Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Christo Rege on March 24, 2024, 04:29:03 PM
-
Was a bit unsure on which category to place this topic.
Recently, I have been reading up on different cultures/countries. Would anyone be able to provide authentic sources on what the Catholic Church says about the Russian Orthodox church? Are their baptisms/marriages valid, but are not necessarily “sacramental”?
I personally know of someone who was born and raised in Russia and practices this faith. Any discussions with someone who is familiar with this would be so helpful!
-
Was a bit unsure on which category to place this topic.
Recently, I have been reading up on different cultures/countries. Would anyone be able to provide authentic sources on what the Catholic Church says about the Russian Orthodox church? Are their baptisms/marriages valid, but are not necessarily “sacramental”?
I personally know of someone who was born and raised in Russia and practices this faith. Any discussions with someone who is familiar with this would be so helpful!
Pretty sure any Orthodox baptism would have been considered valid even by the pre-Vatican II Church.
This is really a stretch, but you could make the case that they don't understand the Trinity correctly (filioque). That would, however, hang by the most slender of threads, as filioque was not embraced by the Church for hundreds of years after the apostolic age, and surely baptisms all those years weren't invalid.
An example of a sect that uses the right words, but has a radically different concept of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", is the Mormons (which they do not like to be called anymore). Their "baptisms" are certainly invalid, again, even though they use the very same words Catholics do.
-
ALL so-called Orthodox are in schism AND heresy at this stage. Their sacraments are valid, but that does not mean the recipients of said sacraments receive the grace thereof.
-
Pope Pius XI issued the Encyclical Rerum Orientalium, On The Promotion of Oriental Studies, on September 8, 1928, nearly 96 years ago, https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11reror.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11reror.htm)
This how He characterized Rome's view of the Orthodox:
18. Who then, considering the great extent of these labors, undertaken chiefly for the benefit of Orientals, does not trust Jesus Christ the most merciful Redeemer of men, taking pity upon the sad fate of so many, long astray from the right road, will complete what We have begun, and guide His flock into the One Fold, ruled over by the One Shepherd? A special reason for this hope is that among those nations a very great part of Revelation has been religiously preserved, sincere service is rendered to Christ Our Lord, great piety and love are shown towards His sinless Mother, and devout use made of the Sacraments. Therefore, since God in His mercy has willed that men, and especially priests, should as His instruments co-operate in the work of Redemption, what is there left to Us, Venerable Brethren, but once more to supplicate, yea to compel you not only to agree in mind and in heart with Our designs, but also to labor that the longed-for day may soon dawn, when We shall all welcome back, not only a few, but the vast majority of the Greeks, of the Slavs, of the Roumanians, and of the Eastern nations, hitherto separated, to their former communion with the Roman Church. And as we meditate upon what We have already begun to do, and what We hope to bring to perfection, so as to hasten this joyful day, it seems to Us that We may compare Ourselves to the Father of the family whom Christ Our Lord describes as calling the guests invited to His supper “that they should come, for now all things are ready” (Luke xiv, 17). Applying these words to Our own case, We earnestly entreat you, Venerable Brethren, that you add your efforts to ours, for this most important end of promoting Oriental studies. So that, after the removal of all obstacles, under the auspices of the Immaculate Virgin Mother of God, and of the Holy Fathers and Doctors of East and West, We may receive into the House of the Father those brethren and sons of Ours, so long separated from Us, but once more united in bonds of a charity based upon the solid foundation of truth and the full profession of the Christian religion.
They are referred to as “His (i.e. God’s) flock”, as churches which have “preserved a great part of Revelation”, which “render sincere service to Christ, who “show love toward His sinless Mother”, and “make devout us of the Sacraments”. The Holy Father expresses His desire that the Church may receive “those brethren and sons of Ours …”
-
Not only are the eparchies (dioceses) of the Orthodox schismatics true particular churches (not meant here in sense of the True Church) with valid sacraments, Catholics may avail themselves to certain Orthodox sacraments (Eucharist, Unction, Penance) in an emergency.
-
Not only are the eparchies (dioceses) of the Orthodox schismatics true particular churches (not meant here in sense of the True Church) with valid sacraments, Catholics may avail themselves to certain Orthodox sacraments (Eucharist, Unction, Penance) in an emergency.
