apolstolic

[SacredHeartFan]

Can someone please explain how the eastern churches are apostolic, which ones are recognized as apostolic, and why protestants are not apostolic but orthodox are. Thanks!

 

[mardukm]

The word “apostolic” is in reference to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. It is part of the larger paradigm of Sacramental theology - that God works through His Creation to effect salvation.

The word “apostolic” can refer to both teaching or ecclesiastical government. It’s fullest sense refers to BOTH, as means by which God effects the salvation of the world that has its Source from Jesus Christ. This salvation is effected through BOTH the teaching of the Church and the priestly ministry. The power of the priestly ministry to effect salvation is passed on through the laying on of hands.

Protestants sometimes admit to some sort of “apostolic succession.” But in this, they refer only to teaching, and not at all to the establishment of a priestly ministry that participates in the dispensing of salvation to the world.

Thus, Protestants are not regarded as “apostolic” because they don’t adhere to the FULL meaning of and teaching on the term.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Apostolic Succession of Bishops is simple: The line described by the consecrators, and their consecrators, etc, originates in one or more of the apostles of the Book of Acts (including St. Paul, who was apparently consecrated by St. Peter.)

So, for example, anyone consecrated by Pope Linus has apostolic succession from Peter, since Linus was consecrated by St. Peter himself. Likewise, that group of bishops that Pope Linus ordained pass on that apostolic succession to every bishop they consecrate, and so on, right down to the modern Byzantine, Assyrian/Chaldean, Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, and Roman bishops, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, ACE, and Catholic.

A few other groups, like the PNCC, the Orthodox Synods in Resistance, some of the Old Believers, the Old Catholics, and the SSPX are considered by Catholic understanding to be valid but illicit in their origins. They have apostolic succession.

Other groups, like certain of the so-called “independent catholics” and the Sedevaticanists, while they had valid priests, broke with no valid bishops, and their election of new bishops constitutes a break in the validity of their apostolic succession.

This is not the same as patriarchal succession nor episcopal succession, where the additional duties go with the see… not with the ordination itself. The Pope of Rome is the heir of St. Peter, even tho most of the church’s bishops can trace back to St. Peter.

 

[SacredHeartFan]

thanks aramis!!!
that sumed it up great!!!

so a bishop can consecrate another bishop licitly?

 

[mardukm]

thanks aramis!!!
that sumed it up great!!!

so a bishop can consecrate another bishop licitly?

A bishop can consecrate another bishop licitly only in the presence of at least two other bishops. In the Latin canons, a dispensation from this requirement can be given by the Pope. In the Eastern Canons, the dispensation comes by virtue of “extreme necessity.” In the Latin canons, a bishop cannot be ordained without the consent of the Pope. In the Eastern Canons, a bishop cannot be ordained without the consent of the Metropolitan (for Metropolitan Sees not within a Patriarchate), Patriarch (for Patriarchal Sees), or the Pope (for Eastern/Oriental communities in Latin territories who are not under the omophorion of an Eastern/Oriental Metropolitan or Patriarch).

How does this work if a bishop is schismatic? How would he ordain other bishops if there are no other bishops who have gone into schism with him? If he did so, it is obviously illicit, but is it still valid? I seriously don’'t know. I wonder how this was handled for SSPX?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The Roman canon requires only 1 additional consecrator, not two. And ABp. Lefebvre had a co-consecrator when he ordained the 4 SSPX bishops (albeit illicitly anyway, since he had permission only for one).

So the SSPX currently have valid bishops.

 

[mardukm]

The Roman canon requires only 1 additional consecrator, not two. And ABp. Lefebvre had a co-consecrator when he ordained the 4 SSPX bishops (albeit illicitly anyway, since he had permission only for one).

So the SSPX currently have valid bishops.

Was this a dispensation?

Latin Canon 1014 - Unless a dispensation has been granted by the Apostolic See, the principal consecrating bishop at an episcopal consecration is to have at least two other consecrating bishops with him.

The text is the same for the old Code (Canon 954).

I don’t see how a dispensation could have been granted as he was already in Schism.

The three-bishop rule is the standard of all the ancient canons. I am wondering if that rule establishes validity, or is simply a prerequisite for canonical propriety (i.e., licitness). I am of the opinion that it is a necessity for validity itself (sans extenuating circumstances, and I certainly don’t believe being in schism qualifies as an extenuating circumstance), based on the biblical prescription “where two or three are gathered…”

I hope a canon lawyer jumps in.

Blessings

 

[dixibehr]

A bishop can consecrate another bishop licitly only in the presence of at least two other bishops. In the Latin canons, a dispensation from this requirement can be given by the Pope. In the Eastern Canons, the dispensation comes by virtue of “extreme necessity.” In the Latin canons, a bishop cannot be ordained without the consent of the Pope. In the Eastern Canons, a bishop cannot be ordained without the consent of the Metropolitan (for Metropolitan Sees not within a Patriarchate), Patriarch (for Patriarchal Sees), or the Pope (for Eastern/Oriental communities in Latin territories who are not under the omophorion of an Eastern/Oriental Metropolitan or Patriarch).

How does this work if a bishop is schismatic? How would he ordain other bishops if there are no other bishops who have gone into schism with him? If he did so, it is obviously illicit, but is it still valid? I seriously don’'t know. I wonder how this was handled for SSPX?

Blessings,
Marduk

It is theoretically possible, and in the past has been done, for an Orthodox bishop to perform a solo consecration.

Example: When St. Innocent (Veniaminov) was a bishop in Siberia, he was authorized by the Holy Synod to select a worthy successor and ordain him bishop by himself, as he was being recalled to St. Petersburg to be a member of the Holy Synod.

Distances and difficulty in travelling being what they were, he was granted this extraordinary dispensation.

But note that he did not do so without the permission of the supreme authority of the Russian Church at that time.

 

[mardukm]

It is theoretically possible, and in the past has been done, for an Orthodox bishop to perform a solo consecration.

Example: When St. Innocent (Veniaminov) was a bishop in Siberia, he was authorized by the Holy Synod to select a worthy successor and ordain him bishop by himself, as he was being recalled to St. Petersburg to be a member of the Holy Synod.

Distances and difficulty in travelling being what they were, he was granted this extraordinary dispensation.

But note that he did not do so without the permission of the supreme authority of the Russian Church at that time.

Granted, and you are right - this cannot be done without dispensation from proper authority. But what authority could have granted the SSPX this dispensation?

But I guess my real question is - does the presence of at least 3 bishops at a consecration count for validity, or merely licitness? The ancient canons usually utilize the “where two or three are gathered” biblical rationale for the practice, which is why I think it goes to validity, and not merely licitness. The fact that only one can do so with dispensation for exceptional circumstances does not exactly argue for mere licitness, since such exceptions occur for all Sacraments on elements that are otherwise necessary for validity.

To be honest, though the evidence (in my eyes) seems to be in favor of validity, I am hoping it is merely for licitness.

I hope a canon lawyer can jump in.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Granted, and you are right - this cannot be done without dispensation from proper authority. But what authority could have granted the SSPX this dispensation?

But I guess my real question is - does the presence of at least 3 bishops at a consecration count for validity, or merely licitness? The ancient canons usually utilize the “where two or three are gathered” biblical rationale for the practice, which is why I think it goes to validity, and not merely licitness. The fact that only one can do so with dispensation for exceptional circumstances does not exactly argue for mere licitness, since such exceptions occur for all Sacraments on elements that are otherwise necessary for validity.

To be honest, though the evidence (in my eyes) seems to be in favor of validity, I am hoping it is merely for licitness.

I hope a canon lawyer can jump in.

Blessings,
Marduk

Licity. After all, Pp. B XVI accepts their validity on the face by references to them as bishops, not priests. Unlike Pp. JP II… who referred to them as priests, not bishops.

 

[mardukm]

Licity. After all, Pp. B XVI accepts their validity on the face by references to them as bishops, not priests. Unlike Pp. JP II… who referred to them as priests, not bishops.

OK, I’ve searched and searched and it seems that the 3-bishop rule is not part of the matter and form of episcopal ordination. So, I must conclude, it must be an ecclesiastical rule (ancient, but merely ecclesiastical nonetheless), not a divine rule. So I feel much better now.

