Are Catholic Sacraments/Mysteries Valid?

And yet, an EO Christian would not be permitted to attend Mass and partake of the Sacraments within a Catholic context?

From an EO perspective, would this be considered wrong?

Gracia Singh said:

And yet, an EO Christian would not be permitted to attend Mass and partake of the Sacraments within a Catholic context?

From an EO perspective, would this be considered wrong?

Click to expand...

We are not permitted to receive anything that is sacramental to us from the hands of anyone we are not in communion with.

Evangelicals don't consider their Communion to be Eucharistic or sacramental at all - and without even the intent, it can't be. But still we cannot receive it because for us, it means we unite ourselves fully with their beliefs (and so we thus voluntarily break communion with our own). The same is true if we were to get married by a Justice of the peace - not sacramental but we voluntarily break communion by receiving it.

We can of course restore communion. But it is not the validity or non-validity of the sacrament that is the reason we can't receive/participate in it.

~Anastasia~ said:

We are not permitted to receive anything that is sacramental to us from the hands of anyone we are not in communion with.

Evangelicals don't consider their Communion to be Eucharistic or sacramental at all - and without even the intent, it can't be. But still we cannot receive it because for us, it means we unite ourselves fully with their beliefs (and so we thus voluntarily break communion with our own). The same is true if we were to get married by a Justice of the peace - not sacramental but we voluntarily break communion by receiving it.

We can of course restore communion. But it is not the validity or non-validity of the sacrament that is the reason we can't receive/participate in it.

Click to expand...

Ok, thank you!

So, would the EO consider those they are not in communion with to have valid Sacraments?

Athanasias said:

I guess my question is do Eo consider Catholic bishops and priest valid ordinations? Or are they considered lay people?

Click to expand...

I think that's one of those questions that isn't asked the way we would answer it. A Baptist minister is still a minister. He's not an Orthodox priest because he's not Orthodox and he's not a priest.

Catholic priests are priests but they are not Orthodox. For that matter, I suppose a Buddhist priest is still a priest, but not an Orthodox priest. It's not our business to worry about structures and authority of religious groups who are not a part of us.

I know you're asking specifically about the sacramental ordination. But it's outside of us, whether Baptist, Catholic, or Buddhist.

From an informational standpoint, we understand that those in particular ministries are more likely to have particular kinds of experience. And we can respect a person's experience and of course respect the dignity of all persons. But the only real question of validity for us is within our own Church. It's not something we need to concern ourselves with judging.

If you ask whether a Catholic (or Anglican or whatever kind of) priest would still be a priest if they became Orthodox - no, they wouldn't. But they could become (if not otherwise disqualified) and sometimes much more quickly.

Just trying to get the nuances out there, but I know I'm not answering what you're asking. I think we just don't address it in the way you're asking.

Athanasias said:

Thank you for your honesty. So to a Orthodox a Catholic Bishop is just a layman because holy orders is a sacrament and you would see that as invalid for us is this correct? I presume our eucharist would just be mere bread too is this correct? Just curious?

Click to expand...

I would say that it isn’t something we judge to be “valid” or not be “valid”. God works where He will, and I know He is not confined to Orthodoxy. What I do know, is that Orthodoxy’s sacraments are “valid”.

Beyond that, I can give you my opinion. I wouldn’t just call your Eucharist just “mere bread” - I believe God can convey grace through it. I wouldn’t just call your bishops laypersons, because they are Catholic bishops. I wouldn’t call them Orthodox bishops though. I concur with Anastasia’s answer above on this.

Gracia Singh said:

Ok, thank you!

So, would the EO consider those they are not in communion with to have valid Sacraments?

Click to expand...

Sorry I was falling asleep and missed this.

Again, this just isn't something we judge. All4Christ I think just said it well.

Basically we only talk about what we know we can offer. We KNOW what the Eucharist (in Orthodoxy) conveys. We can offer that.

If we speak about Communion anywhere else, then we presume to say what God must or cannot do - how can we give such a judgement?

I personally like to hold to the fact that God desires to save all people, and is merciful. Am I going to tell Him that He cannot give grace to some soul who was born in a time an place that they received the Gospel only from x-denomination? Or worse yet, do I actually want Him to withhold salvation from any person?

