www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodoxy and Catholic Orders

Excellent. I feel the same way about every gratutious reference to Galileo, the Inquisition, calendar canons, the role of the laity in repudiating Florence, the tyranny of the Pope of Rome versus the EP (recently commented on brilliantly by Bishop Tikhon on the Indiana list, or for that matter, ahistorical discussions of the mode of reception of Catholics into Orthodoxy.

Of course on the thread in question (see PM) no one contradicted the information quickly put up by Father Thomas. There was some discussion of how such ideas might emerge, and how correction might have been given without resorting to blood libel.

Jennifer,

I do think, that the possibility of affirming grace, validity of orders, or efficacy of sacraments is positive and that that denying then is negative. I would be interested in an exposition of how this might work in reverse. (And Teen, I agree with you, that your comments lapse into cliche). In any case, it is I, not the RCC, who have offered the terms of discussion in my post. Thus it's very hard for me to see this as a matter of the RCC dictating the rules of the game.

Of course. But the question is, what informs the decision to subscribe to it? The idea that it is the position of one's chosen jurisdiction just shifts the question back a step. (Unless the latter choice is stricly a practical one - e.g., better priest salaries).

Well, if you are saying I have done any of the above, please offer evidence. Why do any of these get mentioned here?

Thank you for your private message. I have conflated this with something else. I am noting this publically.

Honestly there remains quite a bit of uncharitable behaviour on this board as on others, I do not deny that I have engaged in it on occasion.

I remain convinced that no one board has any monopoly on poor behaviour. When engaging posters on polemical points you must consider the affiliation of the poster and the board. To expect a similar reaction on a non-Catholic board regarding the Papacy as you would have on a Catholic board does not seem reasonable to me.

Tony, I don't recall and would be very surprised to find that these issues had ever been brought up by you. I think that the point you made is well-taken, that we should try to be diligent about the truth of what we write, and wanted to undersocre it with examples that stick in my mind - a number of which IIRC are germane to iconophile's original complaint.

Within limits. That is to say, is would be nice if, regardless of affiliation, there were better adherence to actual facts and less rounding up of the usual suspects and favorite legends. I think that this board, overall, is pretty good at avoiding a party line that criticizes nonsense only very selectively.

For all who think that the SSPX is in schism & without valid sacraments, a short info brief that is enlightening (also not associated with sspx)

http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/faq04.txt

In Christ,
james

James,

Just so you know, that link may be shot down because of where it comes from - a website run by an independant sedevacantist priest!

Better to search for another source that will be considered reputable for info on the SSPX. Regardless, the SSPX is a hairy subject with varying opinions, so it's another situation where you may here on thing from one source, and another from someplace else, just like this whole situation regarding the sacraments of the RCC.

In Christ,
Aaron

I apologize if the following is rambling or seen as not completely relevant to the points being debated here, but I perceive the arguments as going in opposing circles and ignoring several basic considerations, on the part of both my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. That the discussion has veered off in the direction of the Anglicans and SSPX confirms my thoughts and really has no particular relevance, since the theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum. This leads me to presumptuously suggest that it is time to move on to other things.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Eastern Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.

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 they have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory. Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy. We, as Catholics, can dislike the fact that all do not choose to do so, but it is not our place to impose upon others our theological precepts and require that they adopt them.

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church would in some instances likely have to accept the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of the so-called "independent movement") whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations.

Back to the SSPX issue. The SSPX has valid orders and valid sacraments, though the latter are illicit in most instances (exceptions being baptism, confession, and unction in extremis). As to schism, Archbishop Lefebvre was declared to be in schism by the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei, inasmuch as schism occurs in the face of disobedience that tears at and denies ecclesiastical unity. There are differences of opinion as to whether the schismatic status attains to those who adhere to the SSPX; keep in mind that the pronouncement was made against Lefebvre personally and, if we are to use the historical re-interpretation of the acts of 1054 as a point of reference, pronouncements against individuals do not extend to those not named. There is also disagreement whether the SSPX is a juridical person for purposes of the application of the Code of Canon Law.

Canon 751

My apologies to those in whom I have induced narcolepsy.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Friends,

Certainly, there are hard-liners on both sides that add nothing to the exchange of information or understanding that comes from a true ecumenical discussion where views are shared.

(By "ecumenical" I mean when we can talk to one another about our views without attacking opposing views.)

For me, the issue of "convert mentality" is a most salient one here.

I know many Orthodox and I can always tell who is a convert and who is a cradle.

I'm sure there are Orthodox converts who can talk about Western Christianity in a dispassionate manner. It's just that I've not met many.

BUt I like the way Orthodoxy affirms the very real boundaries that do exist between RCism and Orthodoxy.

I find the mainstream RC ecumenical perspective to be confusing sometimes as it CAN be suggestive of an all-inclusive denominationalism that is simply not on with either East or West.

For me, the "last straw" came when I bought a book on ecumenism from a Catholic bookstore when I was in university - I forget the title.

In it was a collection of articles on ecumenism and church relations. One Catholic professor said that God calls us all to certain denominations.

And he would not wish to try to get a certain Presbyterian friend to become Catholic since it appeared to him that it was God's will for him to be Presbyterian.