Let me express my concerns. If the 3-bishop rule is a matter of divine law (i.e., necessary for validity), then I do not see how they can be bishops. As I stated, even if the 3-bishop rule is necessary for validity, I accept that in extenuating circumstances, the proper authority may dispense from that rule (as it is the same case with other Sacraments). However, there is no way I would accept schism as an extenuating circumstance. If the 3-bishop rule is necessary for validity, then these bishops are not really bishops and must obtain episcopal consecration upon coming into Catholic communion.

I have always disagreed with the EO practice of using oikonomia as a rationale to divest itself of the solemn obligation of dispensing the Sacraments to converts from Catholicism. To me, that practice is a clear break from Sacred Tradition. As regards our current topic, if the 3-bishops rule is necessary for validity (and not merely licitness), then HH Pope Benedict’s “dispensation” of the requirement and acceptance of their ordinations would mean the CC is also guilty of the same unpatristic EO practice.

However, since the sources do indicate that the 3-bishops rule is a matter only of ecclesiastical law, then I am SOOOO relieved. Since it is only a matter of licitness, then the statements of HH Pope JP2 of thrice-blessed memory would indicate nothing more than a canonical censure, depriving valid bishops of the ability to exercise episcopal prerogatives within the Catholic Church. HH Pope Benedict’s recognition of their episcopal rank would simply be tantamount to the lifting of that canonical censure.

I just want to repeat that I am so relieved that the Catholic Church is not involved in any unpatristic practices.

Thank you, brother Aramis, for helping sort this out in my conscience.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

It should be noted, however, that in the (now reversed) excommunication, Pp. JP II referred to the 4 men as priests, not bishops; it is clear from his handling that JP II acted as if they had not been ordained bishops.

But remember, for comparison: the EO generally do not consider apostolic succession to be passable from heretic to heretic; that they invoke Oikonimia for Catholics indicates clear doubt… of both succession and of heresy… if they felt that the Catholic faith was irredeemably heretical, they would not grant oikonomia, but would instead repeat all but baptism; if they felt the sacraments fully valid, they wouldn’t call it oikonomia.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

It should be noted, however, that in the (now reversed) excommunication, Pp. JP II referred to the 4 men as priests, not bishops; it is clear from his handling that JP II acted as if they had not been ordained bishops.

However, if it is true that validity does not require three bishops, then the ordinations would have been objectively valid, despite any subjective considerations to the contrary.

But remember, for comparison: the EO generally do not consider apostolic succession to be passable from heretic to heretic; that they invoke Oikonimia for Catholics indicates clear doubt… of both succession and of heresy… if they felt that the Catholic faith was irredeemably heretical, they would not grant oikonomia, but would instead repeat all but baptism; if they felt the sacraments fully valid, they wouldn’t call it oikonomia.

Sorry. I’m not sympathetic at all to the EO practice. The early Church has never appealed to oikonomia to divest itself of the obligation of providing the Sacraments to those they believed did not have it. Oikonomia has only ever been used (in the early Church) to relax from ecclesiastical laws, and does not affect divine law. To me, applying oikonomia to not baptize or ordain when you can and should would be akin to applying oikonomia to ordain women when you can’t and shouldn’t. The principle of oikonomia simply cannot be used to avoid the prescriptions of divine law, but only ecclesiastical law.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Brother Marduke:

you’re approaching it from a more “western” view… either black or white, can’t be grey… The majority of the EO apologetics portray the OO, ACE, and Catholics as gray… neither valid nor invalid, but merely “We can’t be sure…” and if they reconcile with one or more groups from them, it will be examined in more detail, and a judgement rendered.

As for Pp. JP II and the SSPX… until the excommunication was lifted, it didn’t matter much if they were valid or not, and they were clearly illicitly ordained, and officialy barred from celebration of the sacraments. Now that it has, it’s essentially and economia that they are valid but illicit, and can be reconciled as bishops. They went from dark gray to light gray…

Further, the status of schismatic churches sacraments is blurry in the early canons. Some groups were accepted as having validity, and others not, case by case at times.

 

[mardukm]

Sorry. I’m not sympathetic at all to the EO practice. The early Church has never appealed to oikonomia to divest itself of the obligation of providing the Sacraments to those they believed did not have it. Oikonomia has only ever been used (in the early Church) to relax from ecclesiastical laws, and does not affect divine law. To me, applying oikonomia to not baptize or ordain when you can and should would be akin to applying oikonomia to ordain women when you can’t and shouldn’t. The principle of oikonomia simply cannot be used to avoid the prescriptions of divine law, but only ecclesiastical law.