There are many ancient writings within Orthodoxy that condemn those outside, but in order to properly understand them, we have to consider the religious world at that time. Those outside the Church (which was really only "THE Church" at that time) ... were generally outside due to willful rejection.

God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. And I am thankful that He is a loving and merciful God, desiring all men to be saved ... such that He will do whatever He deems appropriate and necessary to do so.

We can't judge where His grace works or how. We ONLY know how He has told us to do things, and so we do it. Period.

I’ll add that I know I had a relationship with God before I found Orthodoxy and that He was with me throughout many difficulties. This was in a Pentecostal Church. God desires the salvation of all, so I don’t believe that He limits grace to within Orthodoxy; far from it. I believe God blessed me because of obedience to be baptized, and because I desired to follow what He taught us to do. I tried to do this in the best of my knowledge and understanding. It wasn’t liturgical or sacramental, and it didn’t have the fullness of Orthodoxy (which is something Chrismation takes care of - filling anything that is lacking). We considered it to be an ordinance instead. It was, however, something that helped draw me closer to God - because He loves us all.

I won’t ever say that God cannot work in others because they aren’t Orthodox. I know that God is in our sacraments and that He conveys grace through them. I won’t say that He can’t or won’t convey grace through other means though.

All4Christ said:

I’ll add that I know I had a relationship with God before I found Orthodoxy and that He was with me throughout many difficulties. This was in a Pentecostal Church. God desires the salvation of all, so I don’t believe that He limits grace to within Orthodoxy; far from it. I believe God blessed me because of obedience to be baptized, and because I desired to follow what He taught us to do. I tried to do this in the best of my knowledge and understanding. It wasn’t liturgical or sacramental, and it didn’t have the fullness of Orthodoxy (which is something Chrismation takes care of - filling anything that is lacking). We considered it to be an ordinance instead. It was, however, something that helped draw me closer to God - because He loves us all.

I won’t ever say that God cannot work in others because they aren’t Orthodox. I know that God is in our sacraments and that He conveys grace through them. I won’t say that He can’t or won’t convey grace through other means though.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I will say something I don't mention often. I always did have a bit of a misunderstanding about Communion during the many years as a Protestant. To be honest, I thought only Catholics believed in "transubstantiation" and that by that they meant that you could literally see blood in a cup with lumps of flesh. I knew I didn't believe that. But otherwise I took a sort of spiritual sense that Jesus really WAS present and I expected the grace of God. That's why I was horrified at the treatment of the elements in some places - children tossing them about and stepping on them, or placed somewhere aside for people to casually munch on the way out.

Anyway. My understanding was actually somewhat similar to Orthodoxy, though it was VERY unformed. I simply believed what I read in the Bible. Like any good Evangelical Protestant lol.

As a result, I expected the grace of God. And you know what? At times I know I received it. One time profoundly so. God is good and God is merciful.

~Anastasia~ said:

I agree.

I will say something I don't mention often. I always did have a bit of a misunderstanding about Communion during the many years as a Protestant. To be honest, I thought only Catholics believed in "transubstantiation" and that by that they meant that you could literally see blood in a cup with lumps of flesh. I knew I didn't believe that. But otherwise I took a sort of spiritual sense that Jesus really WAS present and I expected the grace of God. That's why I was horrified at the treatment of the elements in some places - children tossing them about and stepping on them, or placed somewhere aside for people to casually munch on the way out.

Anyway. My understanding was actually somewhat similar to Orthodoxy, though it was VERY unformed. I simply believed what I read in the Bible. Like any good Evangelical Protestant lol.

As a result, I expected the grace of God. And you know what? At times I know I received it. One time profoundly so. God is good and God is merciful.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Anastasia! I have had similar experiences in Baptist churches. In spite of their theology, I believed that I truly was receiving Christ. And at one point, wept with joy holding this tiny lump of bread. It was awesome.

Thank you, both of you, for your answers. They are helpful. Hopefully, someday, we can all get back together.

