From the Catholic Church’s perspective, we are already in major communion with the Churches of the East as they have preserved all Seven Sacraments of the Church and thus Apostolic Succession. All seven of their sacraments are valid. They accept every ecumenical council up to the Great Schism.
However, many of the Orthodox Churches, due to doctrinal developments in their tradition, which is all over the place, since they are nationalistic rather than unified, do not see the Sacraments of the Church from which they departed as valid. That’s one heck of a stumbling block to full communion.
On top of that, even if all the Orthodox nationalistic Churches recognized the Catholic Church’s sacraments and teachings as the Catholic Church recognizes theirs, how would the pope orchestrate full communion without demanding that the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept all ecumenical councils, most especially the Second Vatican Council.
Papal Magisteriums since Archbishop Marcel Lefebrev’s rejection of most of Vatican II has demanded that for the SSPX which he founded by illicitly ordaining bishops without papal approval, had to and has to be reversed. They must accept Vatican II and its reformed Liturgy.
Even traditionalist Catholics, once given a most beautiful gift from God through Pope Benedict XVI, the liberal celebration of the ancient liturgies of the Church, had that taken away from them under suspicious and false pretexts. How can the East trust the Popes of the Catholic Church when even Latin Rite Catholics are having a hard time trusting the popes of the Vatican II era?
Here’s what Pope Leo said this Thursday morning:
ADDRESS OF POPE LEO XIV
TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE ORTHODOX-CATHOLIC ECUMENICAL PILGRIMAGE
FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Castel Gandolfo
Thursday, 17 July 2025
___________
My dear brothers and sisters,
I offer a cordial greeting to all of you, especially to Metropolitan Elpidophoros, Cardinal Tobin and I thank them for arranging this meeting as part of your pilgrimage. You are all very welcome. I am sorry that I am a little bit late. Several meetings were scheduled this morning. But I am very happy to have this moment to spend with you in this beautiful place, Castel Gandolfo.
You have set out from the United States, which as you know, is also my native country, and this journey which is meant to be a return to the roots, the sources, the places, the memorials of the Apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, and of the Apostle Andrew in Constantinople. It is also a way to experience anew and in a concrete way the faith that comes from listening to the Gospel, hearing the Gospel handed down to us by the Apostles (cf. Rom 10:16). It is significant that your pilgrimage is taking place this year, in which we celebrate one thousand seven hundred years of the Council of Nicaea. The Symbol of Faith adopted by the assembled Fathers remains – together with the additions made at the Council of Constantinople in 381 – the common patrimony of all Christians, for many of whom the Creed is an integral part of their liturgical celebrations. Then too, by a providential coincidence, this year the two calendars in use in our Churches coincide, with the result that we were able to chant as one the Easter Alleluia: “Christ is risen! He is truly risen!”
Those words proclaim that the darkness of sin and death have been vanquished by the Lamb that was slain, Jesus Christ our Lord. This inspires us with great hope, for we know that no cry of the innocent victims of violence, no lament of mothers mourning their children will go unheard. Our hope is in God, yet precisely because we constantly draw from the inexhaustible source of his grace, we are called to be witnesses and bearers of hope. The Catholic Church is presently celebrating our Jubilee year whose motto, chosen by my predecessor Pope Francis, is “Peregrinantes in Spe”, that is, pilgrims in hope. Your Eminence, Metropolitan Elpidophoros, your very name tells us that you are a bearer of hope! It is my hope that your pilgrimage will confirm all of you in the hope born of our faith in the risen Lord!
Here in Rome, you have spent time in prayer at the tombs of Peter and Paul. As you now visit the See of Constantinople, I would ask you to bring greetings and my embrace, an embrace of peace, to my venerable brother Patriarch Bartholomew, who so kindly attended the Holy Mass for the inauguration of my pontificate. I hope to be able to meet you again, in a few months, to take part in the ecumenical commemoration of the anniversary of the Council of Nicaea.
Your pilgrimage is one of the abundant fruits of the ecumenical movement aimed at restoring full unity among all Christ’s disciples in accordance with the Lord’s prayer at the Last Supper, when Jesus said, “that they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). At times, we take for granted these signs of sharing and fellowship that, albeit not yet signifying full unity, already manifest the theological progress and the dialogue of charity that have marked recent decades. On December 7th, 1965, on the eve of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, my predecessor Saint Paul VIand the Patriarch, Athenagoras signed a Joint Declaration removing from memory and the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication that followed the events of the year 1054. Before then, a pilgrimage like your own would probably not even have been possible. The work of the Holy Spirit created in hearts the readiness to take those steps as a prophetic presage of full and visible unity. For our part, we too must continue to implore from the Paraclete, the Consoler, the grace to pursue the path of unity and fraternal charity.
