. How can one invite a gracless church?

Elias

Tim writes:

"The calendar issue has been solved already. Just follow what has previously been proclaimed and you would be okay. We all know that the Pan-Orthodox Councils of the sixteenth century put under anathema the use of the New Calendar. Why not obey their decision until an Ecumenical Councils is called? Its like saying; although murder is
against the law, we will go ahead and commit murder until it is further defined! That is
rediculous [sic]. "

And there Tim, you have the heresy and insanity of certain fringe and extremist elements of Orthodoxy. The eternal and natural law against murder is on the same plane as a canonical rule on the date of Easter. An Ecumenical Council has no authority and, because it is under the protection of the Holy Spirit from error in matters of faith and morals, would never redefine the morality of murder. The date of the celebration of Easter is a human matter which can be adjusted for the good order of the People of God and of civil society.

For those who think their Pharasitical rigidity makes them holy, they should understand that left to babble on, they eventually undercut the very moral foundations of Christianity.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 11-20-1999).]

You need not Rome for an Ecumenical Council.

Only those who have the correct faith are included.

Otherwise one could say that the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Councils were not Ecumenical because the Monophysites were not included.

Timothy, reader