Calling All Orthodox!

[Jon_S_1]

And that is another problem, ‘validity’.

Validity is not a word used by Orthodox, since it seems to be a part of Western Philosophy and we have a different philosophy.

Instead we speak of the Orthodoxy of an idea or practice. We ask is such and so is Orthodox and not if it is ‘valid’.

The difference between Eastern and Western mindsets is a huge obstacle to re union. along with the demand that we “submit”.

I think all we ask is that all bishops submit to the church. To the dogma and Sacred Tradition.

Orthodox I believe do that already. It would just be a matter of saying, when absolutely necessary the bishop of Rome can play as mediator or judge or arbitrator of a dispute among the bishops.

I believe the Patriarch of Constantinople may hold such a role already?? So only a matter of accepting those places and roles in a new way.

You bring up an interesting point about East vs West philosophy. But it doesn’t seem to be an issue for the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome like Coptics and others who are very eastern in philosophy and liturgy but in full communion with Rome.

 

[Rawb]

Hey Orthodox brothers and sisters,

I have been discussing with an Orthodox Christian in the comments on another site, and she said some things that surprised me. I’d love to get more opinions on these:

Do Orthodox believe Catholics have lost Apostolic Succession?

From my Orthodox friend;

"Orthodox define apostolic succession a little differently than either RC or Anglican (and obviously from other Protestants). It must include not only ordination by Orthodox bishops (bestowed through laying on of hands) traceable through the “diptychs” (lists of bishops in their succession, as with RC) back to the apostolic era, but also depends upon a bishop maintaining the dogmatic faith as once delivered intact and maintaining Eucharistic communion within the community that ordained him. Dogma intact means for the Orthodox, among other things, accepting the decrees and definitions, etc., of the first seven “Ecumenical Councils” of the first-millennium undivided apostolic and orthodox Church (including the tenets of the original version of the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed, i.e., without the “filioque” clause, as originally defined in their own context).

By this definition, I believe Orthodox consider only the canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches remain in the apostolic succession today (sorry Jon!). As the Scriptures teach, there is “one Church, one faith, one baptism,” just as the is only “one God and Father of us all” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” “Can Christ be divided?,” the Apostle Paul asks in 1 Corinthians–implying, no, but those who are members and even hierarchs within that Body can, through the sins of schism and disobedience to the fullness of the faith (heresy) be severed from that one Body."

So, I know Catholics believe orthodox have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments. We can even utilize them in a pinch.

But does the same hold true for Orthodox? Is reunification further away from an Eastern point of view?

Yes, re-unification is further away from the Eastern point of view.

Your friend’s comments about Apostolic Succession sound correct to me. One must be ordained by an ordained Orthodox bishop and retain the Orthodox faith. If one leaves the Orthodox faith and then returns, declaring their heresy to be heresy and re-stating the Orthodox faith, then Apostolic succession returns as well.

So, say that Roman Catholicism did return to Orthodoxy. Each bishop wouldn’t necessarily have to be re-ordained. Their bishop’s affirmation of the Orthodox faith infuse their ordination with apostolic succession, fulfilling anything that might have been lacking in the original ordination. Now, they may still be re-ordained, or conditionally re-ordained, or what have you to satisfy the laying on of the hands requirement, but their proclamation of Orthodox belief satisfies the second requirement.

Thus Apostolic Succession isn’t just the ability to trace one’s lineage, but the proof that one has preserved the Apostolic faith. This is why the Mysteries of heterodox communions are questionable.

 

[fhansen]

And that is another problem, ‘validity’.

Validity is not a word used by Orthodox, since it seems to be a part of Western Philosophy and we have a different philosophy.

Instead we speak of the Orthodoxy of an idea or practice. We ask is such and so is Orthodox and not if it is ‘valid’.

The difference between Eastern and Western mindsets is a huge obstacle to re union. along with the demand that we “submit”.

A distinction without a difference IMO, and another insufficient reason for disunity. What other reason would there be to use orthodoxy as a guide except to determine validity?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thus Apostolic Succession isn’t just the ability to trace one’s lineage, but the proof that one has preserved the Apostolic faith. This is why the Mysteries of heterodox communions are questionable.