Unity among those who believe in Christ is one of the signs of God’s gift of consolation; Scripture promises that “in Jerusalem you will be comforted” (Is 66:13). Rome, Constantinople and all the other Sees, are not called to vie for primacy, lest we risk finding ourselves like the disciples who along the way, even as Jesus was announcing his coming passion, argued about which of them was the greatest (cf. Mk 9:33-37).
In his Bull of Indiction for the Jubilee Year, Pope Francis noted that “the Holy Year will also guide our steps towards yet another fundamental celebration for all Christians: 2033 will mark the two thousandth anniversary of the redemption won by the passion, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Spes Non Confundit, 6). Spiritually, all of us need to return to Jerusalem, the City of Peace, where Peter, Andrew and all the Apostles, after the days of the Lord’s passion and resurrection, received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and from there bore witness to Christ to the ends of the earth.
May our return to the roots of our faith make all of us experience the gift of God’s consolation and make us capable, like the Good Samaritan, of pouring out the oil of consolation and the wine of gladness on today’s humanity. Thank you.
21 comments:
"However, many of the Orthodox Churches, due to doctrinal developments in their tradition, which is all over the place, since they are nationalistic rather than unified, do not see the Sacraments of the Church from which they departed as valid."
It is not accurate to say that the Orthodox Churches are not unified. And it is inaccurate to suggest that there is any disagreement among the Churches with regard to doctrine.
As an initial step toward possible unity, Rome could once again accept the 8th ecumenical council, which it formerly accepted before repudiating its acceptance some centuries later.
This is from an Eastern Orthodox site pointing out the self-inflicted confusion of the independent nationalistic Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Catholic sacraments:
“Orthodox View of Catholic Sacraments
According to a friend of mine, before she could officially be a member of the Orthodox Church she underwent Chrismation. What did she mean by this?
Orthodox priests traditionally chrismate (confirm) converts from Catholicism as a sign of reconciliation with the Church. This is not a denial of the efficacy of the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. Rather, this means something else.
In the Eastern Christian tradition the ritual for chrismation (confirmation) was not only used to seal people with the gift of the Holy Spirit, but it was also used to reconcile schismatics or heretics. These schismatics often were validly chrismateed, and no one denied that, but the ritual was used as a tangible sign of reconciliation. The Orthodox Churches officially consider Catholics to be in schism, so when a Catholic converts to Orthodoxy they are chrismated as a sign of reconciliation. It does not meant that the first confirmation was faulty or false.
Does the Eastern Orthodox Church consider Roman Catholic Sacraments as valid?
Because the Eastern Orthodox lack a tightly organized Magisterium, it is difficult for them to speak with a single authoritative voice on certain theological questions. One of these questions is the validity of Catholic sacraments.
As a general rule, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not speculate on grace outside of Orthodoxy. Hence, the validity of Catholic sacraments is an open question for them. However, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians and theologians believe in the validity of Catholic sacraments. But there are also many Orthodox who deny that our sacraments are valid, and there also many who are indifferent to the question.”
The Orthodox teaching is that there are no sacraments outside the Church: this is not an open question. The Orthodox Church sees the Catholic Church as being in heresy; therefore, it is not part of the Church.
As to the issue of how converts are received, every Church agrees that it is up to the local bishop to determine how to receive them. That is consistent with the Patristic witness on this topic.
Maybe your Orthodox Church teaches that, but not all Orthodox Churches teach that. Your Church is in schism with the Bishop of Rome, Successor to Saint Peter. Thus you don’t have a central authority in the person of the Pope to unite the variety of nationalistic Orthodox Churches in contested points of view on the subject. There is not one voice to state what you dogmatically state, unless each Orthodox believer is his own pope, which sounds very Southern Baptist to me.
Every Orthodox Church teaches the same thing on this and all doctrinal points. There are not contested views.
Marc,
I think you just proved Father's point for him.
Nick
How so, Nick?
Because the Eastern Orthodox lack a tightly organized Magisterium, it is difficult for them to speak with a single authoritative voice on certain theological questions. One of these questions is the validity of Catholic sacraments. Marc you speaking for all the fragmented nationalities Eastern Orthodox Churches reminds me that you may well be a Southern Baptist in Orthodox clothing. You don’t speak for all of Eastern Orthodoxy’s fragmented nationalistic Churches. NO ONE DOES!
Your foundational presupposition is incorrect, though. You are incorrectly assuming that there is no one teaching on the validity of Catholic sacraments. There is one teaching: there are no sacraments outside the Church.
I'm not sure why you're having a hard time understanding that...?
