The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Melkite4Life, son of the desert, chchannel, OrbisNonSufficit, SergLts
5,657 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 148 guests, and 158 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
by likethethief, June 12
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,879
Posts412,872
Members5,657
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 68
C
Member
OP Offline
Member
C
Joined: Aug 2020
Posts: 68
Well to reiterate, the priests telling me this are FSSP and Institute of the Good Shepherd, not SSPX. I assumed the SSPX would hold this belief as well simply because this is the position of the Roman Church. A papal bull has more authority than a written statement by some joint ecumenical committee. The latter having no authority whatsoever. It's not like I "care" one way or another if Anglicans have a valid Eucharist or not. I am not Anglican so that is not something I concern myself with. My concern was with several Roman Catholic priests telling me (and reading countless opinions by other Roman Catholics, including priests) that visible unity with the Pope in Rome is an absolute MUST for being part of the True Church, and that if anyone willingly leaves this visible union, they remain in a persistent state of schism (regardless of what their personal intentions are for doing so) and would thus be at tremendous risk for going to Hell (unless they go to confession and return to the practice of Catholicism). My argument was that the Orthodox are completely a legitimate option and if someone found that their local Orthodox Church was more on point than their Catholic counterparts, there would be no sin in leaving Catholicism and joining the Orthodox Church (so long as one's intention is the legitimate pursuit of life in Christ and not out of some misguided anger or disapproval of Rome, a Pope, a specific teaching, etc). That being said, I am being told repeatedly that this is wrong and that there is no justifiable reason for a Catholic to become Orthodox and that you will essentially go to Hell if you do so. That is where I have been struggling. If Rome ever came out and said authoritatively that there is no sin in becoming Orthodox, I would become Orthodox in a heart beat as I tend to find their arguments/apologetics on the Early Church far more convincing. But because I imperil my soul and that of my family, I have been forced into this rut of deciding whether to remain Catholic or to become Orthodox. So for me, groups like the SSPX and Anglicans do not really matter as they don't effect my personal situation. I only ever speak up about the SSPX on this board when I see them being mislabeled.

And while this group may have become far more diverse (which is a good thing as we all want to avoid becoming an echo chamber), I don't see how that justifies changing the format or the purpose of this group. Even if the number of Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians were to outnumber the number of Byzantine Catholics, this is still a Byzantine Catholic forum and should remain that way. I joined this site to have access to the wealth of knowledge from people who have been Byzantine and can help me in this journey of learning and exploration. I don't really care to hear about Rome, Protestantism, etc unless it is somehow in a context that relates directly or indirectly to Byzantine Christianity. But that's me.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,022
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,022
Originally Posted by Utroque
I found this particular passage, within the Report, significant.

Finally, the archbishops pointed out that the words and acts required by the pope in 1896 are not found in the earliest Roman ordinals, so that if their omission renders an ordination invalid, the orders of the Church of Rome are on no surer footing than those of the Church of England.

The Anglican response makes a good point.
It is a point but looking at that "if," since obviously Eastern-rite ordinations are valid, it is not the case that "their omission [alone; ajk] renders an ordination invalid."

Originally Posted by Utroque
Nevertheless, what I think is much more important than the validity of Anglican Orders for the issue at hand, is the validity of Baptism.
If the issue is valid ordination it presumes a valid baptism as a necessity. Ordination, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist (at the least) stand or fall together; that is the issue.

Originally Posted by Utroque
That is at the crux of the developed ecclesiology of Vatican II. The Church has long upheld the validity of Baptism of heretics if it is administered using the correct form and matter. They are baptized into Christ!

And so you have from that Council in Unitatis Redintegatio: “Those who Have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
A valid baptism does not insure valid orders; it is necessary but not sufficient for valid orders.

Originally Posted by Utroque
I guess if you reject that Council and still consider yourself Catholic, you might be left in the bind that Colin is.
I accept the Council and it's quoted teaching, I accept the validity of baptisms in accordance with the ancient and current practice of the Cathoilic Church. It is my opinion that the conclusion of Apostolicae curae is correct and that it is still the present Catholic position. With that in mind, I am not in any bind.

Originally Posted by Utroque
But even Pope Pius XII condemned and excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney and his following for repeating and insisting upon a rigid interpretation of the Nulla salus… cant. He and his followers were reconciled with the Church before he died in 1972. I do, however, see a relationship between Father Feeney’s Slaves of Mary and SSPX.
From what I read at the time --and would be pleased to be informed otherwise-- in that reconciliation Fr. Feeney got away with -- don't know if can say it -- that thing he was said to be in and advocating before the reconciliation.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,622
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,622
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
The Church has long upheld the validity of Baptism of heretics if it is administered using the correct form and matter.


I have a question. How long has the Church upheld this position?

