The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
LionHippo44, Evan Gallagher, Lizzy VH, thomisticgamer, DesertPrayer
5,708 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 89 guests, and 58 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,958
Posts413,428
Members5,708
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 10 11
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
It is quite obvious from his comments in an interview with patriarhia.ru that Met. Hilarion includes Greek Catholics in his definition of "Schismatics". (Note:according to the late Traditionalist R.C. writer Michael Davies, the use of such a term when referring to Eastern Orthodox was forbidden to Catholics by Pope Pius XI. One would think that there would be some reciprocity. Also Catholics DO recognize the validity of Eastern Orthodox sacraments.I was under the impression that "canonical" Orthodox recognize the validity of ours. Guess I was wrong. Hilarion is very high up-head of External Relations in the Moscow Patriarchate, a "canonical" Orthodox Church).

Dn. Robert


Quote
Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: “It is impossible to speak of ‘the recognition of the sacraments’ administered by schismatics”

6.10.2010 • Analitics, DECR Chairman, Inter-Christian relations
In an interview to Patriarhia.ru, the head of the Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, sums up the work of the Joint Commission of Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue meeting in Vienna and the Inter-Council Presence’s commission for opposing and overcoming church schisms, and speaks about the state of inter-Christian dialogue today.
- Your Eminence, some participants in the Joint Commission for Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue in Vienna have stated a promising progress made on the way to unity. How far does the Russian Orthodox Church share this assessment?
- In the headings of publications in some mass media concerning the Vienna meeting of the Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission, the word ‘breakthrough’ flickered, but the participants in the talks themselves sum up the work in more moderate terms. On a proposal of the Orthodox side, the Commission agreed not to give an official status to the draft document prepared earlier. It was deemed reasonable to use this document as a working material for drafting a new document on the theological problems existing in relations between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church concerning primacy and conciliarity in the life of the Church.
- What problems remain the most important in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue at this stage?
- In the 1990s, the Joint Commission adopted important statements on Unia, which, as everybody hoped at that time, would finish the long-standing disputes. However, the Greek Catholics refused to accept them as a guide for action. And today we can see a continuation of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church’s expansion into the territory of eastern Ukraine, where Uniatism has never played any significant role whatever. The transfer of the center of the Greek-Catholic Archdiocese from Lvov to Kiev and insistent attempts to obtain the never-existent status of patriarchate for it are eloquent evidence of their desire to replenish their ranks at the expense of Orthodox believers.
We still believe that only the Greek Catholics’ conscious rejection of the expansion policy will make it possible to settle problems which darken the Orthodox-Catholic relations today.
- The Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly stated that Unia remains a major barrier for Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. What do you think of the UGCC’s intention to build a church for itself in Odessa?
- It is surprising to see the response of the Greek Catholics who have made such a fuss over the situation in Odessa. Don’t they know that the real problems and real violations of the rights of believers take place not in Odessa but, for instance, in Lvov? After the forcible capture of Orthodox churches by the Uniates in the 90s, the then Lvov local authorities did not give a single church to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the city, nor a plot of land for building it. We hope very much that soon the situation will change, but all these years our diocese of Lvov has had no cathedral. Meanwhile, the number of Ukrainian Orthodox parishioners is incommensurable with the number of Uniates in Odessa. And one should have protested against religious discrimination first of all in those cases where it really takes place, violating the right of a large group of believers at that.
- Your Eminence, you have recently returned from Ukraine, where you attended a meeting of the Inter-Council Presence’s commission for opposing and overcoming church schisms. What are the results of its work?
- The Commission has drafted two documents on its work and will submit them to the Inter-Council Presence. One document concerns some measures for overcoming the consequences of the 17th century church division. The second one is about the acceptance of those who come back from schisms to the fold of the Church. Both documents, according to the procedure of the Inter-Council Presence, are closed ones. For this reason I cannot publicize them until they are considered by the presidium and plenary of the Inter-Council Presence and then by a Bishops’ Council or the Holy Synod.
- Did you discuss the recognition of ‘sacraments’ administered by schismatics? What is your attitude to this issue?
- This issue has been repeatedly discussed both in private talks of the Commission members and at the meeting. The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading. The point here is not a diplomatic manifestation of politeness but attempts to impose on the Orthodox the recognition of a real presence of saving grace outside the Church. For the Church, the authenticity of Sacraments is a matter of salvation. It is impossible and senseless to speak of ‘recognition of sacraments’ administered by schismatics who stay outside the Church and have no communion with her.
