It was only Constantinople which refused to recognise Bulgaria's autocephaly for a while. The other Orthodox Churches had no problem with it. Grace was not impeded.

It is the same today with the Orthodox Church of America. Only Moscow, Bulgaria and Finland recognise her autocephaly. The other Orthodox Churches so far refuse. But that does not mean that any of them see the Orthodox Church in America as graceless and priestless - far from it.

It would seem ironical that in this very important regard the Catholic Church takes a more mystical view than Orthodoxy who relies more on a strict "canonical" approach.

"Grace was not impeded." Not according to a strict Cyprianic interpretation of canonical communion. I do not believe Constantinople shared your rather generous personal interpretation during that interregnum.

Constantinople is merely ONE Orthodox Church. All the others were accepting of Bulgaria's autocephalous status. I do not see how any Cyprianic interpretation could apply?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_O...an_Patriarchate

Are we speaking about the boundaries of the Church?

For us it is not so much a canonical approach (though that is important) but a question of eucharistic celebration and communion among bishops. Eucharistic communion is what creates, affirms and gives a visible symbol to the unity of the Church.

I would not call the Catholic position more or less mystical than the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint. The most that can be said is that the two perspectives are different.

Like for instance the immediate infusion of validity in Anglican orders through in the involvement of Old Catholics, aka the "Dutch Touch". That sounds like a toggle switch to me.

This is very much like the Catholic view I gave above.

Regarding the web of communion during the time Constantinople refused to recognise Bulgaria's autocephaly, I pose the following as questions:

1. Constantinople and all the other churches were in communion?
2. Constantinople was not in communion with all the Bulgarian churches?
3 The Bulgarian churches were in communion with all the other churches?
4. If there was a break in communion, was this reflected in the Eucharistic celebration: commemorations, receiving communion, etc.?

Since a sphragis/seal/character is imparted by ordination in Catholic dogma, it is intrinsic to the person. It can be used or abused but abusus non tollit usum, abuse does not take away use, hence, "you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

Ordination is a nuptial mystery and is thus oriented to a relationship. It is abused when it is individualized, isolated or alienated from a legitimate community.

What I don't follow is the reasoning of those who must go outside their "church" to get ordination. What does that say about the legitimacy of their "church"? To me the onus is on them.

"You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" refers to Christ, not to presbyters of the Church. Also, what scriptural and patristic evidence is there for the view that priesthood is "nuptual?" Do you mean that priesthood is analogous to the sacrament of marriage? If so, then this would not fit Eastern theology at all.

I do think that this issue of "validity" regarding orders illustrates the difference between the Roman and Orthodox understanding of the sacraments. In Roman theology, the sacraments operate in a manner which is mechanistic. It does not matter whether the faith of the Church is present or not. A Roman Catholic Priest could leave the Church, then go home and pull out some bread and wine, say the right words, and make the Body and Blood of Christ appear. This is not the case in Orthodoxy. A priest has his sacramental power (which is not really his power) only through the faith of the Church in unity with the Bishop. If a priest is defrocked or excommunicated, or if he voluntarily leaves the Church, he has no more sacramental power. This is because the priest is only the priest in the Church with the people. The prayers and faith of the people are just as necessary as the ministry of the priest. This is also why unbaptized persons cannot baptize others and it is why sacramental marriages are only validly conferred in the Church's ritual by a priest. In other words, in our ecclesiology and sacramental theology, it is necessary that a minister of the sacraments be authorized to do so (by the bishop) and that he does so from within the Church according to the ritual of the Church. Otherwise, there is no sacrament.

Joe

What I don't get is how someone's orders could become suddenly valid even if their faith presumably is not. That sounds very much like a "toggle switch" to me. Taking that a step further though, if an Anglican priest has valid orders, then he has a valid Eucharist. Therefore fullness of faith.

On the Bulgaria front, there have been other such situations of impaired communion. The Russian church abroad for instance. It's not really unique.

Again, this shows the difference between RC and OC theology. Being a priest is not some sort of autonomous power that can exist separated from the fullness of the faith of the Church. A heretic, at least one who is visibly separated from the Church by his heresy, cannot confer the sacraments. Apostolic succession is a matter of true faith just as it is a matter of a succession of ordination. It isn't simply the laying on of hands that ordains, but it is the Orthodox faith of the Church through those hands that ordains. If the fullness of the faith isn't present, then there is no apostolic succession.

Joe

There is a lot here; I'll try my best to address the points, one by one.

The quote from Psalm 109(110):4 is of course speaking of Christ, the priesthood of Christ, who as priest according to the order of Melchizedek who offered bread and wine, now offers Himself, His body/bread and blood/wine. Priests are presbyters and bishops... I think I just got it, is it just the "forever" that you object to?