www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Communion with Rome essential for valid Orders?

Check out this link that claims communion with the see of Rome is necessary for valid orders and preserving apostolic succession. According to this writer all you Orthodox are little better off than Protestants.

Click here [newadvent.org]

Please note that I certainly do NOT agree with this person!

Jason

Jason,

Relying on the early 20th century edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia for anything other than a paperweight (or screensaver in this instance) is not to be advised.

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.

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 Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

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).

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.

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments. As an example, 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.

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 or oekonomia 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 in some instances could likely find itself in the position of accepting 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.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Jason,

My own reading of the article, old as it is , is that the Orthodox Churches can lay no claim to Apostolicity through Rome itself - which indeed they never do!

St Peter established Churches at Antioch and throughout the East, along with other Apostles, before he got to Rome.

This is why in the West only Rome could lay claim to being an Apostolic See.

In the East, even small villages could easily make this claim, having a tradition of their local church coming from a bishop consecrated by St Peter or one of the Apostles.

And at the time that article was written, there was an "all or none" view of the "true Church" shared by BOTH Rome and Orthodoxy.

However, Rome has NEVER said the Orthodox were "false" but only "in rebellion."

But that was then, and this is now.

Alex

Ah, brother Alex,

Lately I've been seriously thinking about joining the Rebel Alliance, and have 37 days of prayer and thought to hmm...

james

Dear Jakub,

God bless all our "schism-loving brothers"

But don't let them "infect" you!

One such priest I spoke to at one time about St Photios said to me, "Well, he was infected with schism, what did you expect . . ."

When you read Orthodox literature, be sure to bundle up, drink lots of orange juice and wear gloves!

Alex

OK, I have everything for reading & study, but one question, are there any supercharge additives to the OJ ?

james

Not if that is truly what he is saying.

I do know many Protestants who are certainly on the way to heaven. I see nothing wrong with being a Protestant (or a Catholic etc.. for that matter) if each tries to live by his conscience and tries to act in cooperates with Providence (which comes to all men of all faiths and no faith). The sun shines equally upon the man who knows what it is and the man who does not know what it is.

As far as valid orders having to be connected to the See of Peter - �Peter� has spoken on that subject and deems Orthodox order to be valid. Any personal opinion to the contrary is ill informed.

Please mention me in your prayers my friend.

-ray

Ray,

I do.

Jason

I don't think I see anything in this article that I disagree with. I see nothing in it that states that valid orders can only be given if a bishop is in union with the Holy Apostolic Church of Rome. What I do think it is saying is that the separated Churches have no authority to teach in the name of the Apostles. For only those bishops in union with the Holy Pope of Rome have teaching authority collectively together with the Pope. I don't think that the Orthodox bishops or any bishops out of communion with Rome are true successors of the Apostles. They may have valid orders but do not take the office of the Apostles. That teaching office was forfeited when they went into schism. That is just my thoughts.

Mike,

In the Catholic viewpoint as to validity of orders, that validity is dependent on Apostolic Succession. (To that, the Orthodox add an additional requirement that there must be communion with the Church.)

Many years,

Neil

They have valid apostolic succession in that they can trace their line back to an Apostle. This is required for validity of orders. But I do not believe that those who have gone into schism and/or heresy and have left the Holy Catholic Church have the ability to teach and I would say that the office that this bishop holds, he is deposed of. Hence BARTHOLOMEW I is in my opinion not the true Patriarch of Jerusalem since he does not belong to the one Church that Christ founded. So I would say that he is not the "true" successor of St. Andrew for the Patriarchate although he has valid apostolic succession that he received from his ordination.

Mike,

Actually, His All-Holiness Bartholomew is Patriarch of Constantinople, the sole bearer of that title as between the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox (there is an Armenian Apostolic Patriarch of Constantinople) and all indictations from his written and spoken words suggest that His Holiness John Paul II acknowledges Bartholomew's succession to the Seat of Saint Andrew.

Many years,

Neil

Mike -

To me it is not a question of whether the Orthodox Patriarchs have the apostolic authority to teach, shepherd and sanctify their flocks - they can in fact (and should!) do so by virtue of their apostolic authority as bishops. Rather, what is lost to the patriarchs not in communion with Rome is the full ability to "speak with one voice", as St. Irenaeus put it, in a magisterial union which participates in the charism of infallibility. This union is made manifest by all of the bishops united with the Successor of St. Peter in Rome, the visible and temporal head of the Church.

My two cents -

Gordo

POST-SYNODAL

APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION

PASTORES GREGIS

OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE JOHN PAUL II

ON THE BISHOP,

SERVANT OF THE GOSPEL

OF JESUS CHRIST

FOR THE HOPE OF THE WORLD

The universal Church is not the sum of the particular Churches, or a federation of the latter, or even the result of their communion as such, since, in the expression of the early Fathers and the liturgy, in her essential mystery the Church precedes creation itself.33 In the light of this teaching, we can add that the relationship of mutual interiority existing between the universal Church and each particular Church, whereby the particular Churches are ''formed in the likeness of the universal Church, and in and from the particular Churches there comes into being the one and only Catholic Church'',34 is reproduced in the relationship between the College of Bishops in its entirety and each Bishop as an individual. For this reason, ''the College of Bishops is not to be understood as the aggregate of the Bishops who govern the particular Churches, nor as the result of their communion; rather, as an essential element of the universal Church, it is a reality which precedes the office of being the head of a particular Church''.35

Footnotes:

33Cf. Angoul�me Sacramentary: In dedicatione basilicae novae: "Dirige, Domine, ecclesiam tuam dispensatione caelesti, ut, quae ante mundi principium in tua semper est praesentia praeparata, usque ad plenitudinem gloriamque promissam te moderante perveniat": CCSL 159 C, rubr. 1851; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 758-760; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis Notio (28 May 1992), 9: AAS 85 (1993), 843.

34Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, 23.

35John Paul II, Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos (21 May 1998), 12: AAS 90 (1998), 649-650.

My two cents worth!

Your poor brother in the Lord,
+Fr. Gregory

Dear Ray,

I agree with you wholehearteadly. I believe a Christian shall be known through their works...And by works, I mean what is in their hearts.

Zenovia