www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Hilarion of Volokolamsk-"Schismatic" Sacraments Not Grace-Giving

I think we have concluded that there is a potential problem with the capacity of sacraments performed in schism to confer grace.

As Fr Ambrose said, "we don't know" whether the sacraments committed in schism are valid. We don't even think this is neccesarily the right framework to look at it in.

I know this is difficult for some western christians to grasp, but we don't know, we haven't made a set of legal tomes to enable us to know, and we aren't (maybe)really interested in knowing.

What we are interested in is healing schism and division, and we trust in God to supply what lacks in that case.

With respect, and thanks for your patient and respectful conversation, I still don't see any great East-West divide on these questions.

Some among the rightest wing of Roman Catholics will say that Divine Liturgy carried out by Orthodox or others separated from Peter is not pleasing to God. They will say the priest acts in a way objectively sinful and the laity also. They will say that while it is impossible and undesirable to judge the state of a person's soul, and that God will act in individuals as He sees fit, the outward action is rendered useless and graceless because of the sin of schism.

I do not see how this thought differs so much from the perspective you present.

You say validity is not under discussion. I think it is.

The link earlier from the Greeks in the United States includes a list of religious bodies whose baptism may be recognized under Economia. Mormonism, for one, is not on that list. Could this be because what Mormons call baptism is really nothing theologically like what Orthodoxy calls baptism? To accept the Roman baptism under economia but reject the Mormon baptism is to rule not on grace but on validity.

And please correct me if I am mistaken in the next example.

If you receive a Roman priest, you may accept his baptism and ordination by economia.

If you receive an Anglican priest, you may accept his baptism by economia, but not his ordination.

What is this but to rule the Roman ordination valid and the Anglican one invalid?

You may prefer different words to describe the same concepts, or you may prefer not to describe the concepts at all, but they are clearly there and they are clearly active in Orthodoxy just as well as Catholicism.

If you receive an Anglican priest, you may accept his baptism by economia, but not his ordination.

This has been brought up in a thread before, and a person posted a letter from the Ecumenical Patriarchate published in 1922 that allowed for the acceptance of Anglican priests as clergy by economy.

Anglican with Questions about Orders

I believe, at least based upon what I have been told by an Eastern Orthodox friend, that the Anglicans misunderstood the letter to mean that their Church's orders were held to be valid in general, when in fact all that was granted was the ability to accept converting Anglican clergy as clergy by economy.

I mean, either these are examples of Romanish legalism infecting Orthodoxy, or we share shockingly similar methods and beliefs on the topic of sacramental validity. Far from West forcing anything on East (as has been posted in this thread).

Jason,

Relying on the early 20th century edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia for anything other than a paperweight (or screensaver in this instance) is not to be advised.

The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although the latter have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.

Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments. As an example, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity or oekonomia on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy. We, as Catholics, can dislike the fact that all do not choose to do so, but it is not our place to impose upon others our theological precepts and require that they adopt them.

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church in some instances could likely find itself in the position of accepting the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of the so-called "independent movement") whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations.

Many years,

Neil

Yes it is interesting, but I suppose that one's theological presuppositions can lead to different interpretations.
...indicates to me that no sacrament can exist as grace-filled outside the canonical Church.
...I see this letter, and the others as well, as allowing the principle of economy, which alone fills the dead outward form of schismatic or heretical rituals with grace.

Don't you see your position dovetailing exactly with the (now admittedly un-p.c. and unlikely to be articulated) Catholic view that sacraments done in grave sin cannot benefit the minister or knowing recipients; and that schism, being a grave sin, renders all sacraments done in schism ineffective? Essentially "sure, they've got sacraments, but the sacraments can't help them while they persist in schism."?

The emphasis of the discussion may vary, and I'm sorry if I'm getting a little 'round-the-mulberry-bush, but I'm just not seeing the essential difference.

. . . Catholic view that sacraments done in grave sin cannot benefit the minister or knowing recipients . . .

JDC:

Christ is in our midst!!

This is not Catholic teaching and never was Catholic teaching. The spiritual state of the minister has no effect on the channel of grace that is the sacrament or mystery. If this were so, there would never be any grace received by anyone because we have, as St. Paul puts it, "all fallen short of the Glory of God." The Holy Spirit is able to work through even the worst sinner, provided he has sacramental matter, the propoer form, and the Church's intention.

In Christ,

Bob

JDC:

Christ is in our midst!!

This is not Catholic teaching and never was Catholic teaching. The spiritual state of the minister has no effect on the channel of grace that is the sacrament or mystery. If this were so, there would never be any grace received by anyone because we have, as St. Paul puts it, "all fallen short of the Glory of God." The Holy Spirit is able to work through even the worst sinner, provided he has sacramental matter, the propoer form, and the Church's intention.

In Christ,

Bob

..because you are speaking about the subjective disposition of the priest or recipient getting in the way of the grace that is inherently present in the validly celebrated sacrament of a schismatic or heretical group. While I - on the other hand - am saying that the ritual act performed outside the Church has no grace in it, because it has no inherent validity when performed in separation from the Church. In other words, ritual actions celebrated outside the Church, which mimic the sacraments of the Church, are empty actions, that is, until the Church applies the principle of economy to the dead action of the schismatic group.

A Catholic who receives a sacrament while in the state of mortal sin does not receive the grace of the sacrament. Done with will, schism is a mortal sin.