Pope Leo can pursue all the vain human efforts he can try to heal that schism, but as long as the Catholic Church continues to treat its past like a mistake, embrace Protestant principles and treat Traditionalists like disgusting outcasts (Traditiones Custodes), he's going to have about as much success as a pickpocket in a nudist colony (to quote W.C. Fields).
The distrust of Popes within Eastern Orthodoxy existed centuries prior to "when even Latin Rite Catholics are having a hard time trusting the popes of the Vatican II era."
=======
By the way, the overwhelming amount of Catholics have held in high regard our Vatican II era Popes.
Anyway, I feel sorry for a Catholic who has distrusted any of our holy Vatican II era Popes. I have found that we have been blessed throughout the Vatican II era with Popes who have exhibited unmistakable holiness.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
How can individual bishops choose to accept converts in different ways if it is universally held by Orthodox Christian Churches that there are no sacraments outside of themselves?
For a more "semi-official" Orthodox position statement, would this link suffice? https://www.oca.org/questions/romancatholicism/validity-of-roman-catholic-orders
"Concerning Roman Catholic orders: Within the OCA Roman Catholic clergy generally are received into the Orthodox Church through “vesting”; that is, they are not ordained anew. While there are some Orthodox Christians today who would not follow this practice, there is evidence that this was in fact the practice in Russia several centuries ago. One must also keep in mind that the practice of the Orthodox Church on this issue has been subject to change from time to time and place to place, often depending on situations appropriate to the setting."
"Concerning the Eucharist: Many Orthodox Christians do view the Roman Catholic Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ; others today would not subscribe to this. The answer is linked to whether one believes that Roman Catholicism is 'with grace' or 'devoid of grace.'"
Or from an Eastern Catholic blog on Orthodoxy: https://east2west.org/sp_faq/orthodox-view-of-catholic-sacraments/
"In the Eastern Christian tradition the ritual for chrismation (confirmation) was not only used to seal people with the gift of the Holy Spirit, but it was also used to reconcile schismatics or heretics. These schismatics often were validly chrismated, and no one denied that, but the ritual was used as a tangible sign of reconciliation. The Orthodox Churches officially consider Catholics to be in schism, so when a Catholic converts to Orthodoxy they are chrismated as a sign of reconciliation. It does not meant that the first confirmation was faulty or false."
"Hence, the validity of Catholic sacraments is an open question for them. However, the vast majority of Orthodox Christians and theologians believe in the validity of Catholic sacraments."
So, are Catholic orders valid or not? How about Catholic confirmation (chrismation)? The Mass? Can Orthodox bishops require re-baptism of converts? What is the "one teaching"?
Nick
By my count, there are 68 popes of Rome commemorated as saints in the Orthodox Synaxarion with the last dating from the 8th century. The real distrust of the papacy probably materialized beginning with the rise of Frankish Christianity in the West in the 8th century and certainly grew worse with the Nicolaitan Schism in the 9th century.
The divide between Western and Eastern praxis and doctrine took hold as novelties were introduced into Western liturgical practice and doctrine. It got worse over time as the Western Church wrongly assumed its practices were more ancient than the Eastern Church to the point where it began to accuse the Eastern Church of innovating despite the reality that it was the West who had innovated. Ultimately, these differences resulted in a large rift in terms of ethos... and the rest is history.
Indeed.
See, e.g.,: https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2021/03/12/why-the-eastern-orthodox-church-needs-the-western-rite/
Nick
We've also been blessed, in God's mysterious plan, with popes who befriend and protect sexual predators from the consequences of their actions.
Nick
Nick, the position is that the bishop decides how to receive converts. Variance in practice does not indicate that the position is not unified. This is the way the Church has always treated converts (even when Rome was in the Church, by the way).
If a bishop decides to receive a priest by vesting, that is not a recognition that his "ordination" elsewhere was "valid." It is a recognition that the bishop has the authority to determine how that person becomes a priest.
Similarly, some bishops receive converts by way of Chrismation. Again, that is not a recognition that the person's "baptism" was "valid." It is a recognition that the bishop decides how to receive the individual convert.
As for what "many Orthodox Christians" think, that is not the barometer of determining what the doctrine actually is anymore than asking what "many Catholic Christians" think... after all, would you agree that many Catholic Christians would get the answer wrong if asked a question about Catholic doctrine?
To directly answer your concluding questions:
No, Catholic orders are not valid. The Catholic Church lacks Apostolic Succession, which in Orthodox teaching requires maintaining the Orthodox faith rather than the mere use of proper form (as in Catholicism).
Catholic confirmation and Eucharist are not valid because the sacraments only exist within the Church.
There is no rebaptism of converts in Orthodoxy. There is no baptism outside the Church, so even if someone experienced the ritual of baptism outside the Orthodox Church, he has never been baptized before. So, his baptism in the Orthodox Church is his first baptism.