However, as His Beatitude Vladimir, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, has stressed, ‘the schismatics’ return to the saving fold of the Church can put life into their graceless actions’. When schismatics come back to the Church, it is a normal practice to embrace holy Baptism. But if the Church deems it necessary and if it is helpful for healing a schism, she can in some cases provide a different procedure, as was the case on repeated occasions in history.
The Church will never recognize schismatics’ ordinations, and all the clergy who come back from a schism should be ordained, though it is not at all necessary to make it in public. As far as the Sacrament of Baptism is concerned, it is impossible to administer it to all the laity coming back from a schism. Indeed, some of them do not even remember in which church they were baptized, canonical or schismatic.
Besides, there are situation where, for instance, a schismatic priest comes back to the Church together with his parishioners. The subsequent ‘re-baptism’ of the parishioners he had baptized earlier cannot be stipulated for his return, just as a ‘re-marriage’ of those whom he had married earlier or ‘re-funeral’ of all the dead over whom the burial service had been said before. It is impossible to force a priest who was now ordained in a canonical Church to return to their parishioners and say to them: ‘Everything I have done here for ten (or twenty) years was a deception, and only now I will begin doing everything in the real way’. People will not understand it and will not believe him. For all I know, they can think he decided to get the money for the second time for the sacraments he had already administered.
It is about such situations that it is stated that the Church can breathe a grace-giving power into the graceless actions of the schismatics and to inform with grace what had been only an empty and graceless form. In other words, the question of recognizing schistatics’ sacraments is not posed at all out of context of their return from the schism. But the question of a procedure of acceptance form a schism can and must be posed. And here, depending on the situation, various approaches can be applied.
- We hear sometimes the voices of the so-called ‘zealots of the purity of Orthodoxy’, whose favourite theme is criticism of ‘ecumenism’ based on conjecture. What does inter-Christian cooperation consist in today?
- The Supreme Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly explained what is understood as inter-Christian cooperation, what aims this cooperation pursues, what results it has brought and can bring to our Church in the future. I believe there is no sense in repeating all that has been said about it, for instance, in the Russian Orthodox Basic Principles of Attitude to Non-Orthodoxy, an official document of the 2000 Bishops’ Council.
I would like to mention a different thing. Today, millions of the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church including Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Moldovans, have gone to live outside their historical Motherland. It is a sad development in many ways as it involves assimilation, brain drain, etc. But it is a reality existing regardless of its emotional assessment. One can grieve over it as much as one wants but the Church is obliged to help her children to remain Orthodox in an alien milieu.
I wonder whether anyone of the ‘zealots’ has ever been concerned for the problems of pastoral care of the Russia diaspora? Do the critics of our cooperation with the Catholic Church know who actually provides our compatriots abroad with facilities necessary for services, Sunday schools and for creating an Orthodox environment for fellowship? Many newly-established Orthodox communities abroad use church buildings which have been provided by the non-Orthodox, in the first place, Catholics. When Catholics give the Orthodox an opportunity to pray in the churches which belong to them and do it often gratis, what does it show?
And how many of former Catholics and Protestants have become Orthodox Christians and members of our communities abroad, among other things, as a result of mixed marriages? Do the authors who claim to be the voice of ‘conservative church public’ know how difficult it is in Western Europe, for instance, to obtain permission for building a church and to negotiate its design with local authorities? And what assistance do Catholic parishes and sometimes even Protestant communities give to our new parishes? And how many of our compatriots who have found themselves in the West in a situation of illegal migrants have managed to obtain the necessary papers and jobs with the help of Catholic and Protestant charities on the request of Russian Orthodox parishes?
- What tasks does our Church face today in the dialogue with Christian Churches in Europe, with other religious communities and socio-political organizations?
- At present, Western Europe is turning into a citadel of aggressive secularism. Our participation in inter-Christian organizations is aimed at fulfilling the concrete practical task to oppose further secularization and to protect by all legitimate means the interest and rights of our flock.
The same can be said about the entrance of Russia and a number of other countries in the post-Soviet space in ‘the common European house’. Whether we want it or not, the process is underway, and we cannot pretend we do not see it. Pay attention, active efforts have made recently to adjust our legislation to the European one, in which there are its own advantages and disadvantage. If the Church does not participate in the public discussion on this matter the legislation may prove to acquire more disadvantages than advantages. And the experience of Christian churches in Europe can render us a considerable assistance in this concern.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
When you couple these comments with his assertion that the 1946 forced re-union of the UGCC into the MP was an "ecclesiatically justifiable act", I see no reason to pursue all of this ""dialogue". The "dialogue" has become quite one-sided.

