www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Differences in understanding regarding Holy Orders

danman916:

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

The differences are according to an Augustinian understanding (St. Augustine in the West) and the Cyrillian (St. Cyril of Alexandria in the East).

If you do a search, Neil (Irish Melkite) has a very thorough explanation that is in the archives.

Bob

I've usually heard these views characterized as Augustinian (from Blessed Augustine of Hippo, as you said) and Cyprianic (from Saint Cyprian of Carthage).

If you do a search, Neil (Irish Melkite) has a very thorough explanation that is in the archives.

The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. ...

Historically, there are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determined 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 conferral by an ordained minister - essentially any except Baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and Marriage in the Latin Church, where the priest is seen as witnessing rather than conferring the sacrament.

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 has historically adhered 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 combinations 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 Ofiesh 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.

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments (e.g., the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect), but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

(For many years, the Old Catholic Church of the Utrecht Confession greatly facilitated doing so. It dutifully sent notice of each episcopal ordination to Rome which, in turn, notified the OCC of its canonical displeasure - an exchange that reputedly traced back more than a century. You have to sometimes look at the light side; I know it's sick - humor me - I picture clerical minions on each side, situated in subterranean rooms, cranking out elaborate documentations with seals affixed and dispatching them posthaste to their counterparts.)

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.

it is typical to ascribe St Cyprian's ecclesiology vis a vis heresy and schism and their effect upon Holy Orders to the Orthodox Church.

Daer Irish Melkite and others,

how, in this forum, do you guys use those selective quotes where you are just quoting a certain sentence cuz it ain't working for me?????

I know this is a tech question but there is a good example in here of how my quotes are not working and others, such as you quoting theophan, is working.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel