www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Question on the Sacraments

Dear Friends,

I have been looking into the understanding about sacraments between East and West. The differences were given to me by an Orthodox Priest-Monk. And this is his answer:
1. I said that both has the same view of baptism but he referred me to the CCC wherein it states that "at necessity, an unbaptized person can confer baptism as long as its intention is to do what the Church wills." I said that this is not an absolute necessity and he further said that: "The Roman Catholic interpretation of Baptism,among their other views concerning the Christian Mysteries, is wrong especially that non-Christians can confer Baptism."

"It's simply not possible for unbaptized people to confer baptism, for non-Christians to make Christians. But official RC doctrine says that Buddhists and animists (among others) could indeed confer Baptism as long as they intended 'to do what the Church does'. Why would they do that, anyway?! Unbaptized people may not confer Baptism, no matter *what* the RCC says.
Maybe unbaptized people can make others RCs, but they can't baptize them into the Church."

2. That children are not admitted to the Eucharist.

3. That the Holy Bread and Wine of the Eucharist are something beyond the Body and Blood of Christ.
(This is in reference about the Tridentine formula that the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ ispresent in the Eucharistic species)

4. That people can receive Holy Communion vicariously. (He means about Spiritual Communion)

3. That the anointing with the Holy Myron is a _rite of passage_ at puberty.

5. That Christians marry each other, rather than be married by a priest. (This is in reference again to the CCC on the question "Who is the Minister of Marriage")

6. That the priesthood is an ordained man's personal possession. (This is in reference of about the priesthood being an indelible mark: cf "You are a priest forever in the Order of Mechizedek)

What is faulty in these entries of the CCC? I'm looking into patristic sources that support the view of the CCC but I haven't found one yet. I hope that you could enlighten me on this. What is the view of the Byzantine Catholic Church?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elexeie:
[QB] Dear Friends,


5. That Christians marry each other, rather than be married by a priest. (This is in reference again to the CCC on the question "Who is the Minister of Marriage")

That has always been my understanding of marriage, that the priest or deacon serves as the Church's witness and the form and matter of the sacrament is the couple's consent.

You ask a lot of questions for one post

I'll take the first one about baptism. The Catholic position on unbelievers being able to baptize is one of those (IMO) speculative questions that almost never happens. My take on it is that it was meant to be comforting to a very unusual circumstance. (I mean, how many people do you know who were baptized by unbelievers? )

I have an Orthodox Catechism (_The New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults_) by Rev. George Mastrantonis which even speaks of "air baptism" being done on children near death (pg. 118 under "Exceptions to Water Baptism").

Now, I've never read of this type of exception ("air baptism") in Catholic books. I imagine your priest-monk friend would condemn this as well but it is one view accepted by some Orthodox.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Elexeie,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the Latin Church, the minister of the sacrament is the couple themselves, who proclaim their union before God. The priest is present to confer sacramental graces with the blessing, and to act as a witness. Interestingly enough, since a Latin Church deacon has faculties for blessings, and anyone may act as witness, the wedding may be celebrated with either a priest or deacon.

In the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox), the minister of the sacrament is the bishop or priest. That has always been the prescription for celebrating mysteries (sacraments) in the Eastern Churches. A deacon may assist the priest or bishop, but never confer sacramental graces.

The differences of theology between East and West do not impact the sacramental nature or the grace conferred to those who receive the sacraments. In both cases, the people of the Body of Christ (i.e., the Universal Catholic Church) are strengthened on their way to the Heavenly Kingdom. (Certainly also true for Orthodox Churches). Also, remember that in many cases, the reception of sacraments/mysteries are �interchangeable�. A member of the Latin Church may receive the mysteries of confession, Eucharist, and anointing from Eastern Churches without any special permissions or dispensations. Weddings and baptisms may be arranged to be celebrated in Eastern Churches (although the child will be ascribed a member of the Church of the father, regardless where the ceremony takes place).

Studying the differences from and academic view may be an interesting and enlightening experience. The point is that we are not to become hung up or overly worried concerning the differences. Rather, we are to rejoice that Christ has given us the assistance and graces to help us on our path to the Heavenly Kingdom.

Hope this helps,

Deacon El

Of course, my statement of the reception of "interchangeable" sacraments between West and East referred to Catholic Churches in union with Rome. Receiving sacraments between Catholic and Orthodox Churches is a topic beyond the scope of the original question.

Deacon El

Somehow, we need to get away from the notion that only the baptized are believers and that the Holy Spirit only works within the canonical and sacramental boundaries of the Church. She blows where she wills ("The Holy Spirit" or "Agia Pnevma" is a feminine noun in Greek).

We must point to the Spirit moving within the Church and affirm it, but we should never look outside of the Church and deny that the Spirit is moving there. We could fall into blasphemy.

The Old Testament Church is fully the same Israel/Church as we are in the New Testament Church and yet they had no baptisms. And even the unbaptized martyrs of the New Testament Church (post-Pentecost) fill our calendars. Look at St. Christina, baptized, as we like to say, in her own blood. (She was slain).

We could look at the original question like this:

A non-believer who baptizes their friend's child is probably doing so partly out of a recognition of the sanctity of their friend's beliefs. If they had been repulsed by their friend's beliefs and felt them to have been destructive to their friend, they probably wouldn't have baptized the child into the same egregiously erroneous belief system.

Many, many years ago, before I realized that it was inappropriate for an Orthodox Christian, I sponsored my devout Roman Catholic friends' son in baptism. They and the priest should have picked a Roman Catholic, but had there been no one else available (no parents, no friends, no priest) I might have baptized this child myself. Granted, that I was not an "unbaptized unbeliever," but functionally, it would have been the same thing. I might have baptized their child into Roman Catholicism out of respect for them and their clearly salvific beliefs.

Let's also remember that an "unbaptized unbeliever" may not necessarily have strong beliefs contrary to Orthodox/Catholic Christianity as a devout Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist would, but may be a sort of agnostic or undecided person, still searching for the true faith.

We need the canonical norms. I point to myself as one who defends the canons (perhaps to a fault). And while I would not include baptisms done by non-believers in these norms, that does not mean that we need to deny the validity of those baptisms in all cases.

In Christ,
Andrew

elexie:

Let me see if I can provide some simple answers to your questions. We can then dig deeper if necessary.

The issue of who may baptize was discussed over and over in the early Church. At the time of the Donatist Controversy (roughly 311-411) the issue of the spiritual state of the minister of a sacrament was becoming an issue. The resolution to this was to state that the minister's spiritual state was not a factor in the efficacy of the sacrament/mystery since it was Christ Himself who effected the sacrament. The Latin term for this is "ex opere operato" which simply means "from the work that is done." In other words, the minister does not actually baptize, it is Christ who baptizes and who brings the grace of baptism. When the Orthodox receive Catholics through chrismation they are accepting the baptism of those for whom they do not believe fully possess the grace of God. So, in a sense, the Orthodox do accept the baptism of those who are outside what they consider to be the Church. From a practical matter, the Catholic Church has presented a theoretical issue: is a heretic, a schismatic or an athiest should baptize with the intention that the Church has (how are they to know what that intention is), then the baptism would be valid because of the necessity of baptism for salvation.

This is practice, not theology. As such it really isn't relevant to a discussion of theological differences.

This seems to be quibbling over nothing. Since Jesus Christ is a person with a divine and human nature, it is not possible to separate those aspects of his presence. Under the form of Bread and Wine Jesus is present; all of Jesus, not part.

Spiritual communion isn't "receiving Holy Communion vicariously" but is, rather, a prayer that pleads for grace that is similar to that received in communion. Clearly it is not the same.

There are no "rites of passage" in Eastern or Western theology. What the West calls Confirmation (but that uses chrism, not myron) has been seen as a rite of passage, but that's a way to describe what is done. Grave damage was done to the theology of Confirmation by separating it from Baptism. However, from a Latin standpoint it is a "sealing with the Holy Spirit." By this term is understood the "possession" of the individual by the Holy Spirit (a seal was used to indicate ownership or authorship).

Yes, there are theological differences in the understanding of marriage. I cannot explain why the differences, nor can I resolve the differences. However, it is apparent from the Catholic Church that this is a difference without significance since Eastern and Western theology are both acceptable. In part, this stems from the early Church where marriage was seen as a civil action that, on occasion, would be blessed by the Church. The Church did not enter into being the sole possessor of marriage until well into the 500s!

While it is true that the West does claim an ontological change with the reception of Holy Orders (bishop, priest and deacon), it is equally true that the office to which a man is elevated with this sacrament is not his own. The office belongs to the Church, not the man. As such, the Church regulates the exercise of the office with faculties granted by the bishop.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Christ is Born!

Begging your pardon, Andrew, but "Pnevma" is a neuter noun - "to pneuma", even though it's first declension. Hence, "To Agion Pnevma".

Just my two cents!

in Domino,

Edward

Elexeie,

No animus against you whatsoever, but the Orthodox monk to whom you spoke offered caricatures of western theology, rather than the real thing. Pretty typical.

--Of course the priesthod is not anyone's "personal possession." That is absurd. That the priestly character is inherent in the person, however--this is NOT absurd. The MAN himself is CONFIGURED TO CHRIST by the sacrament of ordination, and PARTICIPATES IN CHRIST'S OWN PRIESTHOOD. This is Catholic teaching.

--Infant communion is a practice and not a dogma.

--You tell me how Christ's risen body and blood can be present anywhere without His soul and divinity!!!!!!! How can Christ be separated from His DIVINITY??!!! Christ is not living if He is separated from His SOUL!!!!

--Spiritual Communion is simply a prayer for the presence of Christ--NOT a vicarious reception of the SACRAMENT!!!!

--Show me where the Catholic Church teaches that Confirmation has ANYTHING to do with PUBERTY!!!

--Regarding marriage, the western position (that the couple administer the sacrament to one another) is just as ancient and well founded as its Eastern counterpart.

--Regarding the ability of non-Catholics to baptize: the arguments that you monk gave against it are weak. Of course non-Christians can't make Christians. But Christians can't make Christians either. The Holy Spirit makes Christians, and every valid baptism involves the action of the Holy Spirit.

LatinTrad

Dear Edward,

If you are right (which you are probably are), then I should have referred to the Hebrew "ru'ah" as feminine.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Elexie,

What I see here is the cultural divide yet again...

the over defining of the West versus the under defining, mysical understanding of the East. I see nothing more than that. The understanding is the same. Yet, whenever the West overly defines something, it is like a knee-jerk reaction of the East to find some fault in it.

In Christ,
Alice

Dear Alice,

You are more than correct!

Historically, the Byzantine Church has been as overbearing as the Roman which is why there were times when Miaphysite Churches preferred to be under the rule of Muslims rather than that of either RC's or Byzantines.

Sad, but true.

Alex

Hi David!

Thanks for the response( and I do ask a lotof questions in one post)

Anyway, that specific clause in the CCC regarding anyone (including non-Christians) to baptise should be clarified since some Orthodox view this as a depature to the Universal faith.

Dear Deacon El,
This is what has been taught to me in my grade school catechism class in the early '80s.

Elexeie

Dear Father,
We all know that there are serious differences of opinion and theology between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy. And on the question of marriage, we
have found another. My amazement comes from how far apart the two understandings are.

For Rome, _matrimonium facit consensus_, consensus [contract] makes a marriage. From this understanding come the -- to Orthodox, amazing -- ideas that lay people can celebrate marriages, and that some marriages are not 'sacraments'
(putting aside, for the moment, the exact meaning and content of 'sacrament').

For the Orthodox, the most they can say is that _Sponsaliam facit consensus, sed matrimonium solus Christus facit_, consensus [contract] makes betrothal, but only Christ makes marriage.

I suspect that what makes for this difference is again differing theological anthropologies, in particular the theology of sexuality. If marriage is only licit for procreation, then the 'contract' is to raise children together. But
if marriage is to be a restored communion of humans, of bodies, of love, then it requires Christ to restore this, and it has to be His sacramental icon, a priest or bishop, that does this, and whatever He does is sacrament.

Elexeie