I will concede one thing. It is altogether possible that, due to EO ecclesiology, one See or jurisdiction really has a different view of Catholicism than another see or jurisdiction. It is possible that one see or jurisdiction views Catholic Sacraments as valid (though unofficially). If that is the case, I would view the practice of not baptizing/consecrating/ordaining in some EO circles as acceptably patristic. Otherwise, there’s simply no way EO can claim patristic foundation for its practice of applying oikonomia to dispense from divine law.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis.

you’re approaching it from a more “western” view… either black or white, can’t be grey… The majority of the EO apologetics portray the OO, ACE, and Catholics as gray… neither valid nor invalid, but merely “We can’t be sure…” and if they reconcile with one or more groups from them, it will be examined in more detail, and a judgement rendered.

Perhaps. But I think it’s because my study of the Fathers leaves me no other recourse in opinion. I do, however, like your “grey” analogy. I’ll concede that a “We can’t be sure…” paradigm would justify the use of oikonomia. And I must admit it is something I’ve never heard before. I’ve very often heard and read the oikonomia rationale used by EO who say the OOC, ACOE and CC are definitely heretical - if one believes we are heretical, then oikonomia is simply out of the question.

As for Pp. JP II and the SSPX… until the excommunication was lifted, it didn’t matter much if they were valid or not, and they were clearly illicitly ordained, and officialy barred from celebration of the sacraments. Now that it has, it’s essentially and economia that they are valid but illicit, and can be reconciled as bishops. They went from dark gray to light gray…

I would disagree with you here. If they were objectively never bishops, they were never bishops, and the principle of oikonomia can’t do a thing about that - they would need to receive episcopal ordination. Oikonomia had nothing to do with HH Pope Benedict’s acceptance of their episcopal ordinations - that is, his acceptance did not MAKE them bishops by oikonomia; rather, they were validly bishops before that acceptance by the Sacrament, and HH’s acceptance simply legitimized (i.e., made it licit) the matter within the Catholic Church.

Further, the status of schismatic churches sacraments is blurry in the early canons. Some groups were accepted as having validity, and others not, case by case at times.

I believe the early Church is pretty clear. It depended on the baptismal formula, and your orthodoxy with regards to the Trinity (not necessarily the Persons). That is why Arian baptisms were accepted, while Modalists were not. In any case, the Sacraments of mere schismatics were always distinguished from those whose heresy precluded acceptance of their Sacraments. The time of controversy is confined to the 3rd/early 4th century, and it was pretty much clarified by the practice of the Church by the late 4th/early 5th. I don’t think there is any excuse to claim it was NOT clear.

My point is, using the standards of the early Church, there is no way the EO can reject the validity of CC Sacraments. They would have to create novel impediments never envisioned by the early Church for them to deny the validity of CC Sacraments. I know the Copts (though not the Armenians or Syriacs) rebaptize Catholics, but anyone who studies the history of the relationship between the CO and the CC, will realize that this was a relatively recent phenomenon brought about by politico-ecclesiastical considerations, and is not the traditional position of the CO.

In any case, let me just repeat that the “grey/ we’re not sure” viewpoint is new to my ears, and it is most welcome. From now on, I will try to accomodate that view everytime I consider this matter. Thank you for giving me a little peace about this.

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

I first heard the Gray analogy from an OCA priest in Alaska. He holds the same view as most of my OCA coworkers; “Probably, but we are not certain.”

I’ve also heard it from the Antiochian Orthodox, and read comments that strongly imply the same from Rev. Fr. Schmemman.

 

[mystified]

This thread has been interesting and informative on a subject that has long intrigued me.

I wonder how the various Orthodox Churches, independent Catholics, and Sedes view the SSPX bishops. It appears that the sanctions lifted from the SSPX Four might make them “Bishops Without Portfolio”.

This also helps answer why so little time and effort is expended by the Churches in communion with Bishop of Rome, justifying and authenticating Apostolic Succession.

This is not so with the independents, where they go to great lengths to consecrate with multiple bishops, often from several rites, as well as to have re-consecrations, even to re- consecrating each other, to solidfy what must be questionable in their own minds.