Beliefs about Catholics

[QuagDabPeg]

Hello. I've already asked some questions about the Orthodox church and I'm still in the process of investigation. In this search, I have been reading things on the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. One thing I haven't quite found is how the EOC views the RCC. For example, I know the Catholic church believes that the Orthodox has valid sacraments. As far as the Catholic church is concerned Orthodox can take our sacraments and Catholics, if need be (eg. there is no Catholic church around) can take Orthodox sacraments if the Orthodox Church allows it (which I understand they generally don't). I'm not sure exactly what the Catholic church believes about salvation of Orthodox. I believe they actually see them as sort of in schism, but I might be wrong. I'm interested in knowing how the opposite applies. Does the Orthodox church believe the RCC has valid sacraments? What does the EOC believe about the salvation of Catholics?

Thanks for all your help. You all have been very kind in answering my questions.

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Quag.

From Bp. Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church:

The Roman Catholic Church - Among western Christians, it is the Anglicans with whom Orthodoxy has at present the most cordial relations, but it is the Roman Catholics with whom Orthodoxy has by far the most in common. Certainly between Orthodoxy and Rome there are many difficulties. The usual psychological barriers exist. Among Orthodox — and doubtless among Roman Catholics as well — there are a multitude of inherited prejudices which cannot quickly be overcome; and Orthodox do not find it easy to forget the unhappy experiences of the past — such things as the Crusades, the ‘Union’ of Brest-Litovsk, the schism at Antioch in the eighteenth century, or the persecution of the Orthodox Church in Poland by a Roman Catholic government between the two World Wars. Roman Catholics do not usually realize how deep a sense of misgiving and apprehension many devout Orthodox — educated as well as simple — still feel when they think of the Church of Rome. More serious than these psychological barriers are the differences in doctrine between the two sides — above all the filioque and the Papal claims. Once again many Roman Catholics fail to appreciate how serious the theological difficulties are, and how great an importance Orthodox attach to these two issues. Yet when all has been said about dogmatic divergences, about differences in spirituality and in general approach, it still remains true that there are many things which the two sides share: in their experience of the sacraments, for example, and in their devotion to the Mother of God and the saints — to mention but two instances out of many — Orthodox and Roman Catholics are for the most part very close indeed.

Since the two sides have so much in common, is there perhaps some hope of a reconciliation? At first sight one is tempted to despair, particularly when one considers the question of the Papal claims. Orthodox find themselves unable to accept the definitions of the Vatican Council of 1870 concerning the supreme ordinary jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope; but the Roman Catholic Church reckons the Vatican Council as ecumenical and so is bound to regard its definitions as irrevocable. Yet matters are not completely at an impasse. How far, we may ask, have Orthodox controversialists understood the Vatican decrees aright? Perhaps the meaning attached to the definitions by most western theologians in the past ninety years is not in fact the only possible interpretation. Furthermore it is now widely admitted by Roman Catholics that the Vatican decrees are incomplete and one-sided: they speak only of the Pope and his prerogatives, but say nothing about the bishops. But now that the second Vatican Council has issued a dogmatic statement on the powers of the episcopate, the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Papal claims has begun to appear to the Orthodox world in a somewhat different light.

And if Rome in the past has perhaps said too little about the position of bishops in the Church, Orthodox in their turn need to take the idea of Primacy more seriously. Orthodox agree that the Pope is first among bishops: have they asked themselves carefully and searchingly what this really means? If the primatial see of Rome were restored once more to the Orthodox communion, what precisely would its status be? Orthodox are not willing to ascribe to the Pope a universal supremacy of ‘ordinary’ jurisdiction; but may it not be possible for them to ascribe to him, as President and Primate in the college of bishops, a universal responsibility, an all-embracing pastoral care extending over the whole Church? Recently the Orthodox Youth Movement in the Patriarchate of Antioch suggested two formulae. ‘The Pope, among the bishops, is the elder brother, the father being absent.’ ‘The Pope is the mouth of the Church and of the episcopate.’ Obviously these formulae fall far short of the Vatican statements on Papal jurisdiction and infallibility, but they can serve at any rate as a basis for constructive discussion. Hitherto Orthodox theologians, in the heat of controversy, have too often been content simply to attack the Roman doctrine of the Papacy (as they understand it), without attempting to go deeper and to state in positive language what the true nature of Papal primacy is from the Orthodox viewpoint. If Orthodox were to think and speak more in constructive and less in negative and polemical terms, then the divergence between the two sides might no longer appear so absolute.