Indeed. The Orthodox, while schismatics, do trace their lineage back to the very beginning. If I'm understanding correctly, they do not so much deny purgatory, in that they understand it differently --- some Orthodox adhere to the concept of "celestial toll houses", in which the reposed soul is accused by demons of various sins, and the angels and even the suffrages of the faithful plead their case in the affirmative. (Or something like that.) They do lapse into outright error, in tolerating successive marriages after divorce, and some Orthodox bishops allow contraception as a kind of "last resort" when NFP fails. The Orthodox rely on "economy" (ekonomia) in resolving difficult situations, and do not draw the thick black line between canonical disciplines (which can be dispensed from for a grave reason) and unchangeable moral absolutes that the Catholic Church does. Not saying they are right, just describing what they do.
-
Indeed. The Orthodox, while schismatics, do trace their lineage back to the very beginning. If I'm understanding correctly, they do not so much deny purgatory, in that they understand it differently --- some Orthodox adhere to the concept of "celestial toll houses", in which the reposed soul is accused by demons of various sins, and the angels and even the suffrages of the faithful plead their case in the affirmative. (Or something like that.) They do lapse into outright error, in tolerating successive marriages after divorce, and some Orthodox bishops allow contraception as a kind of "last resort" when NFP fails. The Orthodox rely on "economy" (ekonomia) in resolving difficult situations, and do not draw the thick black line between canonical disciplines (which can be dispensed from for a grave reason) and unchangeable moral absolutes that the Catholic Church does. Not saying they are right, just describing what they do.
I think 2 problems they have are. Intention, we don't know if their orders have the correct intention due to communism, and the real distinction between essence and energies which is polytheism.
-
we don't know if their orders have the correct intention due to communism
Completely false. So long as proper form is used (and it was by the Moscow patriarchal church throughout the hrars of communism), the Church always presumes validity of a sacrament. One would have to prove invalidity which is very hard to do since invalidating a sacrament is very difficult without altering form, matter, or minister.
-
I've heard some people say that the validity of priest from the soviet block is not absolutely certain since, they say, KGB agents (who wore fake beards for a time :laugh1:) replaced some priests at some point.
But invalidity because of communism? It's the first time I hear that.
-
Completely false. So long as proper form is used (and it was by the Moscow patriarchal church throughout the hrars of communism), the Church always presumes validity of a sacrament. One would have to prove invalidity which is very hard to do since invalidating a sacrament is very difficult without altering form, matter, or minister.
I've heard some people say that the validity of priest from the soviet block is not absolutely certain since, they say, KGB agents (who wore fake beards for a time :laugh1:) replaced some priests at some point.
But invalidity because of communism? It's the first time I hear that.
Thank you for the correction.
-
I think 2 problems they have are. Intention, we don't know if their orders have the correct intention due to communism, and the real distinction between essence and energies which is polytheism.
All of that "essence and energies" stuff they go on with, concerning the Holy Trinity, makes my brain hurt. IMO they're overthinking the matter entirely too much.
And they accuse us of trying to analyze everything, and not being content just to "behold the mystery".
Pots and kettles.
-
Completely false. So long as proper form is used (and it was by the Moscow patriarchal church throughout the hrars of communism), the Church always presumes validity of a sacrament. One would have to prove invalidity which is very hard to do since invalidating a sacrament is very difficult without altering form, matter, or minister.
I defer to those with genuine theological training, but I have been taught that…
Proper intention (and matter, minister, and form!) is always required to confect a sacrament. The minimal proper intent is "to do as the Church intends."
It seems reasonable to ascribe/assume proper intent to ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) lineage, but a stretch to assume proper intention for the Commie KGB "Orthodox" lineage.
-
And what of the primacy oath to the Communist state each priest/prelate had to take or face a long train ride to Siberia?
-
And what of the primacy oath to the Communist state each priest/prelate had to take or face a long train ride to Siberia?
This would not affect validity of sacraments or the fact that the Russian eparchies are true partcular churches. The sin would be on the clergy for swearing such an oath. But I would want to see the words of the oath -- words have meaning. Was this an oath to the nation? To the state? To the party and ideology? Each is different.
-
Interesting position of +Sanborn's RCI:
30. Baptisms conferred by Eastern schismatics are considered valid, unless they have been conferred by clergy who are not subject to the schismatic hierarchy, or have been conferred by those subject to the Russian patriarchate, in which cases positive eyewitness proof of validity must be provided.
-
Interesting position of +Sanborn's RCI:
30. Baptisms conferred by Eastern schismatics are considered valid, unless they have been conferred by clergy who are not subject to the schismatic hierarchy, or have been conferred by those subject to the Russian patriarchate, in which cases positive eyewitness proof of validity must be provided.
That is interesting. I typically just lump all of the Orthodox schismatics together and consider all of their sacraments as valid. But this thread has made me think differently.
