Cardinal Kurt Koch Speaks on Ecumenical Dialogue Between Catholic and Orthodox Churches

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;10938631]That when the motions of a Sacrament is performed (matter, formula, minister), then the Sacrament is there. This means a bishop who leaved the Catholic Church can still validly ordain (case in point, Old Catholics), and that validly ordained priests and bishops can still celebrate the Eucharist validly (case in point, the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Eucharist of many other Churches whom they deemed to have a valid priesthood, like the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, and the numerous breakaway groups from the Roman Catholic Church).

A priest alone cannot confect the Eucharist without a bishop. Nor can a priest confirm without permission by a bishop. In other Words an excommunicated priest without a bishop has no church and cannot confect the Eucharist, the ex-priest cannot go out and start his own church without communion with a bishop.

Just as if a lay person is following a bishop in schism brings on a set of ecclisial laws pertaining to the lay person when it comes to communion.

I am going to assume, your “legalistic” term applied to the sacraments is not secular but ecclessial?

Thus far I find it hard to disagree with you on all points here, most of what you stated here agrees with the Catholic Church. Althoug I sense some misunderstanding’s from you in regards to Holy Orders in the West. What you state about Orthodoxy does not conflict with the RCC but compliments it.

I would just raise a point of order to the subject of heretics and schismatics. These have to be addressed in a case by case study, due to the constitutions of the Church when applied to the clergy and or lay persons that differ in light to heavy circumstances and those circumstances that pertains to self ex-communication, especially when pertaining to the validity of the sacraments. One cannot generalize or group schismatics and heretics together, let alone paint a broad brush over them, they must be considered in a case by case ruling of the Church to their outcomes, which can differ.

We may still have future circumstances that may arise, which the Church has not ruled on yet. It should be noted here, that these circumstances can change and rulings can change within the church to recieving the separated brethren or reject their new found teachings. What cannot change are the valid sacraments.

But the West’s view of “once a priest always a priest” has no scriptural basis. The passage that is always quoted, “you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek,” refers to the priesthood of Christ, not of individual bishops and presbyters.

I believe you have a misunderstanding here about the West, pertaining to Holy Orders. It is always believed in the West that Christ is our hight priest, for the sacraments of Holy Orders attest to this “in persona Christi” who it is that is confecting the sacraments. The priest is just an instrument of Christ.THeir are no individual priest’s and bishop’s in the RCC all are united to the head of Christ with Peter the bishop of Rome. There are countless scriptural support for this communion within the RCC priesthood of HolyOrders. We cannot say the same for all Orthodox who are autocephalous church’s, that one can debate reflects a singled out priest hood, who fall in and out of communion with one another.

But in the West we don’t view your holy orders as being independent from one another even though out of communion with each other, it is Christ who makes up the Priesthood sacramentally not the priest or bishop himself, as you appeared to mistaken imply that is what the RCC does.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

A priest alone cannot confect the Eucharist without a bishop.

Not by Catholic teaching. Read the Catechism, the priest in the RCC is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, and thus can confect the Eucharist even without a bishop’s permission. He will do so illicitly, but not invalidly.

Nor can a priest confirm without permission by a bishop.

I haven’t explored this question further. One would presume that if a priest has chrism, then he can confirm.

In other Words an excommunicated priest without a bishop has no church and cannot confect the Eucharist, the ex-priest cannot go out and start his own church without communion with a bishop.

Can you provide source material for this? Because I have explored this question thoroughly a long time ago and it is taught that “once a priest, always a priest”, and the priest just needs the proper matter, the proper formula, and the proper intent to make bread and wine into the Eucharist. There is no need for a Bishop’s permission. That permission is only needed for weddings and confession, probably for confirmation too but I haven’t had a discussion that asked what would happen in a priest leaves the Church and doesn’t return the chrism in his possession.

Just as if a lay person is following a bishop in schism brings on a set of ecclisial laws pertaining to the lay person when it comes to communion.

I am going to assume, your “legalistic” term applied to the sacraments is not secular but ecclessial?