I don't know anyone who spends any time on such questions. The Holy Synods of our respective churches in the OO communion may decide this or that (and some churches are certainly known to be more open on this question, like the Armenians and the Syriacs), but a lot is left up to the local bishops, since they know individual situations better which may warrant some application of economia, though I've never personally witnessed it in action. There's generally no reason to commune Chalcedonians, since they are the ones with all of the churches and the wealth to build them and all of this in the first place (usually it's the other way around, where we lose people in the diaspora because we just aren't present enough on the ground, whereas you guys are), and so our priests have said absolutely not to the communion of Chalcedonians in every situation I have personally been in. (And yet in the one case as concerned my own parish while I was still there, the Chalcedonians kept returning anyway because they said they liked our liturgy better than their own; go figure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We still did not commune them.)

I am glad that we have returned to the original way of treating all Chalcedonians alike (we had a ~200 year period where we did not, under the influence of the Greeks and the Russians in Egypt), and not requiring re-baptism for reception into the Church, but instead a renunciation of error. This is the standard put forth by HH St. Pope Timothy II, the successor to our teacher HH St. Pope Dioscorus, in his surviving letters, which state that any who wish to return to Orthodoxy should be received by confession of faith alone, after a suitable period of reflection to make sure that this is what they want to do.

You probably only wanted EO answers, because that's all anyone ever cares about (as though there aren't 85-90 million of us...), but I figured I would chime in since my Church was mentioned in another post by a Chalcedonian. With regard to reception of Chalcedonian sacraments -- whether EO or RC -- that incurs automatic excommunication, as it is akin to unifying yourself with a body outside of the Orthodox Church. I do not know what the process is then for returning, as I was just told "We do not do that, since we are not in union with them" (when I had mentioned as a catechumen that I might visit St. Seraphim of Sarov OCA parish when I went back home for Christmas...obviously not to commune, but I don't know that the Egyptians understood that at the time).

Following this, it should be obvious to assume the following view of Catholic-specific anything: We don't partake in it or judge it one way or another, since it's outside the Church. To say it is valid would be to say that God is definitely working in your communion, which we would have no way of being able to definitively pronounce, and to say it is invalid is the same problem. We recognize and respect God's prerogatives as His own.

Think about it this way: Your Church does make definitive pronouncements regarding 'validity' in other churches, right? And yet you are still asking this question. So how helpful is it really to make this distinction?

Hmm. That probably came out a lot more negative-sounding than I had intended it. Sorry. I mean it more as a stance of profound "meh" with regard to the actual question of validity (as I hope I've demonstrated, that's not really a salient concept; it's more a matter of in communion vs. out of communion), but of course it should be said that we hope that the Lord works among all who profess Him, whether Chalcedonian or not, not because that distinction doesn't matter (though personally I would be happier than the happiest of clams if I never had to talk about that particular subject ever again; I don't think you guys can really understand how draining this is, particularly as the only OO person on this website who regularly posts about religious topics...or maybe I'm just in a bad mood today...hahaha), but because of course none of us can claim that our respective communions, jurisdictions, churches, parishes, etc. are like a "cage" for God, such that He only works where we say He does. Or rather, anyone can claim that, but it's a good indication that they ought not be listened to.

That sort of thinking is just as wrong-headed as any talk about validity, and for largely the same reasons. It is just that no one can say one way or another. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Everything else is...well, it's something else. By definition it's something else. Entertain it intellectually if you like, but do not take your eyes off the coming of the Lord, as He will return like a thief in the night. Do you want to be talking about validity then? I would not think so, no matter what your Church is or what its take on this matter might be.

Lord have mercy. That was bitter, too. I don't think I can internet today, you guys. I'm honestly trying, but it feels like it's not coming out right. Sorry to anyone I probably offended.

I ought to be praying the Agpeya or other praises today while I do my chores. Maybe that's why I'm off. Maybe start with the midnight praises to awaken the soul, as it is clearly still asleep: Arise, O children of the Light, let us praise the Lord of Hosts...

I didn't think your posts were that problematic. But God willing maybe I was just reading with charity. I at least try to do that but I know I fail sometimes.