The reason I ask is that I used to have a Roman Ritual dated 1895 for use in the United States that provided for the conditional Baptism of Protestants who might come into the Catholic Church. It even spelled out the formula for each group.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 619
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
The Church has long upheld the validity of Baptism of heretics if it is administered using the correct form and matter.


I have a question. How long has the Church upheld this position?

The reason I ask is that I used to have a Roman Ritual dated 1895 for use in the United States that provided for the conditional Baptism of Protestants who might come into the Catholic Church. It even spelled out the formula for each group.


I believe this was settled over the Donatist heresy in Northern Africa in the fourth or fifth century. The Donatist were rigorists who insisted on rebaptism of those who had apostatized, among other things. Of course, a conditional Baptism is done only when there is some doubt as regards to the matter and form of a previous rite.

By the way, my previous post was misunderstood by the previous poster, but I need to take that up with him/her!

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,022
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,022
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

Quote
The Bull by Pope Leo on Anglican Orders in 1896 is no longer something that we refer to, other than it was a product of its time and circumstance.


Deacon Anthony:

This statement is not my opinion. It is a direct repetition of a statement made to me circa 1995/1996 when I asked a former pastor, a seminary professor, what was being done to discuss Pope Leo's Bull on Anglican Orders. I had said that I thought it might be something that ought to be discussed at the centenary of its publication in the spirit of speaking the truth in charity in ecumenical settings.
Bob,
He is and shall be!

OK. Is it your sentiment too? Your signing that post as "Moderator" and the "we" is what prompted my reservation. The parenthetical qualifications in my reply were to indicated that I was assuming it was both yours and official forum policy.

Originally Posted by theophan
As far as taking issue with "Anglican sacraments became invalidated," I would refer you to our "Who We Are" in town Hall. We have Anglican members here and one new poster has made several negative references to Anglicans and Protestants that seem to me to be contrary to the spirit of this forum.

Quote
Irish Melkite in describing this forum said : "We aren't perfect, but I think that, overall, we're less contentious. Be prepared, we are a very diverse group - our membership is no longer accurately described by the board's name. There is a free exchange of ideas and disagreement, but the basic rule is one of charity and respect for each other and each other's Churches; the tolerance level for bashing - whether it be of Catholics or Orthodox - is low to non-existent."
Dealing with "negative references to Anglicans and Protestants that seem to me to be contrary to the spirit of this forum" is your call as Moderator. My response is to what I quoted from your post.

"Anglican sacraments became invalidated" is a statement that should have elicited a call for clarification rather than the emboldened inference of being "bashing." There is only "one baptism" as we profess in the creed, there can only be one baptism as there is only one Christ. For some instances of Catholic acceptance of baptisms outside the Catholic Church discussed on this Forum see Re: specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism . To repeat what I said in my previous post: "If the issue is valid ordination it presumes a valid baptism as a necessity. Ordination, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist (at the least) stand or fall together; that is the issue." In Apostolicae curae, Pope Leo XIII declared Anglican orders to be "absolutely null and utterly void": "ordinationes ritu anglicano actas irritas prorsus fuisse et esse, omninoque nullas." It is Catholic doctrine; in the charity of honesty we must deal with it, difficult as it may be for some. Even more so is as it pertains to the difference between an ecclesial community and a church as in VCII's DECREE ON ECUMENISM UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO. Consider this assessment in Ecclesial community:

Quote
... the Second Vatican Council recognized the existence of some Western Churches that are not in full communion with the Holy See.

However, the Catholic Church expressly excludes "those Christian communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century," since, according to Catholic doctrine, these communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of orders, and therefore lack a constitutive element of the Church.[3] This includes the Anglican Communion, the validity of whose orders...


Your post "Who We Are" in Town Hall and Irish Melkite's words therein are fine words to which I subscribe. My remarks in this thread are about its application and its interpretation as noted.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 619
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by Utroque
I found this particular passage, within the Report, significant.

Finally, the archbishops pointed out that the words and acts required by the pope in 1896 are not found in the earliest Roman ordinals, so that if their omission renders an ordination invalid, the orders of the Church of Rome are on no surer footing than those of the Church of England.

The Anglican response makes a good point.
It is a point but looking at that "if," since obviously Easter-rite ordinations are valid, it is not the case that "their omission [alone; ajk] renders an ordination invalid."

Originally Posted by Utroque
Nevertheless, what I think is much more important than the validity of Anglican Orders for the issue at hand, is the validity of Baptism.
If the issue is valid ordination it presumes a valid baptism as a necessity. Ordination, Chrismation and the Holy Eucharist (at the least) stand or fall together; that is the issue.

Originally Posted by Utroque
That is at the crux of the developed ecclesiology of Vatican II. The Church has long upheld the validity of Baptism of heretics if it is administered using the correct form and matter. They are baptized into Christ!