Sounds about right, no salvation outside the Church. Re-baptism would be another consistent. I don’t see anything new just part of a list which leads to the primacy defined.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There can be no mysteries outside of the Church, because the mysteries are the very charismatic presence of the Church. This fundamental premise underlies all ecclesiological thought both in Rome and in Orthodoxy. The difference is in the conclusions which we have drawn from this one premise.

The Roman Church after the Second Vatican Council adopted an ecclesiology based heavily on Yves Congar’s work, where all Christians by virtue of their common valid baptism enter into the Church though with varying degrees of impediments to their full communion with the Church (this was, depending on one’s perspective, a slight departure from or a correction of earlier opinions in Roman Catholicism, which while affirming the validity of the sacraments of schismatic groups and certain heretical groups, nevertheless did not believe that these sacraments brought them into the Church, something which contradicts that fundamental principle of ecclesiology mentioned above).

The Orthodox Church in general historically has gone the other direction, believing that no mysteries exist outside of the Church. This does not mean that these mysteries, should their form be correct, cannot be received as valid by the bishop through an act of oikonomia, but it does mean that mysteries performed outside of the Church, because they lack the visitation of the Holy Spirit, are defective, like cracked vessels which cannot hold water.

 

[TRH1292]

There can be no mysteries outside of the Church, because the mysteries are the very charismatic presence of the Church. This fundamental premise underlies all ecclesiological thought both in Rome and in Orthodoxy. The difference is in the conclusions which we have drawn from this one premise.

The Roman Church after the Second Vatican Council adopted an ecclesiology based heavily on Yves Congar’s work, where all Christians by virtue of their common valid baptism enter into the Church though with varying degrees of impediments to their full communion with the Church (this was, depending on one’s perspective, a slight departure from or a correction of earlier opinions in Roman Catholicism, which while affirming the validity of the sacraments of schismatic groups and certain heretical groups, nevertheless did not believe that these sacraments brought them into the Church, something which contradicts that fundamental principle of ecclesiology mentioned above).

The Orthodox Church in general historically has gone the other direction, believing that no mysteries exist outside of the Church. This does not mean that these mysteries, should their form be correct, cannot be received as valid by the bishop through an act of oikonomia, but it does mean that mysteries performed outside of the Church, because they lack the visitation of the Holy Spirit, are defective, like cracked vessels which cannot hold water.

Thank you for that very enlightening post.

 

[dzheremi]

Writing as an Oriental Orthodox Christian from what is probably the strictest of all churches (together with the Tewahedo) regarding others, I still wouldn’t say it’s appropriate to muse on these things. I have, of course, been told in no uncertain by both priests and laity (in response to a question I didn’t even ask) that I am to never commune with any Chalcedonians (that has been the traditional divide for us, not “Latin” vs. “Eastern Orthodox”), and that to do so results in automatic excommunication for partaking of sacraments outside of the recognized boundaries of the Church. That does not, however, say anything about the “validity” of anothers’ sacraments, since (as Mommaduckofmany has pointed out, and we OO share this idea) validity is not a concept in Orthodox ecclesiology. For their sake, I should hope that their sacraments are “valid” in the way that RCs use that term, though that’s not for anyone to know, so we’d prefer not to speculate. It’s a bit like asking you to judge your neighbor’s breakfast – if you’re not eating it (and you’re not), then it has nothing to do with you. Let him have it in peace, and hope that he is nourished by it.