Anyway ...

dzheremi said:

Following this, it should be obvious to assume the following view of Catholic-specific anything: We don't partake in it or judge it one way or another, since it's outside the Church. To say it is valid would be to say that God is definitely working in your communion, which we would have no way of being able to definitively pronounce, and to say it is invalid is the same problem. We recognize and respect God's prerogatives as His own.

Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was trying to say. I don't think we can pronounce anything outside of our communion as either valid or invalid - because for us we are pronouncing God's definite working or non-working. And that was never given to us to judge - only we know what we have been given.

Think about it this way: Your Church does make definitive pronouncements regarding 'validity' in other churches, right? And yet you are still asking this question. So how helpful is it really to make this distinction?

Click to expand...

This is something I began to wonder about today, given this thread. Does that mean that Catholics do pronounce particular Sacraments of particular communions valid - and those of others not valid? I think I've heard something like that.

But yes, it's simply foreign to us.

~Anastasia~ said:

This is something I began to wonder about today, given this thread. Does that mean that Catholics do pronounce particular Sacraments of particular communions valid - and those of others not valid? I think I've heard something like that.

Click to expand...

Hey, Anastasia, I think the basic idea is that, as you guys are genuinely Apostolic, and share with us the Apostolic Faith in the Triune God, and have valid orders, being conferred through genuine Apostolic succession, that while we have differences, you guys have valid Sacraments.

That goes for the Oriental Orthodox, too.

Someone please correct me if I'm not getting that right.

Here is a Vatican Statement on the Catholic Church's relations with the Assyrian Church of the East which might help explain how these ideas are understood and words used in a Catholic context ;

Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

Note especially the third point on the validity of the Eucharist within the Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari. The language and reasoning used might help!

Gracia Singh said:

Here is a Vatican Statement on the Catholic Church's relations with the Assyrian Church of the East which might help explain how these ideas are understood and words used in a Catholic context ;

Guidelines for admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East

Note especially the third point on the validity of the Eucharist within the Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari. The language and reasoning used might help!

Click to expand...

Thank you for the info. I read parts of it closely (including the one you suggested) and skimmed the others ... it gives a sense of what you are saying. Thank you.

(Might read in full when I'm less bleary-eyed if time permits )

I honestly rarely hear any discussions of valid vs invalid, licit vs illicit in regards to sacraments in the EO church. I don’t think the concept is addressed in the East in as much detail as the West. In general, I think the West has a more juridical mindset than you will find in the East.

Question: Does the Catholic Church (outside of Eastern Catholics) have the concept of oikonomia?

All4Christ said:

I honestly rarely hear any discussions of valid vs invalid, licit vs illicit in regards to sacraments in the EO church. I don’t think the concept is addressed in the East in as much detail as the West. In general, I think the West has a more juridical mindset than you will find in the East.

Question: Does the Catholic Church (outside of Eastern Catholics) have the concept of oikonomia?

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia;

"In short, economia is discretionary deviation from the letter of the law in order to adhere to the spirit of the law and charity".

The Holy Father seems to hint at this in his writings, but technically, no, I don't think this is something in that sense that Catholics would generally embrace.

If this is what is meant by Economia to Orthodox Christians, the Holy Father's arguable attemps to put an economia of his own into practice regarding divorce and remarriage have caused scandal, and a number of faithful have entreated him to teach what the Church has always taught, firmly and kindly, or to at least clarify his statements.

From what I understand, the general idea is that no matter what the context is, if something is wrong, it is wrong. If one's situation is difficult or pressing, one is not allowed to call a wrong choice neutral or licit because of circumstances.

One may not comprehend that one is doing evil, if one genuinely doesn't know that what one is doing is wrong, and did not intend to do wrong, but that is not the same thing as excusing an action known by all parties to have been incorrect or judging it less harmful spiritually because the situation was tough. One can always repent, confess, and do penance, but the toughness of a situation should not make an illicit act licit.

I hope I explained that alright. And got it right. It's actually a really good example, because what is being faced in this present Papacy seems to be an attempt to push a *type* of economia in relation to divorce and remarriage and communion, whereas this has always been a "no" situation.

chevyontheriver said:

They should figure out some objective standard instead of 'it depends'.

Click to expand...

If only there was a single, guiding authority who could speak decisively to such matters...