And so you have from that Council in Unitatis Redintegatio: “Those who Have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
A valid baptism does not insure valid orders; it is necessary but not sufficient for valid orders.

Originally Posted by Utroque
I guess if you reject that Council and still consider yourself Catholic, you might be left in the bind that Colin is.
I accept the Council and it's quoted teaching, I accept the validity of baptisms in accordance with the ancient and current practice of the Cathoilic Church. It is my opinion that the conclusion of Apostolicae curae is correct and that it is still the present Catholic position. With that in mind, I am not in any bind.

Originally Posted by Utroque
But even Pope Pius XII condemned and excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney and his following for repeating and insisting upon a rigid interpretation of the Nulla salus… cant. He and his followers were reconciled with the Church before he died in 1972. I do, however, see a relationship between Father Feeney’s Slaves of Mary and SSPX.
From what I read at the time --and would be pleased to be informed otherwise-- in that reconciliation Fr. Feeney got away with -- don't know if can say it -- that thing he was said to be in and advocating before the reconciliation.


Either I was unclear in my use of words, or you misunderstood what I was trying to articulate. The "issue at hand" that I was referring to was over what constitutes membership in the Church that I think Colin Sheehan was grappling with. It is, of course rooted in Baptism and has nothing to do with Orders.

I do think Pope Leo XIII's declaration on the invalidity of Anglican orders stands unless a more compelling case can be made. Perhaps we can say in a more ecumenical spirit, "It's under review", as the refs say.

As far as Fr. Feeney's group is concerned, I have a clear memory of caviling with them as a very young man back in the mid-fifties on Boston Common. As is often the case, followers can be more rigorists than their teacher (They were sure Protestants were going to hell!). Several Jesuit theologians in scrutinizing Fr. Feeney's writings more carefully felt that they could be given a more orthodox interpretation, and he and the community were reconciled through the efforts of the saintly Cardinal Archbishop Medeiros of Boston and still survive as a community out in Harvard, MA. They love and revere the old rite, precede SSPX and have nothing, as far as I know, to do with it. God bless them.

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,622
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,622
Christ is in our midst!!

Irish Melkite has an essay on this board about the differences between the Augustinian and Cyprianic theories of orders--the differences between West and East. I have often thought that if the Eastern idea that orders are not personal--indelible mark on the soul--but rather a function of the Church some of the arguments might be over. As I understand it, when one has the Eastern orientation, if one leaves the Church he leaves his orders behind; he becomes a layman again. That might settle some of the ambiguity. On the other hand, the idea of economia might also come into play as it sometimes does in the East. When reconciliation is accomplished, there is no need for re-ordinations. However, women priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion are a big obstacle in light of Pope St John Paul II's instruction in 1994.

Here is the meat of it:

Quote
The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although the latter have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Last edited by theophan; 10/07/20 12:21 AM. Reason: additional comment
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,022
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,022

Originally Posted by Utroque
But even Pope Pius XII condemned and excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney and his following for repeating and insisting upon a rigid interpretation of the Nulla salus… cant. He and his followers were reconciled with the Church before he died in 1972. I do, however, see a relationship between Father Feeney’s Slaves of Mary and SSPX.
Originally Posted by ajk
[From what I read at the time --and would be pleased to be informed otherwise-- in that reconciliation Fr. Feeney got away with -- don't know if can say it -- that thing he was said to be in and advocating before the reconciliation.


Originally Posted by Utroque
As far as Fr. Feeney's group is concerned, I have a clear memory of caviling with them as a very young man back in the mid-fifties on Boston Common. As is often the case, followers can be more rigorists than their teacher (They were sure Protestants were going to hell!). Several Jesuit theologians in scrutinizing Fr. Feeney's writings more carefully felt that they could be given a more orthodox interpretation, and he and the community were reconciled through the efforts of the saintly Cardinal Archbishop Medeiros of Boston and still survive as a community out in Harvard, MA. They love and revere the old rite, precede SSPX and have nothing, as far as I know, to do with it. God bless them.
"...as a very young man back in the mid-fifties" you have mileage even on me. That time now seems to me as a high-point for the Church emerging from its legitimate though also stifling Counter-Reformation perspective. It may just be nostalgia to speculate on what it would have been like now if it had just continued. That VCII happened tells me that as appealing (to me) and vigorous as it was, it would not have been prepared for the world that was to come and in which we find ourselves. My saying that takes faith.