After long postponement the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches set up a mixed international commission for theological discussions in 1980. Much is also being done informally through personal contacts. Invaluable work has been done by the Roman Catholic ‘Monastery of Union’ at Chevetogne in Belgium, originally founded at Amay-sur-Meuse in 1926. This is a ‘double rite’ monastery in which the monks worship according to both the Roman and the Byzantine rites. The Chevetogne periodical, Irénikon, contains an accurate and most sympathetic chronicle of current affairs in the Orthodox Church, as well as numerous scholarly articles, often contributed by Orthodox.

Certainly one must be sober and realistic: reunion between Orthodoxy and Rome, if it ever comes to pass, will prove a task of extraordinary difficulty. But signs of a rapprochement are increasing year by year. Pope Paul the Sixth and Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople met three times (Jerusalem, 1964; Constantinople and Rome, 1967); on 7 December 1965 the anathemas of 1054 were simultaneously withdrawn by the Vatican Council in Rome and the Holy Synod in Constantinople; in 1979 Pope John Paul the Second visited Patriarch Dimitrios. Through such symbolic gestures mutual trust is being created.

[QuagDabPeg]

Thanks for that post! It was quite interesting. I still don't understand the EOC's position though. Do they believe Catholics have valid sacraments? Could an Orthodox take communion (or Confession or Late Rites) in a Catholic church (if for some reason there were no EO Church's around or it was an emergency)? What does the EOC believe about the salvation of Catholics?

[Moros]

Could an Orthodox take communion (or Confession or Late Rites) in a Catholic church (if for some reason there were no EO Church's around or it was an emergency)?

No.

[CyberSponge]

QuagDagPeg,

In general, no, there is no intercommunion. I've been Orthodox all my life and I generally don't hear discussions about "validity" of this or that thing, unless I go on internet forums. ;) So although the "validity" of the sacraments may seem like a key question to you, I don't put a whole lot of thought into it. What does it even mean to be "valid"? Are there degrees to validity, or is it black-and-white? What affect does a "valid" sacrament have on a person? What if they believe it is a valid sacrament? What if they don't believe it is a valid sacrament, but it actually is? What do we even mean by an "invalid" sacrament? How can we tell?

So I guess for me it's not so much a matter of whether the sacrament is "valid" or not, but what does it mean? I know that for (non-nominal) Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist signifies communion with God and with one another. Think back to the Early Church when there were all sorts of groups splitting off, making their own path, and doing things their own way. They weren't concerned with the communal nature of the Church, nor with obedience to the Church. Some tried to mix in beliefs from paganism and Greek philosophy. What does this mean? If one of these people approached the presbyter for the Eucharist, could the presbyter give the holy mystery to this person, when they have shown that they want to choose their own path (i.e. be heretical)? By their actions these individuals have cut themselves off from the Church, and thus the communion found within the Church. And this policy continues to be the policy of the Orthodox Church to this day, despite it not being particularly "politically correct." ;) In order to receive the Eucharist, a person must have been joined to the Church through the Holy Spirit, and the Church teaches that this is done via chrismation (and baptism, if needed).

My explanation above is probably oversimplified, but that's how I "fit it into my mind." :D

Take care and thanks so much for your questions!