As for reunion…yeah, that’s not going to happen as we stand now. We are too far apart, and there is no common ground to be found between RCC ultramontanism and Orthodox collegiality, or RCC infallibility and Orthodox synodality. And these are just on the matter of ecclesiastical structuring, to say nothing of the vast chasm between the everyday spirituality of the Catholic and that of the Orthodox. How are we going to have one communion when we have completely different ideas of what is proper fasting, iconography, monasticism, liturgical chant, prayer, Marian devotion, etc.? Believe me, as an OO I definitely understand that different jurisdictions develop their own ways of approaching these aspects of the Christian life, but honestly there is so little for the average Orthodox to grasp as being in common between us that we might as well consider ourselves different religions, if we are to define religion in terms of what we believe and how we live according to those beliefs. How am I going to have tasbeha while you’re having some sort of novena to the Sacred Heart which my tradition, following St. Basil, teaches is a contemptible heresy? It’s just not going to work. There wouldn’t be enough there to keep it together, as virtually anyone can affirm the kinds of bland, basic affirmations as have been (imprudently, in my opinion) been signed by our hierarchs in the Catholic-Orthodox dialogues. The fact is that details and dogma matter, and we are no more willing to rescind ours than you are yours. Far from “maintaining disunity”, I am sure that Roman Catholics see their distinctive doctrines as maintaining unity, or else they would not be bidding us to come join them under what they believe to be a superior and what’s more God-instituted form of ecclesiastical communion. But they are not Orthodox themselves, so just like the idea of “validity”, this way of looking at the Church is a hindrance to actual unity and in the end does not and will not motivate us to leave the faith of our fathers, which we recognize as the Orthodox faith as we ourselves understand it, not as been filtered through the lens of Papal prerogatives developed in Europe, nor the “development of doctrine” (with a tip of the hat to John Henry Newman) that sustains all of the innovations away from Orthodoxy that currently make union with Rome so unpalatable and wildly unrealistic. Rather, a profound transformation in mindset must come from within Roman Catholicism itself (and I would argue from an OO perspective, also from within some sectors of Eastern Orthodoxy, though this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that) in order to make talk of union anything more than a pipe dream.

(Here is where I would bring up EP Bartholomew’s “Phos Hilarion” speech from Georgetown if I didn’t remember what a storm of indignation it kicked up last time, but should any of you want to further consider a non-Catholic viewpoint, that one’s a really good one…)

 

[Rawb]

Very well said, Jeremy.

 

[Jon_S_1]

There can be no mysteries outside of the Church, because the mysteries are the very charismatic presence of the Church. This fundamental premise underlies all ecclesiological thought both in Rome and in Orthodoxy. The difference is in the conclusions which we have drawn from this one premise.

The Roman Church after the Second Vatican Council adopted an ecclesiology based heavily on Yves Congar’s work, where all Christians by virtue of their common valid baptism enter into the Church though with varying degrees of impediments to their full communion with the Church (this was, depending on one’s perspective, a slight departure from or a correction of earlier opinions in Roman Catholicism, which while affirming the validity of the sacraments of schismatic groups and certain heretical groups, nevertheless did not believe that these sacraments brought them into the Church, something which contradicts that fundamental principle of ecclesiology mentioned above).

The Orthodox Church in general historically has gone the other direction, believing that no mysteries exist outside of the Church. This does not mean that these mysteries, should their form be correct, cannot be received as valid by the bishop through an act of oikonomia, but it does mean that mysteries performed outside of the Church, because they lack the visitation of the Holy Spirit, are defective, like cracked vessels which cannot hold water.

This is very interesting. Thanks for the information!

It seems as if Catholics are more “inclusive” than orthodox in a general sense. That’s something you don’t hear everyday!

 

[Nine_Two]

It doesn’t even matter-it’s a ridiculous excuse for maintaing disunity-whose to know with certainty what any particular bishop in the chain believed in their heart? What human even necessarily has perfect undstanding of the faith, regardless of some formal profession or another, etc,?

The question of whether or not Catholics have Apostolic succession doesn’t play into our conception of unity.
While we could only be in communion with those who have apostolic succession, from both the Catholic and Orthodox perspective it is something that is easily given (i.e. it is not an issue)

 

[Nine_Two]

Funny… that’s what Anglican’s say about Catholics.

I find the Catholic attitude toward Orthodox is often the same as the Anglican attitude toward Catholics (I speak as a former Anglican).

 

[fhansen]

The question of whether or not Catholics have Apostolic succession doesn’t play into our conception of unity.
While we could only be in communion with those who have apostolic succession, from both the Catholic and Orthodox perspective it is something that is easily given (i.e. it is not an issue)

OK, but from my understanding that position regarding the validity-or orthodoxy- of RC apostolic succession is not universally held among the Orthodox.

 

[Nine_Two]

OK, but from my understanding that position regarding the validity-or orthodoxy- of RC apostolic succession is not universally held among the Orthodox.

That is correct, but it has nothing to do with unity. Even if tomorrow we all got together and unanimously decided you had it, or you didn’t, it wouldn’t change anything in the Ecumenical dialogue.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, but from my understanding that position regarding the validity-or orthodoxy- of RC apostolic succession is not universally held among the Orthodox.