Dn. Robert

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
The transfer of the center of the Greek-Catholic Archdiocese from Lvov to Kiev and insistent attempts to obtain the never-existent status of patriarchate for it are eloquent evidence of their desire to replenish their ranks at the expense of Orthodox believers.


It is statments like this that make me furious! mad

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,208
Me, I'm not so much furious as I am disappointed. I expected more out of the Orthodox Churches. Lots of very negative experiences with their clergy have rendered it completely out of the question that I will ever join them. Not that I've had such fantastic experiences with officials of the Latin Catholic Church...

What ails me that I still continue expecting something good out of these folks?

But since I don't believe for one split nano-second that our Greek Catholic Church is in any way whatsoever dependent on the fancies/notions/delusions/prejudices/opinions/machinations/hostilities of officials of the Russian Orthodox Church:M-P, I ain't gonna fret my head over it.

This is all so very sad.

Last edited by sielos ilgesys; 04/08/11 02:56 AM.
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
Member
Member
Offline
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 784
When I read stuff like this coming out of Moscow, I always come back to this frank and often humorous interview with Fr. Robert Taft, which btw was reposted on the forum a few days back: http://www.natcath.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/taft.htm

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,833
Likes: 1
It is foolish to get personally upset over what Met. Hilarion said, whether about the Eastern Catholic Churches or about the lack of grace in sacraments outside of the canonical Orthodox Church, after all he was simply stating the doctrinal position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is what he is supposed to do.

Roman Catholics do the same thing all the time. For example: should Anglicans be personally offended when the Roman Catholic Church in her official documents states that the Anglican Communion is not a real Church, and that Anglicans do not have a valid priesthood? No, in my opinion Anglicans should not get upset about that, because that is simply an expression of Roman Catholic doctrine.

That said, I wish that all the leaders of the various Churches and ecclesial communities would state the doctrinal position of their theological tradition clearly and consistently. Political correctness will prevent any real progress in ecumenical dialogue.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
It is foolish to get personally upset over what Met. Hilarion said, whether about the Eastern Catholic Churches or about the lack of grace in sacraments outside of the canonical Orthodox Church, after all he was simply stating the doctrinal position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is what he is supposed to do.

Roman Catholics do the same thing all the time. For example: should Anglicans be personally offended when the Roman Catholic Church in her official documents states that the Anglican Communion is not a real Church, and that Anglicans do not have a valid priesthood? No, in my opinion Anglicans should not get upset about that, because that is simply an expression of Roman Catholic doctrine.

That said, I wish that all the leaders of the various Churches and ecclesial communities would state the doctrinal position of their theological tradition clearly and consistently. Political correctness will prevent any real progress in ecumenical dialogue.


Personally, I am not so much upset as confused. Local members of "canonical Orthodox" churches keep telling me "we recognize your sacraments". Obviously, there is a "disconnect" somewhere. As to the scourge of "political correctness", I agree with you. Better to "agree to disagree" than to pretend that all is well when it is not.

Dn Robert

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
confused

It's not quite obvious to me.

“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."

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
No it isn't obvious and there are contradictions. As I have observed on numerous threads here and elsewhere, the Orthodox who have not real connection with Eastern Catholics (i.e. the Greeks and the Russian.) are totally lacking in any understanding of them.