Yes, legalistic in terms of Church canons.

Thus far I find it hard to disagree with you on all points here, most of what you stated here agrees with the Catholic Church. Althoug I sense some misunderstanding’s from you in regards to Holy Orders in the West. What you state about Orthodoxy does not conflict with the RCC but compliments it.

Compliments it in what way? There is a complete disagreement on how Holy Orders functions outside of the Church.

I would just raise a point of order to the subject of heretics and schismatics. These have to be addressed in a case by case study, due to the constitutions of the Church when applied to the clergy and or lay persons that differ in light to heavy circumstances and those circumstances that pertains to self ex-communication, especially when pertaining to the validity of the sacraments. One cannot generalize or group schismatics and heretics together, let alone paint a broad brush over them, they must be considered in a case by case ruling of the Church to their outcomes, which can differ.

We may still have future circumstances that may arise, which the Church has not ruled on yet. It should be noted here, that these circumstances can change and rulings can change within the church to recieving the separated brethren or reject their new found teachings. What cannot change are the valid sacraments.

Quite contrary, some of the Sacraments have evolved over time. That is why the Orthodox Church maintain that affixing Sacraments to seven is not a good idea. Marriage has evolved a lot and has changed a lot, which is why East and West have very differing views on how Marriage is Sacramentalized.

I believe you have a misunderstanding here about the West, pertaining to Holy Orders. It is always believed in the West that Christ is our hight priest, for the sacraments of Holy Orders attest to this “in persona Christi” who it is that is confecting the sacraments. The priest is just an instrument of Christ.THeir are no individual priest’s and bishop’s in the RCC all are united to the head of Christ with Peter the bishop of Rome. There are countless scriptural support for this communion within the RCC priesthood of HolyOrders. We cannot say the same for all Orthodox who are autocephalous church’s, that one can debate reflects a singled out priest hood, who fall in and out of communion with one another.

Can you provide this Scriptural evidence? The single priesthood in Orthodoxy is Christ, so I do not see how separated jurisdictions make that impossible Jurisdictions are mere structures of governance. Because Christ is in each and every Church (that is, local Church, a diocese), then how can there not be one priesthood in Christ?

But in the West we don’t view your holy orders as being independent from one another even though out of communion with each other, it is Christ who makes up the Priesthood sacramentally not the priest or bishop himself, as you appeared to mistaken imply that is what the RCC does.

Peace be with you

I’m not questioning that part, but it RCC teaching is clear that communion with the Church is not essential for the priesthood. You even recognize the validity of the priesthood of those who have left your communion a long time ago, like the Old Catholics or even the Orthodox. The Orthodox do not view that a person can practice the priestly ministry outside of the Church.

 

[Surnaturel]

P.S. I’m thinking particularly of this paragraph:

The phrase “several ecumenical steps that both Churches should take” might lead one to think that what will follow will be slightly more even-handed than what does, in fact, follow. Also, the comment about “inclination towards nationalism” could lead to a response of “Maybe you Catholics should take a closer look at your own track record.”

I think that the Russian Patriarch is right when he says that we should be honest in our dialogue to see how far apart we both stand and how close we need to move together. The Catholic Church sees nationalistic/ethnic divisions in the Orthodox Churches as a problem. Orthodox Churches see the current exercise of papal primacy as a problem. The answer, of course, may be focus on how these two issues can be mutually complementary for both the East and the West. If the West is in communion with the East then the expression of papal primacy via juridical will be tempered with regard to how it is exercised in the East (possible appellate court status, no jurisdictional interference). Conversely, if the Patriarchs call an annual synod and then the Pope drafts an encyclical on their agreement that is read in all of the churches in East and West then the universality of the Church will be emphasized so as to trim away any tribal tendencies.

 

[neokarny]

If the West is in communion with the East then the expression of papal primacy via juridical will be tempered with regard to how it is exercised in the East (possible appellate court status, no jurisdictional interference). Conversely, if the Patriarchs call an annual synod and then the Pope drafts an encyclical on their agreement that is read in all of the churches in East and West then the universality of the Church will be emphasized so as to trim away any tribal tendencies.