I couldn't at first place why but I was conflicted about my recollection of the timing, then found it: Feeney died in 1978. We were in the Boston area (Woburn - Cambridge) '73-'78 and picture myself there reading about the reconciliation, maybe in the Globe but probably in the Pilot. My impression is formed just from what I read then so it may be inadequate but I thought to myself then, he/they have changed nothing of their views and in reconciling were not submitting. I shrugged it off because it was done through, as you correctly say, the "saintly Cardinal Archbishop Medeiros." He came across as pure kindness. I also remember being outraged at the time after reading an article -- I still can't believe it was printed -- in a glossy complimentary copy of some sort of Boston-styled magazine, whose sole content was to malign and ridicule Cardinal Medeiros: Not just over-the-top criticism but vile writing for the sake of being vile as its purpose. Incredible.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 619
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 619
Originally Posted by theophan
Christ is in our midst!!

I have a question. How long has the Church upheld this position?

The reason I ask is that I used to have a Roman Ritual dated 1895 for use in the United States that provided for the conditional Baptism of Protestants who might come into the Catholic Church. It even spelled out the formula for each group.


Here's a clear answer to your question right from the Vatican: "In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church." I guess St. Cyprian opposed him, but that's the pull and tug in the Church that develops understanding.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,628
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,628
Deacon,

Your timing is impeccable, the late Cardinal of blessed memory was mentioned in an article just this week:

https://www.thebostonpilot.com/opinion/article.asp?ID=188600


Also, down the rabbit hole - I guess back in the 50s, the Feeney-right was so extreme, he and his supporters accused Blessed Archbishop Sheen of being a liberal apostate, similar to what he hear said about the Pope or Patriarch of the Orthodox Churches today: https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/tag/fulton-sheen/

The Most Reverend Fulton J. Sheen, D. D., star of the Du Mont television program Life is Worth Living, and winner of the award “TV Man of the Year,” is the inevitable outcome, the ultimate fruit, of teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. He has taken the belief that Heaven belongs to the ignorant and the sincere as surely as to the lovers of Our Lady and the receivers of Our Lord in Holy Communion, and has pushed it to its final, fantastic conclusion. For Bishop Sheen, who first won renown by his fashionable instruction of fashionable converts, has now decided to try a new line. He has abandoned preaching the Catholic Faith, and, to the five million people who wait expectantly for his message as it is broadcast from the Adelphi Theater each Tuesday night, he expounds something he feels is more needful and more consoling: his own philosophy.

This rejection of the dogmas of the Church in favor of his own ideas has been purposeful and assiduous, and Bishop Sheen wants there to be no misunderstanding about it. He has seen to it that no matter what magazine a person might pick up, he is certain to find in it an interview with the Bishop. And the recurrent theme in all these interviews, the one point about which Bishop Sheen is most anxious, is to dissociate himself, as far as his program goes, from any tinge of Catholicism. “Mine is not a religious program,” he proclaims, in his own imitable way: “I am speaking merely as a university lecturer.”

There is no denying, of course, that as a television message, Bishop Sheen’s has it all over the Catholic Faith. The mere fact that he is the most popular performer on television, whereas if he were preaching the Faith he would be off the air in two weeks, is proof enough of that. As to just what his message is, however, it is not easy to say. He seems to be concerned mainly with fighting such evils as “boredom” and “internal conflict;” in warning his listeners against psychoanalysis, while at the same time he diagnoses their ills in psychoanalytic terms; in urging his listeners to stop reading “Nietzsche one day and Freud the next and Sartre the next” (and some other writer they have never heard of the next), and to get themselves “an abiding philosophy of life.”

The purpose of his program, he says, is to make people “think.” And this might well be the secret of his popularity. For there is undoubtedly a certain scintillation in having the whole family sit around the television screen, thinking. And the Bishop’s style of presentation is exactly suited to the thinking of America’s television watchers. “If Christ is not God, then He is Anti-Christ.” This, though taken from his religious days, is a fair sample of the kind of cogent aphorism he gives his listeners to mull over.

But it is not so much what the Bishop says that makes his listeners sit up and take notice as his manner of saying it. For every utterance he makes, from the most dire warning of what will happen to the world if it does not let itself be healed by him, to the most inane description of the kind of paper he uses to make his notes on, is delivered in the manner of an over-done Hamlet reading from the Apocalypse.

Then, too, there are the well-publicized rumors of the Bishop’s asceticism — talk of hair shirts and holy hours and hot water for breakfast — all of which gives him an unmistakable glamour and manages to make him somehow as attractive as the more lusty entertainers in whose midst he appears.

It is ironical that, in addition to his television duties, Bishop Sheen also holds the office of National Director of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith. The purpose of this Society is to send missionaries into the farthest corners of the world so that everyone might hear the saving message of the Catholic Faith — the very message that Bishop Sheen, speaking each week to five million people, has discarded in favor of an utterly Faith-less message of his own.

Last edited by Michael_Thoma; 10/10/20 07:55 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Alice, Father Deacon Ed, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5