Those Orthodox of us who are intertwined by history, family and geography with Eastern Catholics (i.e. the Antiochians and the Melkites, the Carpatho-Russians and the Ruthenians and the Ukrainians as a group) have a different understanding of the complexities of our relationships and USUALLY have become more accepting and more understanding.

Let's face it, for the most part, the treatment of Eastern Catholics (and the Orthodox who share traditions with them) by both 'traditional' (i.e. mostly Russian) Orthodox and by Rome has not exactly been an icon of Christian love and charity.

I am reminded by the words of the late Bishop John(Martin) of ACROD who always viewed his Diocese as a 'little Switzerland' which put it in a position of trying to be neutral while maintaining its own ways and foreign relationships. (BTW, Bishop John was received and vested as a priest by the Orthodox upon his leaving the BCC and becoming Orthodox.)


Last edited by DMD; 04/08/11 04:06 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Originally Posted by Laka Ya Rabb
confused

It's not quite obvious to me.

“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."

http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/archbishop-hilarion-alfeev-on-catholic-sacraments/


Hilarion must have changed his mind by the time he gave the inerview with Patriarhia.ru. Because, the one set of comments directly contradicts the other.

Dn. Robert

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Quote
When Catholics give the Orthodox an opportunity to pray in the churches which belong to them and do it often gratis, what does it show?


Is he insinuating that this shows that Catholics are moving closer to an Eastern Orthodox position or belief system? Not sure I see it that way at all.

Alexis

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 108
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 108
Deacon Robert,
Evlogite!
I agree with your above statement-why should we continue this one sided dialogue with Moscow? It gets nowhere, and the Kyivan Catholics are rightly angry at being denied the recognition of a Patriarchate precisely due to Rome's continual obsessive worry with what Moscow thinks-even when the Kyivan Church is older, the very mother of all Rus!
God Bless Fr. Robert Taft for his words!

Where could I find the quote from the late Michael Davies regarding Pope Pius XI forbidding the use of the term "schismatics" by Catholics regarding Eastern Orthodox?

Thanking you!

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
I think we all need to cut Metropolitan Hilarion a considerable amount of slack. It is quite clear that he represents a more open and progressive element within the Moscow Patriarchate, but he is, for all his impressive accomplishments, still a relatively junior member of the synod and part of what is definitely a minority faction. Therefore, he must choose his words and his steps very carefully indeed, being careful not to get too far out in front of the majority faction of the synod, while still trying to reform the Russian Church from within. In time, he may consolidate his position, may even rise to be Patriarch himself, but that will not happen if he is seen as being too accommodating, too "ecumenical". He could very easily be deposed, or at least, demoted to a less important position in some obscure diocese bordering the White Sea--and his place will be taken by someone much more reactionary. I don't think that would be good for anybody.

Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Stuart is correct, Met. Hilarion is despised by most of the reactionary forces within Orthodoxy and they would like nothing better than a chance to trip him up.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Originally Posted by StuartK
Metropolitan Hilarion.... but he is, for all his impressive accomplishments, still a relatively junior member of the synod



Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk is a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Therefore, he outranks, by Church Protocol, all other Metropolitans in the Church of Russia who are not permanent members of the Holy Synod.

Even when he was in the rank of Archbishop, when he was made Chairman of the Department of External Church Relations, and was appointed a permanent member of the Holy Synod, he outranked almost all of the Metropolitans in the Church, and served as senior to them.

Metropolitan Hilarion of New York of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not a permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia (neither is the Metropolitan Daniel of Japan, First Hierarch of the Autonomous Church of Japan). Both, although they are First Hierarchs of Self-Ruled Churches are junior to Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk (though in reality a Vicar Bishop of the Patriarch) when concelebrations occur.

We see an example of this back in December when the two Metropolitan Hilarions concelebrated at the 30th anniversary of the consecration of Archbishop Mark of Berlin (ROCA.) It was Met Hilarion of Volokolamsk who took precedence at the Liturgy.
Report and photos:
http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/12/01/news31536/

Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 10 11

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5