What do you mean “validity or orthodoxy”? They’re not the same thing. In Catholicism, you have various groups who are outside of the Church who are nonetheless referred to as having “valid” sacraments and/or apostolic succession. In Orthodoxy, there is nothing like that. You are either Orthodox or you aren’t. Orthodox cannot participate in nor confer any sort of “validity” upon the sacraments or liturgies of the non-Orthodox.

 

[fastenatingguy]

I have read this with great interest because of my ancestry. Allow me to explain.

I am a fourth generation American on my mother’s side (Polish and RC). My father was a first generation American of Greek descent whose parents were from the Pontus (north central coast of Turkey). They escaped right after WW1 while the genocide/persecution of Christians (mainly Armenian Orthodox, but plenty of others too) was building. They were separated in the escape, eventually got to Chicago, got married, and had one son, my dad.

My mother attended Catholic schools, lived in a Polish neighborhood, had a Great Uncle who was a Priest, and a first cousin who was a nun. Big family, centered socially on their native Church, etc.

My Grandmother was a devout GO who taught me as a child the orans prayer posture. She attended GO services on her own most of the time, and Catholic mass when she was with our family. Later in life she lived in a Methodist retirement home. She appeared to be quite comfortable in any Christian Church.

My Grandfather was a Greek Philosopher who believed in and was a student of God, but not necessarily religion. But his father was a GO who was converted to Presbyterian Calvinism by American missionaries in the 1890’s. My Great-Grandfather eventually founded a church, school and hospital. Later he was martyred during the genocide.

My Grandfather was a Lieutenant in the Turkish army, but he could not save his father. Even after the war he continued to wear his uniform in public, and he was not bothered. He was the black sheep of his siblings–the only one to join the army, the only one to stop attending services, the only one to marry a GO, etc.Of his siblings that survived the war, 4 of 5 emigrated to the USA. Their children and the next three generations have nine Presbyterian ministers in the family.

My father was never baptized in any church. It was nearly scandalous for my Catholic mother to marry him in the 50’s. But he agreed to raise his family in the Catholic faith. He always took us to mass and prayed in the pew when we went for communion. Finally, he came around and was baptized Catholic four years before he died.

I am Catholic by birth because of my mother (and father). Because of my family situation, and the love and charity I have experienced from the GO and (more recently) the PC members of the family. In recent years I’ve studied all three faiths as my Grandfather would have: read, research, read some more, think. I’ve always been partial towards seeking what we Christians have in common than not. It’s just a shame that we are not going to unite because we share much. God wants ONE Church, but we humans just can’t seem to get it done.

Sorry for this long epistle. I have enjoyed reading the responses, although I wish we all had a better future here together. But I’ll entrust that to God in the next life.

 

[fhansen]

What do you mean “validity or orthodoxy”? They’re not the same thing. In Catholicism, you have various groups who are outside of the Church who are nonetheless referred to as having “valid” sacraments and/or apostolic succession. In Orthodoxy, there is nothing like that. You are either Orthodox or you aren’t. Orthodox cannot participate in nor confer any sort of “validity” upon the sacraments or liturgies of the non-Orthodox.

Alright, I think I understand the concept better. Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

That is correct, but it has nothing to do with unity. Even if tomorrow we all got together and unanimously decided you had it, or you didn’t, it wouldn’t change anything in the Ecumenical dialogue.

I’m not sure I understand. The ecumenical dialogue would not be influenced in the least by the fact that Catholicism was considered to have valid apostolic succession?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Actually its progress everyone agrees there is no salvation outside the Church.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Actually its progress everyone agrees there is no salvation outside the Church.

Yes that’s true.

It sounds like something similar to the lifting of the ex communications would need to occurr. Something in which the Orthodox Church grants in their process the validity of roman apostolic succession, while the Catholic Church cakes some concession to the Orthodox " rite" in some way.

Which brings another question.

How do Orthodox view the lifting of the ex communications?

If the Bishop of Rome is no longer ex communicated from the Orthodox Church , doesn’t that show validity to his apostolic office?

 

[GaryTaylor]

How do Orthodox view the lifting of the ex communications. If the Bishop of Rome is no longer ex communicated from the Orthodox Church , doesn’t that show validity to his apostolic office?

Apostolic succession isn’t of question its what Catholics call communion with the Church. Orthodox are in communion with their Church. So the issue remains being in communion with each other.