www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Uniate to Orthodox to Uniate

I think that rationale is again, that the mystical Church and the canonical church are not the same entity. Take for instance the Greek Old Calendarists; they are "uncanonical" churches from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, but I would not say that belonging to one necessarily makes you any less likely to work out your salvation, and I am not so sure that our Orthodox hierarchs would either. For those posters familiar with the Australian situation, there would be some in Australian Orthodoxy who might even suggest that a move to the Old Calendarists from the mainstream Greeks might be totally understandable!

I have never understood that really. In my mind it is the mysteriological Church which is of prime importance. In other words, where the Mysteries/Sacraments are and where the episcopate is, since the episcopate is the fount of the Sacraments. If there is no Baptism and no Priesthood and no Eucharist in an ecclesial group.....?

If we advert to the famous passage of Khomiakov, he is not saying that there are Churches outside the Church which have some sort of mystical union with the Church. He is saying that there are individuals outside the Church who are united invisibly to the Church.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware writes:


“If Orthodox claim to be the one true Church, what then do they consider to be the status of those Christians who do not belong to their communion? Different Orthodox would answer in slightly different ways, for although all loyal Orthodox are agreed in their fundamental teaching concerning the Church, they do not entirely agree concerning the practical consequences which follow from this teaching. There is first a more moderate group, which includes most of those Orthodox who have had close personal contact with other Christians. This group holds that, while it is true to say that Orthodoxy is the Church, it is false to conclude from this that those who are not Orthodox cannot possibly belong to the Church. Many people may be members of the Church who are not visibly so; invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The Spirit of God blows where it will, and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church. We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians.

In the eloquent words of Khomiakov: ‘Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and ... does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day’ (The Church is One, section 2)”


.....Such is the view of the more moderate party. But there also exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group, who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a member of the Church. Thus Metropolitan Antony, head of the Russian Church in Exile and one of the most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:

Question : Is it possible to admit that a split within the Church or among the Churches could ever take place?

Answer : Never. Heretics and schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one indivisible Church, and, by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church itself can never lose its unity according to Christ’s promise’ (Italics not in the original).

Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace is certainly active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church. Workers for Christian unity who do not often encounter this rigorist school should not forget that such opinions are held by many Orthodox of great learning and holiness.

It is interesting that Orthodoxy is comfortable (more comfortable than Catholicism) with saying that things such as the Eucharist or Sacraments are mysteries and that we should not speculate too deeply about their nature or delineate or enumerate them, yet the Church, which would also seem to be mysterious (sacramental even? in that it is a means by which God is in communion with man) it delineates in a way in which Roman Catholics seem not to.

Fr Ambrose, you didn't allude to my statement about the Old Calendarists. Would you therefore, apropo of your position, now receive an Old Calendarist into ROCOR by baptism?

That was somewhat facetious, but illustrates to some degree the point about canonical boundaries that I made. As is well known, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia and NZ does not regard ROCOR's sacraments as particularly valid, even after the Moscow Patriarchate rapprochement. This is in spite of ROCOR now recognising the sacraments of the New Calendar Greeks and to rejecting the Old Calendarist ones, which it previously got on reasonably well with at times. Did God's feeling about the Old Calendarists change with a pen stroke or two?

Really?

Now strict-constructionist Orthodox (no grace or salvation outside of Orthodoxy, an allowable opinion in Orthodoxy) would see the situation in Syria and Lebanon among Melkites and Orthodox (Fr Serge told me people intermarry - the wife always joins her husband's church, and with her church's blessing - and intercommune all the time; the laity are one church even though families still identify as one or the other) the same way (obviously not the view of most of this board!) but just about all here would agree with them that converting to Islam is apostasy (something many Balkan Christians were martyred for not doing or repenting of and reverting to Christianity), end of story, for which economy is impossible.

Anyway to answer the original topic's question, yes, if you want to do it, all you'd have to do is go to confession with the Greek Catholics and if you're (re)married have the Greek Catholic diocese check to see if it's OK with canon law.

According to the Orthodox you'd be leaving the one true church and endangering your salvation just as Rome teaches of those who convert from it to Orthodoxy (exception in practice: Syria and Lebanon).

One can have Truth but not have the totality of Truth. The Orthodox's "defects" are in ecclesiology, not in Doctrine nor in praxis.


Having valid sacraments, including Ordination, is indicative of having the majority of Truth; it isn't proof of having the Totality of it, however. Church-ness, therefore, is having sufficient Truth to have valid Sacraments, which are the tools the Faithful use to obtain grace, and to pursue Theosis/Deification and thus unity with God.

While I can see Alexis' point about "no danger"... from a Catholic standpoint, the "danger" to those born in to Orthodoxy is very minor, especially by comparison to even the most "Catholic-like" protestants, the Lutherans and Anglicans.

Without valid orders, Lutherans and Anglicans have no valid sacraments but baptism, and thus salvation comes not from their community, but from the mercy of God to the ignorant who make good faith attempts. We can but pray that the Lord considers their attempts worthy enough to not cast them into the fires of hell, and attempt to bring them into a valid and proper church.