To say it again: The one teaching is that there are no sacraments outside the Church. And it is the universal teaching that the bishop has the authority to determine how to receive converts.
Some follow up questions.
"If a bishop decides to receive a priest by vesting, that is not a recognition that his "ordination" elsewhere was 'valid.' It is a recognition that the bishop has the authority to determine how that person becomes a priest."
I'm admittedly not familiar with the practice of vesting. Does that mean the bishop can "make" a priest without conducting an ordination?
"Similarly, some bishops receive converts by way of Chrismation. Again, that is not a recognition that the person's 'baptism' was 'valid.' It is a recognition that the bishop decides how to receive the individual convert."
Similar question. Does that mean the bishop can "make" a Christian without baptism (or chrismation)? Your comment seems to indicate that a bishop can receive a convert simply by chrismation, without any concern over the, as you state, prior non-baptism.
Also, why would an Orthodox publication, rather than stating the "one teaching" you have laid out, set forth what essentially amounts to a meaningless statement without actually stating the definitive teaching that, you state, all Orthodox ought to hold?
Nick
This source seems to answer some or all of my questions: http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20simplest%20terms%2C%20the,Person%20of%20the%20Holy%20Trinity.
I disagree with it, but it helped my understanding of the Orthodox position on the matter.
Nick
Nick, those are good questions. To answer, it is important to know that Orthodox sacramentology is different from Catholic sacramentology. In the Orthodox Church, baptism and chrismation (and communion) are the initiation into the life of the Church, but they are not seen to impart an indelible mark upon the soul as it would be understood in Catholic teaching. It is also necessary to understand that the bishop is the authority for his diocese: essentially, the diocesan bishop with his priests and his people IS the catholic Church.
With all that in mind, then, the easiest way to think about this is that the bishop has the authority to decide how people are initiated into the life of the Church.
The Ecumenical Councils have set forth canons about how to receive various converts from heretical confession or how to receive reverts from schism, heresy, and apostasy. That is the canon law of the Church. But in individual cases, the bishop has the authority to decide how that law is applied: he can apply the law strictly or he can apply it economically, or loosely.
Strictly speaking, exactness of the law requires that everyone should be baptized. But in individual instances, the bishop may decide that chrismation is the more appropriate way to receive a convert. The same holds true with the reception of priests (again, keeping in mind that there is no indelible mark of the priesthood in Orthodoxy -- a man may be made a priest by the bishop, but he may also be unmade a priest for various reasons).
Why would an Orthodox publication not be clear about this? I suspect for the same reason there are Catholic publications that don't provide accurate information about Catholic teaching: people can be wrong, people can have an agenda, people can be misinformed, etc.
As a final note, I would point out that the Roman Catholic Church has a similar take on this: some people are "rebaptized" because they come from a particular confession (e.g., Mormons). Other people are received by confirmation depending the circumstances. And still others are conditionally baptized, again depending on circumstances. The main difference, then, is that in Orthodoxy, it is the local bishop who decides how to apply the canons (for the reasons discussed above).
Nick, I would add one other point here: As I said, baptism is understood as entry into the life of the Church, which is the Body of Christ. With that basis, it makes little sense to consider baptism outside the Church -- it is not possible to be baptized outside the Church into the Church. For the same reason, it makes no sense to talk about other sacraments outside the Church.
Put simply, whereas the Catholic Church adopted an Augustinian view of the way sacraments work, that is not the accepted view in the Orthodox Church. There is no teaching on matter, form, and intention or ex opere operato; just as there is no teaching on indelible marks.
At a certain point, this comes down to the different understandings of grace within Orthodoxy and Catholicism. In Catholicism, grace is created and that is how God operates or interacts with a soul. So, the sacraments are particularized instances of created grace. In Orthodoxy, grace is the uncreated Energies of God, that is God Himself, directly present. Perhaps that helps to explain why the Orthodox Church does not see that there is grace in sacramental rituals performed outside the Church: God is not operating outside the Church in the same way that He is operating within His Body. Obviously, God is "everywhere present and filling all things," but the manner in which He is present in the sacraments -- making Himself present to individual people -- is different.
Marc,
Thank you for the explanation. I was certainly getting confused there. Your comment, plus the link in my most recent comment, has set me straight.
Beyond appreciating your patience with me, I will briefly point out that Catholics do not consider baptisms lacking Trinitarian form and proper intent (e.g., Mormon) to have a status analogous to that which Orthodox may give to Catholic baptisms. In the Catholic view, it is the intent to baptize and Trinitarian form that confers baptism, regardless of baptizer; lacking that, there is no baptism and baptism must be administered for entry to the Church. One difference, obviously, is the "economy" the Orthodox may employ and that Catholics may not.
Nick
Post a Comment