So theologically concede to the Catholic Papacy, but disagree “in practice” so long as he leaves us be? This feels dishonest for both sides of the arrangement.

Also, I think your statement on “universality of the Church” may be a bit off from an Orthodox perspective. We view every single church and bishop to be the Church in its Catholic entirety - not the combination of every bishop and church put together.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

He grew up in an Italian neighborhood and spoke Italian most of his life.

Doesn’t change the fact that he is Argentinian. He also spoke Spanish most of his life, he would have to communicate with Argentinians around him at the school, University, shops etc.

Similarly for migrants and the descendants of Italians living in America and Australia. They consider themselves American and Australian FIRST.

This Pope considers himself South American and if he does, who are we to second guess him or answer for him. He knows who he is.

 

[Surnaturel]

So theologically concede to the Catholic Papacy, but disagree “in practice” so long as he leaves us be? This feels dishonest for both sides of the arrangement.

Also, I think your statement on “universality of the Church” may be a bit off from an Orthodox perspective. We view every single church and bishop to be the Church in its Catholic entirety - not the combination of every bishop and church put together.

1. what would you be asked to concede? The Ecumenical Councils acknowledge the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, and nearly every Orthodox scholar that I have read who publishes in academic journals has said that in a reunited Church he would once again claim the title. His potential duties are already defined somewhat clearly on EP Bartholomew’s website. Meanwhile, the Pope will continue to run the West as he has since much of the first millennium.
2. we believe that each church subsists in the universal Church, but this isn’t the issue that I brought up. Rather, the visible and concrete display of unity manifested in a patriarchal synod with a papal encyclical would, in principle, counteract any tendencies towards division based on localization/nation. In our Church, and there are many faults but this is not one of them, there is no discussion about the ‘African’ church vs the American church, they are all Catholics and in America there are Africans, Asians, Caucasians, Latinos who all pile into the same mass. Correlatively, the regional division like that of Russia and Constantinople is a non-issue.

 

[neokarny]

1. what would you be asked to concede? The Ecumenical Councils acknowledge the bishop of Rome as primus inter pares, and nearly every Orthodox scholar that I have read who publishes in academic journals has said that in a reunited Church he would once again claim the title. His potential duties are already defined somewhat clearly on EP Bartholomew’s website. Meanwhile, the Pope will continue to run the West as he has since much of the first millennium.

The last sentence is part of why I read it as concession, depending on how you mean it.

Do you mean for the Bishop of Rome to still claim papal infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction, and just forego exercising it over the non-Latin Churches?

1. we believe that each church subsists in the universal Church, but this isn’t the issue that I brought up. Rather, the visible and concrete display of unity manifested in a patriarchal synod with a papal encyclical would, in principle, counteract any tendencies towards division based on localization/nation. In our Church, and there are many faults but this is not one of them, there is no discussion about the ‘African’ church vs the American church, they are all Catholics and in America there are Africans, Asians, Caucasians, Latinos who all pile into the same mass. Correlatively, the regional division like that of Russia and Constantinople is a non-issue.

How would it do that? Jerusalem, for example, could still excommunicate Antioch, Rome, or any other Church, or all of them even, if it so chose. Having an annual synod with accompanying encyclicals wouldn’t change this. I don’t see how it could change the “nationalizing” tendency by this alone.

 

[Surnaturel]

The last sentence is part of why I read it as concession, depending on how you mean it.

Do you mean for the Bishop of Rome to still claim papal infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction, and just forego exercising it over the non-Latin Churches?

The Pope would not say that infallibility is a false doctrine, because we believe it to be true. Rather, he might say that an appropriate exercise of this power in a fully united Church in the third millennium shall be defined by an ecumenical council of East-West. Vatican II set this up in Lumen Gentium in reference to a bishop speaking infallibly when in unison with all of his brother bishops.