And as to how long the Catholic Church has considered the Orthodox Validly and Apostolically a part of the Church, the 1917 CIC permitted, in extremis, attending the Orthodox DL to fulfill the Sunday obligation when no Catholic Mass/DL was available. Further, since the 1700's, Orthodox synods and portions of synods coming to Union with Rome were accepted by profession and vesting, not by reordination. All protestants are laymen until re-ordained, instead, as their protestant ordination is invalid, insufficient, and inapplicable.

It can thus be said that the Church-ness of the Orthodox has been acknowledged since the 1700's, if not before, and the practical canonicity of it since 1917, if not before.

Yes, of course, if the bishop made such a decision. The question of how to receive those from what the canons would probably see as parasynagogues (a status less than schismatic) rest with the bishops. I would not make such a decision on my own. And it would be a matter of importance, I imagine, if the person had previously received the true Baptism of the Church (which can never be repeated) or whether the Baptism was received outside the Church.

In the United States the Ecumenical Patriarchate has received Old Calendarists by the true Baptism of the Church.

I have previously baptized in Australia those coming into the Church from the Free Serbian Orthodox Church. This was the regular requirement of the bishops.

The Russian Church Abroad has always recognised the mysteries of all New Calendarists and those who may be telling you otherwise should check their sources of information.


I do not know if the Russian Church Abroad has adopted such a position since the Union with Moscow in 2007? What is your source for this?

Really? There are bishops who teach there is no salvation outside Orthodoxy? The mind reels!

PS: This is true of nearly all Old Calendarist sects. But then as you see from my discussion with Otshelnik, are those bishops inside or outside the Orthodox Church?

The rigourist and nationalist splinters from Orthodoxy - the sects - are an interesting case, Father. Technically outside the church - the Orthodox communion - but their orders AFAIK are almost always recognised economically. They're not vagantes pretending to be Orthodox; they're still in the family. So that's what being a parasynagogue is (and not the latest brand of Judaism ). Thanks.

Certainly in the instance with which I am most familier - the split within the Serbian Church in the West with the Free Serbian Church - we, i.e., the patriarchal Serbs, recognised neither their baptisms nor their ordinations, nor their weddings nor their eucharist.... and any Free Serb coming to the canonical Church needed baptizing (if they had not received true Baptism before going into schism.)

Economy was applied, later, at the time of reconcilation when priests were accepted in their ranks, and the (re)baptism and (re)marriage of Free Serbs were no longer necessary and they ceased from the day of reconciliation.

In this instance the Serbian Orthodox Church had chosen during the time of schism to apply strict standards rather than lenient ones and none of the Mysteries of the Free Serbs had any validity. This is a prime example of the powers of binding and loosing which Christ entrusted to His Apostles.

Old Calendarist sects are not in quite the same situation as the Free Serbs. They, most of the Old Calendarists, deny the presence of the Priesthood and the Mysteries in the canonical Churches and believe that if we the canonical Orthodox are saved, it is simply by God's great mercy. These people have, in the homelands of Orthodoxy, become great enemies of the Church, creating schisms and dissension on the canonical territories of the ancient Patriarchates and Churches, making every effort to draw people away from the Church and to divide the seamless Robe of Christ. They were sharply censured by the Pan-Orthodox Statement issued in Thessaloniki in 1998.

It is my personal opinion that leniency-economia is exercised more frequently in Western countries where the Church has grown accustomed to living in administrative chaos among the Orthodox and in the midst of multi-choice religious societies. For example, in the last year the Russian Church Abroad has received three hieromonks from the Old Calendarist Synod of Milan by the simple act of Cheirothesia, and 5 more clergy from Milan will soon follow suit.

If I am not mistaken the Russian Orthodox Church abroad gave the Greek Old Calendarist their episcopate once Metropolitan Chrystosomos died in the 1950's. And at various times was in communion with the Greek Old Calendar synod of Auxentios and up until the act of Canonical Communion in 2007 with Metropolitan Cyprian and his Holy Synod in Resistance. Of course the Synod in Resistance believes there is grace in the New Calendar Orthodox Churches, which was much more in line with ROCA stance before 2007.

Saint John of San Francisco had an affection and respect for the Greek Old Calendarists and so did Fr. Seraphim Rose. While they did disagree with the extreme position of some who deny grace in the New Calendar Churches.


Of course as a former Old Calendarist who belonged to the Holy Synod in Resistance and now I am a Byzantine Catholic, I do have great love and respect for the Greek Old Calendar Churches even if I disagree with them.

It appears Archbishop Steylianos on the one hand, and some ROCOR clergy on the other, have been misinformed.


It is possible that information is lacking, but this topic is covered on Orthodoxwiki:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Russian_Orthodox_Church_Outside_Russia

They certainly have. There is not a single synodal statement from the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad denying that the New Calendarist Churches possess the Mysteries. If you like, you could check that out with the Metropolitan.

I see nothing there to indicate any statement from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad that it has denied the existence of the Mysteries among the Old Calendarists, in particular among those with whom it was in communion until 2007. Could you please reference what you have in mind?

It could be my stupidity, but this would imply that me that an Old Calendarist after 2007 would need to be received by baptism but not before 2007?