[QuagDabPeg]

In general, no, there is no intercommunion. I've been Orthodox all my life and I generally don't hear discussions about "validity" of this or that thing, unless I go on internet forums. So although the "validity" of the sacraments may seem like a key question to you, I don't put a whole lot of thought into it. What does it even mean to be "valid"? Are there degrees to validity, or is it black-and-white? What affect does a "valid" sacrament have on a person? What if they believe it is a valid sacrament? What if they don't believe it is a valid sacrament, but it actually is? What do we even mean by an "invalid" sacrament? How can we tell?

Catholics make a big deal about of "validity." Maybe this is one of the differences I'm seeing. The Catholic church believes that the orders of the priesthood must be maintained in order for the sacraments to be "valid" (that is, for them to actually take palce). An example of this would be the Anglican church. They believe, as we do, in the Real Pressence of the Eucharist. However, they broke from apostolic succession and so the RCC believes that they have "invalid" sacraments. When Anglicans have Mass, although they -believe- the bread and wine is transforming, the RCC says nothing actually is. Similarily their confessions do not really absolve their sins. Because of this, a Catholic may not take Communion in an Anglican Church and visa-versa.

The RCC does acknowledge the valid order of the EOC, as well as the SSPX and several other Catholic groups which have left communion. Because of this, the RCC says their sacraments are valid. When an EO priest says Mass, the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ. And when he absolves sins and gives last rites the sacrament is real. Because of this the Catholic Church has no problem with intercommunion.

Also because of this I -believe- that the Catholic Church includes the Orthodox (and SSPX and others like those) among the "Catholic" when they make statements such as "no salvation outside the church". (which is for another matter e.e)

But basically this is why I'm wondering about validity. Maybe the EOC sees it differently - and if they do that's why I want to learn about! I'm trying to find out as much as I can about the church.

Thanks again! And I hope this explanation helped in understanding my question.

[Moros]

You use unleavened bread in the Eucharist, we do not. This, surprisingly, was one of the main issues of the 1054 schism.

[Matthias]

The type of bread used was a MAIN issue?! Wow, that's all I can say. Wow.

[Iacobus]

The type of bread used was a MAIN issue?! Wow, that's all I can say. Wow.

An issue, one of many. But not a main one, in my view.

James

[Matthias]

I can understand the other issues, but that one just amazes me. My opinion is just who cares what the bread is made of? Both agree it is the Body of Christ; no? Then that should be the only thing that matters...

[CyberSponge]

Hi QuagDabPeg,

Well, about the whole "validity" thing. I have heard some Orthodox Christians make an issue out of it, others not. In Church life, however, I rarely hear someone say something like "X is not valid b/c it's done by a non-Orthodox Christian." It may be true that it is somehow "not valid," but that's something that mainstream Orthodox Christians don't seem terribly concerned about. Plus, to me, it doesn't seem entirely clear at what precise time a certain group of Christians have "invalid" sacraments, when they used to. What mainstream Orthodox Christians tend to be more concerned about is unity of faith and spirit. And so when a group splits off or becomes separated in faith, and that what they preach and how they view the Church becomes considerably different than that handed down to us, then that is cause for concern. And so by the actions of those who choose a different path than us, they choose to be separate from us. The Orthodox Church strongly desires all to be united in faith and love, and the Eucharist is the manifestation of that faith and love. And so while all Christians are theoretically united in love, we aren't united in faith. The Orthodox Church seems to be especially aware of how important a unity of faith is. That isn't to say that we must all have the same customs or even representations of the faith (e.g., we don't all need to follow the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), but we need to have the same Church dogma and doctrine. I mean, the Orthodox Church has been called "Orthodox" for a reason. :) Our identity is strongly tied to preservation and not compromising the faith given to us. We are to protect the faith so that we can live the faith God wants us to. :)





Catholics make a big deal about of "validity." Maybe this is one of the differences I'm seeing. The Catholic church believes that the orders of the priesthood must be maintained in order for the sacraments to be "valid" (that is, for them to actually take palce). An example of this would be the Anglican church. They believe, as we do, in the Real Pressence of the Eucharist. However, they broke from apostolic succession and so the RCC believes that they have "invalid" sacraments. When Anglicans have Mass, although they -believe- the bread and wine is transforming, the RCC says nothing actually is. Similarily their confessions do not really absolve their sins. Because of this, a Catholic may not take Communion in an Anglican Church and visa-versa.