To me, all this seemed like a watering down of things.

I think I can understand Western Christians who seek out Orthodoxy and what it is they are seeking from Orthodoxy.

Western ecumenism can indeed be very confusing and unstable, especially the RC view (and this is a caricature, of course) of the "three-quarters full" glass of ecclesial communion with the true Church i.e. that Orthodoxy is closest to the Catholic Church because it is almost like it etc.

The Orthodox notion of "Communion" is fascinating in this respect.

One can have IDENTICAL beliefs to and praxis with Orthodoxy, but still be out of communion with Orthodoxy.

Alex

Dear Alex, CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM! Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. As a convert to Orthodoxy for over 30 years, I too have gone through various 'stages' in my growth...but find that any extremism is always dangerous spiritually and that in the end, it is best to concentrate on the GREAT DEAL that we share in common rather than those things that we differ about. I've always seen the need in Orthodoxy for a 'Petrine ministry' of some sort...and at the present time, I'd be MUCH more comfortable if that came from Pope John Paul II than from Constantinople. Wherever there is humility, the 'finger of God' is at work...and I see this much more clearly in Rome right now. The continued super-ethnic direction of Orthodoxy in America is most distressing to most converts and increasingly even to the younger generation of 'cradle-Orthodox'...and if this doesn't change soon...will be the death of our Church in this land.

Wishing you a blessed Nativity feast!

In the Savior born for us,
+Fr. Gregory

I find this to be somewhat insulting. We tend to dismiss things we don't like as "convertitis."

I've recently spoken to two Orthodox priest (OCA and Antiochian) about Roman Catholicism. The Antiochian priest is a convert while the OCA priest is cradle. The Antiochian priest says the western rosary and told me he considers himself to be a western Christian. He also told me that he makes holy hours at local RC churches.

On the other hand, the OCA priest told me that he doesn't consider Rome to be Rome anymore. He was shocked to hear that the other priest said the western Rosary.

One could also claim that the "open" priest is "positive" while the "closed" priest is "negative." Or say the OCA priest is a "hard-liner" and therefore dismiss his beliefs. However, knowing both of them personally, I like them both equally. I think they're both good priests.

BTW, I think it's not just Orthodox teachings about the RC that are dismissed as "hard-line" but traditional Roman Catholic teachings as well.

I think what we have here is not "open-ness." There are a certain set of beliefs that constitute this board's 'orthodoxy.' Certainty that 'orthodoxy' is more "open" than typical net RC and Orthodox beliefs. However, IMHO it's not true "open-ness" because other views are dismissed as "hard-line" and "convertitis."

Brethern,

I did not intend to start a war, but to answer a question.

But with all respect and charity, I cannot talk out of both sides of my mouth and tell someone to return to their roots and traditions, and on the other hand surpress & eliminate their own traditions and roots, it does not make sense.

I do believe that all traditions are equal and no one should dominate and over shadow its brethern.

If I had bad intentions why is my rule of prayer based and rooted in the East ? Because it brought me out of my darkness into a new and brighter Light.

No my brethern, I lament for all who feel lost or displaced, East or West, and will continue to pray for all with no prejudice towards my brothers or sisters.

james

Nor did I intend to start a big argument by my original question, which has been answered, I think. One blessing in being Catholic is it is clear where the Church stands; within Orthodoxy there appears to be a pretty wide array of opinions...
These are peripheral to the discussion, but I would like to clarify a couple of things:
1] In calling the SSPX schismatic I did not imply that their sacraments are invalid; they are clearly valid.
2] Someone said that the Anglicans consider themselves Catholic. It should be clarified that the Anglicans of the 16th century clearly identified themselves with the principles of the Reformation with the adaption of the 39 [?] Articles. This included a "low" sacramental view regardig the Eucharist. It is this that invalidated their orders, as they henceforth lacked proper intention.
Later Anglicans sought to re-establish Catholic tradition within their communion, but the damage was done.
3] I am not in favor of most of what passes for ecumenism in Catholic circles. I am not for compromising truth to establish unity. I in particular consider ecumenical efforts directed toward mainstream, liberal Protestantism to be a dead end, at best. I do consider the Orthodox Churches to be of an entirely different nature. I was surprised to see what can only be called anti-Catholic opinions on what seemed a moderate site. Like I said, my acquaintance here with Alice, and other Orthodox posters who are generous in their appraisal of Catholicism, as well as various personal contacts obviously misled me. I stand sadder but wiser...

iconophile,

When I read your statement I am confused. It appears that you are advocating a type of mutual respect which equals reciprocity of the RC position, that seems to be what others have understood you are saying, but perhaps it is not.

I mentioned Anglicanism since according to this site [newadvent.org] (and others, this is the "branch theory") they believe For the reasons stated in many places the RCC is unable to accept that affirmation made by the CoE and other Anglicans.

Yet it seems that what you would like (correct this if it is incorrect please) is that the Orthodox Churches reciprocate the position of the RCC. While at the same time you are not allowing the position of the Orthodox Churches only that of the RC. Perhaps this is not what you intend, it is however what I am able to perceiver of this.