-
I once read that up to 80% of the Russian Orthodox clergy were made up of KGB agents. Sounds a little too high of a percentage to be credible.
Anyway, the question is: were they actually ordained, or were they just installed as bogus priests?
If the patriarch agreed to have bogus priests, then the whole thing is probable fake by now. They are not even "true schismatics" anymore.
A Catholic Vatican would have a deep investigation, just like they did under Pope Leo XIII about the Anglican orders.
-
I once read that up to 80% of the Russian Orthodox clergy were made up of KGB agents. Sounds a little too high of a percentage to be credible.
Anyway, the question is: were they actually ordained, or were they just installed as bogus priests?
If the patriarch agreed to have bogus priests, then the whole thing is probable fake by now. They are not even "true schismatics" anymore.
A Catholic Vatican would have a deep investigation, just like they did under Pope Leo XIII about the Anglican orders.
ROCOR would not have reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate were there any question regarding the Holy Orders of the patriarchal church.
Byzantine sacramental theology is different than Latin theology. They do not speak of "valid/invalid" or "licit/illicit". Rather, in Byzantint theology whether Catholic or Orthodox, the question is does an ecclesial body "have grace" or does it "lack grace". If the patriarchal church lacked grace, ROCOR bishops and and priest would had to have rebaptised and rechrismated the whole patriarchal church and then reordain its clergy. All this before ecclesial communion could have been reestablished between the two churches.
-
ROCOR would not have reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate were there any question regarding the Holy Orders of the patriarchal church.
Byzantine sacramental theology is different than Latin theology. They do not speak of "valid/invalid" or "licit/illicit". Rather, in Byzantint theology whether Catholic or Orthodox, the question is does an ecclesial body "have grace" or does it "lack grace". If the patriarchal church lacked grace, ROCOR bishops and and priest would had to have rebaptised and rechrismated the whole patriarchal church and then reordain its clergy. All this before ecclesial communion could have been reestablished between the two churches.
So you are basically saying that "ROCOR" (I have no idea what it means) is a serious institution and the fact that they consider the Moscow Patriarchate legitimate means that we should consider them valid?
I am just rephrasing so I am sure I understand what you are saying.
-
ROCOR would not have reconciled with the Moscow Patriarchate were there any question regarding the Holy Orders of the patriarchal church.
Byzantine sacramental theology is different than Latin theology. They do not speak of "valid/invalid" or "licit/illicit". Rather, in Byzantint theology whether Catholic or Orthodox, the question is does an ecclesial body "have grace" or does it "lack grace". If the patriarchal church lacked grace, ROCOR bishops and and priest would had to have rebaptised and rechrismated the whole patriarchal church and then reordain its clergy. All this before ecclesial communion could have been reestablished between the two churches.
Just wondering, is this the way they justify marriage after divorce --- that the marriage once "had grace", but now it has "lost grace", and the spouses in this "graceless" marriage are now free to remarry (presumably after having repented and having done penance for whatever they did to make the grace disappear)?
How convenient.
-
Interesting position of +Sanborn's RCI:
30. Baptisms conferred by Eastern schismatics are considered valid, unless they have been conferred by clergy who are not subject to the schismatic hierarchy, or have been conferred by those subject to the Russian patriarchate, in which cases positive eyewitness proof of validity must be provided.
Ironically, this standard has potential applicability to various quadrants of Traddieland, at least in the eyes of some.
-
So you are basically saying that "ROCOR" (I have no idea what it means) is a serious institution and the fact that they consider the Moscow Patriarchate legitimate means that we should consider them valid?
I am just rephrasing so I am sure I understand what you are saying.
ROCOR = Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
https://www.synod.com/synod/indexeng.htm#gsc.tab=0
In answer to your question, yes.
-
Just wondering, is this the way they justify marriage after divorce --- that the marriage once "had grace", but now it has "lost grace", and the spouses in this "graceless" marriage are now free to remarry (presumably after having repented and having done penance for whatever they did to make the grace disappear)?
How convenient.
No. The matter of an ecclesial body having grace or lacking grace and Byzantine matrimonial theology amongst the schismatics are wholly unrelated matters.
-
No. The matter of an ecclesial body having grace or lacking grace and Byzantine matrimonial theology amongst the schismatics are wholly unrelated matters.
I am sorry, I conflated this with the concept of sacraments having or lacking grace.
But isn't there also a concept, amongst the schismatics, of being more able to say where grace is, than to say where it is not, and a fuzzier notion of sacramental validity?