In turn, the Orthodox don’t have to make a theological concession since the universally binding teaching will be defined in an EC, which I imagine would reiterate jurisdictional sovereignty of particular churches, while, as I mentioned, possibly clarifying the Pope’s exceptional appellate duty which is the current EP claims right now. RCs will interpret this duty as the proper form of ‘universal jurisdiction’ whereas EOs will see it as a duty of primus inter pares.

What I meant by the last sentence is that the Pope will rule the West in accordance with Latin tradition, but he cannot expect to do the same with the East.

How would it do that? Jerusalem, for example, could still excommunicate Antioch, Rome, or any other Church, or all of them even, if it so chose. Having an annual synod with accompanying encyclicals wouldn’t change this. I don’t see how it could change the “nationalizing” tendency by this alone.

It won’t single handedly transform ethnic divisions, but it surely would help. A visible ‘head’ of the Church who joins together with his brothers and speaks as the voice of the Church (after patriarchal synod) expresses the unity and universality of the Church. Renowned Protestant theologians, even diehard liberals like Harvey Cox, have acknowledged that the Pope is the only person in Christianity that could unite the churches in speaking as the visible head of the Church. Furthermore, the Pope is a global figure and is the leader of over a billion Catholics on vastly different continents, which just further solidifies the universal dimension that the pope uniquely has.

 

[neokarny]

The Pope would not say that infallibility is a false doctrine, because we believe it to be true. Rather, he might say that an appropriate exercise of this power in a fully united Church in the third millennium shall be defined by an ecumenical council of East-West. Vatican II set this up in Lumen Gentium in reference to a bishop speaking infallibly when in unison with all of his brother bishops.

In turn, the Orthodox don’t have to make a theological concession since the universally binding teaching will be defined in an EC, which I imagine would reiterate jurisdictional sovereignty of particular churches, while, as I mentioned, possibly clarifying the Pope’s exceptional appellate duty which is the current EP claims right now. RCs will interpret this duty as the proper form of ‘universal jurisdiction’ whereas EOs will see it as a duty of primus inter pares.

I’m afraid I don’t imagine any Orthodox theologian or hierarch accepting a model like this. It’s too much of a “let’s interpret it differently but pretend we don’t for the sake of communion.”

Further, it doesn’t correctly relate to our understanding of an Ecumenical Council. Such a council isn’t authoritative just because it’s convened as being “Ecumenical,” but rather any council is authoritative insofar as it has been received as such through time and successive councils or synods. Hence why there are “Robber Councils” and the like that weren’t just small or local synods, but nonetheless rejected.

Are you saying this (“a bishop speaking infallibly when in unison with all of his brother bishops.”) would be the understanding in a united church? If so, I don’t think this could ever be accepted.

It won’t single handedly transform ethnic divisions, but it surely would help. A visible ‘head’ of the Church who joins together with his brothers and speaks as the voice of the Church (after patriarchal synod) expresses the unity and universality of the Church. Renowned Protestant theologians, even diehard liberals like Harvey Cox, have acknowledged that the Pope is the only person in Christianity that could unite the churches in speaking as the visible head of the Church. Furthermore, the Pope is a global figure and is the leader of over a billion Catholics on vastly different continents, which just further solidifies the universal dimension that the pope uniquely has.

I don’t see the connection without granting the Pope real authority over or throughout all jurisdictions, as any primate and their church(es) could simply ignore him as they could ignore the EP now.

 

[Surnaturel]

I’m afraid I don’t imagine any Orthodox theologian or hierarch accepting a model like this. It’s too much of a “let’s interpret it differently but pretend we don’t for the sake of communion.”

What does it matter if different traditions attribute, say, the pope’s hypothetical appellate court duty to an expression of Vatican I or primus inter pares? That doesn’t seem in itself to be an insurmountable barrier for communion, though, admittedly, infallibility is the most difficult issue to settle.

Further, it doesn’t correctly relate to our understanding of an Ecumenical Council. Such a council isn’t authoritative just because it’s convened as being “Ecumenical,” but rather any council is authoritative insofar as it has been received as such through time and successive councils or synods. Hence why there are “Robber Councils” and the like that weren’t just small or local synods, but nonetheless rejected.