The RCC does acknowledge the valid order of the EOC, as well as the SSPX and several other Catholic groups which have left communion. Because of this, the RCC says their sacraments are valid. When an EO priest says Mass, the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Christ. And when he absolves sins and gives last rites the sacrament is real. Because of this the Catholic Church has no problem with intercommunion.

I'd be interested in knowing the history of this teaching. Somehow I don't think this position was always true in the past. Perhaps it was an official position that just wasn't really followed. I think the the Catholic Church is much more ecumenical minded than it has been in the past.


Also because of this I -believe- that the Catholic Church includes the Orthodox (and SSPX and others like those) among the "Catholic" when they make statements such as "no salvation outside the church". (which is for another matter e.e)


I'm glad that you stressed the "I -believe-" part b/c I really doubt that's the actual belief. that creates all sorts of problems. Why, for example, even bother with the Pope if you don't need to follow him to be part of the Church? I'm pretty sure that the Orthodox Church, ever since "splitting" from the Catholic Church, has been viewed as schismatics and separated from grace. But I haven't studied those details so please forgive me for any error I made. :)

[Akathist]

I would encourage you to read the book "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Ware (originally named Tim Ware, older versions might have that name.)

I am reading it right now and it gives a wonderful explanation of the schism. There is no way to describe it to you completely in brevity. The process was complicated and started sometime in the 11th century (if not a bit earlier.)

One thing not mentioned in earlier posts here that is taught by Kallistos is that originally there was a council of Bishops and doctrinal matters were decided as a group. The idea was that each person as an individual was fallable but the Holy Spirit would lead them as a group to the Truth.

Whenever there was a new idea related to theology of the church, there would be a meeting of this council to determine the Truth.

Because St. Peter was the first leader of the church and he was in Italy, the Bishop of Italy was given a bit more supremacy in the council. HOwever, Constantine, built a second "Rome" in Constantinople, that bishop was second in importance.

When people who only sought the Will of God were in position, things went fairly well. But at some point, these fallable men (aren't we all fallable? I am not casting stones here) got prideful and wanted to feel important. And matters of theology and disagreements about such matters got mixed into this.

Kallistos gives a fairly balanced description of the history, but he is Orthodox and of course, he feels that the fallioque and the infallability of the Pope (and the Pope no longer consulting the other Patriates of the faith) are heresay. So he presents the schism on one hand as something very sad and unfortunate, and on the other as a direct result of heresay. (The later issues of departation: Purgatory and Indulgences being two examples, has not helped in the unification of these two faiths.)

About someone being saved or not. I am still figuring this out. What I have read so far it appears that an Eastern Orthodox would question the salvation of someone who practiced heresay and would hope to correct their errors, but they wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say the person was "not saved" because mankind is not God and only God determines such matters. I could be wrong about that, but so far that is what I am theorizing.

[CyberSponge]

I would encourage you to read the book "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Ware (originally named Tim Ware, older versions might have that name.)

I'm glad you're reading that book. :) It's great b/c it at least touches on almost every key aspect of history and theology in the OC, plus is well written. Also a big plus is that Bp. KALLISTOS doesn't hesitate to be honest with circumstances when Orthodox Christians (including clergy) have made mistakes. It's refreshing in a world full of one-sided books.


About someone being saved or not. I am still figuring this out. What I have read so far it appears that an Eastern Orthodox would question the salvation of someone who practiced heresay and would hope to correct their errors, but they wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say the person was "not saved" because mankind is not God and only God determines such matters. I could be wrong about that, but so far that is what I am theorizing.
Sounds familiar to me so what you said must be at least approximately correct. :D

[prodromos]

a bit more supremacy

I'm not sure this is quite what you meant to say ;)
The proper term is "primacy", not "supremacy". When you say one person is a bit more supreme than others, I start thinking of Diana Ross :P

John.