For the Orthodox, everything seems to hinge on whether one is "in the Church" (i.e., in Orthodoxy) or not, and that sacraments outside of Orthodoxy are per se invalid (but the again, there's that "where grace is versus where grace is not" thing), but may be convalidated, after a fashion, once the (in their eyes) schismatic Christian is received into Orthodoxy? I have in mind a Catholic priest (God forbid) becoming Orthodox, something about his being chrismated and (I think) vested, making his priestly orders valid without the orders themselves having to be conferred (either absolutely or conditionally)?
-
I am sorry, I conflated this with the concept of sacraments having or lacking grace.
But isn't there also a concept, amongst the schismatics, of being more able to say where grace is, than to say where it is not, and a fuzzier notion of sacramental validity?
For the Orthodox, everything seems to hinge on whether one is "in the Church" (i.e., in Orthodoxy) or not, and that sacraments outside of Orthodoxy are per se invalid (but the again, there's that "where grace is versus where grace is not" thing), but may be convalidated, after a fashion, once the (in their eyes) schismatic Christian is received into Orthodoxy? I have in mind a Catholic priest (God forbid) becoming Orthodox, something about his being chrismated and (I think) vested, making his priestly orders valid without the orders themselves having to be conferred (either absolutely or conditionally)?
Yes, for the Orthodox AND for Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition, any mysteries (sacraments) celebrated outside the Church are without grace because the ecclesial body itself lacks grace since that body itself is separatrd from the Church.
How this can be corrected is not uniform amongst the Byzantine churches. Some churches require a readministration of all sacraments of initiation. Other churches practice merely a rechrismation (and vesting if the deficient person was major cleric in their previous "lacking-grace" church). Still other churches simply require a profession of faith. Eastern Catholics, perpetually abused by Latins as they have been, have been forced to follow the practice of the Lstin Church for the past 125 years, especially since the promulgation of the Eastern Code of Canon Law in the 1990s, even if this directly contradicts their own theology and historic custom.
-
Yes, for the Orthodox AND for Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine tradition, any mysteries (sacraments) celebrated outside the Church are without grace because the ecclesial body itself lacks grace since that body itself is separatrd from the Church.
How this can be corrected is not uniform amongst the Byzantine churches. Some churches require a readministration of all sacraments of initiation. Other churches practice merely a rechrismation (and vesting if the deficient person was major cleric in their previous "lacking-grace" church). Still other churches simply require a profession of faith. Eastern Catholics, perpetually abused by Latins as they have been, have been forced to follow the practice of the Lstin Church for the past 125 years, especially since the promulgation of the Eastern Code of Canon Law in the 1990s, even if this directly contradicts their own theology and historic custom.
Just out of curiosity, would they admit (though it may be kind of a contradiction in terms) of sacraments that are valid, yet lack grace?
They seem to use re-chrismation as a kind of sanatio in radice, to convey grace upon sacraments (such as Holy Orders) and to bring them under the omophor of the bishop. Is that right?
-
Just out of curiosity, would they admit (though it may be kind of a contradiction in terms) of sacraments that are valid, yet lack grace?
They seem to use re-chrismation as a kind of sanatio in radice, to convey grace upon sacraments (such as Holy Orders) and to bring them under the omophor of the bishop. Is that right?
I believe it depends on which Orthodox jurisdiction we are looking at. Remember Moscow and Constantinople are no longer in communion with each other. AFAIK the Russians, from before the Revolution, accepted Catholic priests as priests by chrismation. Then the Russian Church in Exile, later ROCOR, went through a phase of baptising all converts. I heard of ROCOR in the US baptising priests and then just vesting them as Orthodox priests. They make no distinction whatsoever between priests ordained in the traditional rites by certainly valid bishops and new rite ordinations. So the Russian church has convert former Catholic priests (ordained in the NO by NREC bishops) who have not been re-ordained. (My personal view is that NO priests ordained by NREC bishops are highly doubtful and to be avoided).
My understanding is that the Greek jurisdiction chrismates convert clergy but also ordains them but I might be wrong on the latter point.
-
I believe it depends on which Orthodox jurisdiction we are looking at.
BINGO! There is no monolithic Orthodox Church. Rather, it is a communion of Churches. (Our Catholic communion is supposed to be structured the same way, but the Latin Church sui juris is so massive that it overshadows the other Churches, making Catholicism monolithic and centralised.) Or, more correctly, several distinct communions: Constantinople, Moscow, Old Calendar/"True" Orthodox, and several autocephalous Churches not in communion with any others. Every group is distinct with its own customs for applying canons. The Eastern Catholic Churches would operate similarly amongst themselves but for the dominance of Latin practice and procedure mentioned parenthetically above that subsumes the Eastern Catholic Churches into western operating patterns.