A new protocol is due precisely because there was no defined criteria or consistent way to determine an ecumenical council in the first millennium. Nicaea, for example, was rendered dogmatically binding from the start, whereas Chalcedon achieved ecumenical status successively, at least in terms of all of its canons.

If the majority of bishops agree then the council should be considered ecumenical, especially since it would involve all the bishops of the world in a united Church. ‘Robber synods’ often were called with the intention of being ecumenical but excluding crucial geographic regions which are necessary to achieve that dogmatic status.

Are you saying this (“a bishop speaking infallibly when in unison with all of his brother bishops.”) would be the understanding in a united church? If so, I don’t think this could ever be accepted.

It’s more nuanced than that, but it was really geared toward RCs. It’s not central to our discussion though.

I don’t see the connection without granting the Pope real authority over or throughout all jurisdictions, as any primate and their church(es) could simply ignore him as they could ignore the EP now.

The Pope does need some sort of authority in order to be effective, and it would be no more than what the current EP claims for himself, but it would be enforceable through canon law after an ecumenical council.

The list provided by the current EP includes: presiding over ecumenical council and apellate courts, among others. Both include a real duty of primacy that is unique to the universal primate, as would be the issuance of a universal encyclical.

 

[neokarny]

What does it matter if different traditions attribute, say, the pope’s hypothetical appellate court duty to an expression of Vatican I or primus inter pares? That doesn’t seem in itself to be an insurmountable barrier for communion, though, admittedly, infallibility is the most difficult issue to settle.

1. It’s dishonest from the Roman Catholic perspective in the sense that the Latin Church believes that the Bishop of Rome has universal ordinary jurisdiction and the ability to exercise infallibility, yet he can’t exercise either over the non-Latin Churches. I’d say that if he can’t exercise them he ipso facto doesn’t really have them.
2. One reason it’s disagreeable from an Orthodox perspective is because, while it’s not necessarily a cause in itself for schism if we’re already in communion and not being forced on others, it’s certainly not a belief we would want to encourage by effectively assenting to its legitimacy as a tradition through communion. In the long run, I would see tension or outright conflict re-emerging over the issue.

A new protocol is due precisely because there was no defined criteria or consistent way to determine an ecumenical council in the first millennium. Nicaea, for example, was rendered dogmatically binding from the start, whereas Chalcedon achieved ecumenical status successively, at least in terms of all of its canons.

If the majority of bishops agree then the council should be considered ecumenical, especially since it would involve all the bishops of the world in a united Church. ‘Robber synods’ often were called with the intention of being ecumenical but excluding crucial geographic regions which are necessary to achieve that dogmatic status.

I’m afraid I don’t find this view to be satisfactory, especially in light of our growing relations with the Oriental Orthodox who do not even accept the councils of Chalcedon and onward. I’d say that we are not going to demand the OO to “receive” the 4-7 Councils as authoritative and binding on them. So, the councils are only binding insofar as they are received as such and properly express the faith. I do think the EO need to reconsider our views on Councils in light of this progress with the OO, but probably not in the direction of creating de facto universally binding councils so long as they meet certain criterion. I wouldn’t imagine the OO to accept such an idea of an ecumenical council either.

The Pope does need some sort of authority in order to be effective, and it would be no more than what the current EP claims for himself, but it would be enforceable through canon law after an ecumenical council.

Except isn’t the Pope supposed to be above canon law, or would he just be limiting himself for the sake of union (i.e. not bound by canon law)?

The list provided by the current EP includes: presiding over ecumenical council and apellate courts, among others. Both include a real duty of primacy that is unique to the universal primate, as would be the issuance of a universal encyclical.

What do you mean by “universal encyclical?”

 

[Peter_J]

The Pope would not say that infallibility is a false doctrine, because we believe it to be true.

No argument there. If anything, I would go a step further: it’s unlikely (perhaps completely out-of-the-question) that the Pope would even say that belief in Papal Infallibility et al are not mandatory for full communion with Rome.

 

[Peter_J]

It is interesting, also, that a Roman cardinal is allowed to tell us what we should be working on and saying what our ‘big problem’ is, but when Orthodox do that to Roman Catholics, regardless as to what is claimed to be the ‘big problem’, we are told we are “Anti-Catholic” or “Anti-Western” or whatever else.

I do think the Orthodox are fairly “anti-western” (or “easternist”, which is pretty much the same thing) but not specifically in regard to what you said.

Likewise, I think the Orthodox are fairly “anti-Catholic”, but again not specifically in regard to what you said.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;10944127]Not by Catholic teaching. Read the Catechism, the priest in the RCC is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, and thus** can confect the Eucharist even without a bishop’s permission.** He will do so illicitly, but not invalidly.

I don’t think so… You misread and misunderstand the CCC, one has to take the whole of the CCC not selected teachings out of context, which never contradict. Sure the priest is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, but you missed this quote of the CCC 1564 "Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that assoicated with them by reason of their sacredotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest…

The point that needs to be raised here is the understanding of what a sacrament is; and that no man or apostolic office has any power to remove a valid sacrament.

That said, Orthodox pretend that a sacrament can be removed or discounted by rebaptising valid baptised Christians? Because the Orthodox claim this from pride of human tradition not from sacred Tradition.

What constitutes a heretic and a schismatic bishop or priest is done on a case by case result. These independent circumstances reveal which remain ex-communicated and those in schism. From these circumstances each has it’s outcome of what constitutes a valid sacrament or invalid sacrament, which are too numerous to mention here from historical accounts to group them together.

It is misleading to try and group these all together, because each one comes with a set of different circumstances. If we focused on one particular bishop or priest in the fullest which the Church has done, althoug not all information is public on certain circumstances to really grasp at what is valid and what becomes invalid from these Holy Orders in heresy or schism.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG; It appears your reasoning against the RCC in regards to heretics and schismatics contradicts your own faith?

For the fact that Orthodoxy recognizes the Emperor Constantine as a bonified Catholic Saint, who was officially baptised by a known Arian heretic on his death bed.

How do you account for this sacrament as being valid, when the baptism was conducted by a known heretic recognized by the whole Catholic Church?

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t think so… You misread and misunderstand the CCC, one has to take the whole of the CCC not selected teachings out of context, which never contradict. Sure the priest is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, but you missed this quote of the CCC 1564 "Whilst not having the supreme degree of the pontifical office, and notwithstanding the fact that they depend on the bishops in the exercise of their own proper power, the priests are for all that assoicated with them by reason of their sacredotal dignity; and in virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, after the image of Christ, the supreme and eternal priest…

Constantine is correct. In Roman Catholic teaching, a priest validly celebrates the Eucharist with or without the permission of the bishop. A priest whose faculties have been suspended, or a priest who has been laicized is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist, so should he decide to do so, such celebrations are illicit; however, they are valid.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Constantine is correct. In Roman Catholic teaching, a priest validly celebrates the Eucharist with or without the permission of the bishop. A priest whose faculties have been suspended, or a priest who has been laicized is not permitted to celebrate the Eucharist, so should he decide to do so, such celebrations are illicit; however, they are valid.

Your barking up the wrong tree here; answer the question?

ConstantineTG; It appears your reasoning against the RCC in regards to heretics and schismatics contradicts your own faith?

For the fact that Orthodoxy recognizes the Emperor Constantine as a bonified Catholic Saint, who was officially baptised by a known Arian heretic on his death bed.

How do you account for this sacrament as being valid, when the baptism was conducted by a known heretic recognized by the whole Catholic Church?

I respectfully request an answer from any Orthodox?

 

[RyanBlack]

Your barking up the wrong tree here; answer the question?

ConstantineTG; It appears your reasoning against the RCC in regards to heretics and schismatics contradicts your own faith?

For the fact that Orthodoxy recognizes the Emperor Constantine as a bonified Catholic Saint, who was officially baptised by a known Arian heretic on his death bed.

How do you account for this sacrament as being valid, when the baptism was conducted by a known heretic recognized by the whole Catholic Church?

I respectfully request an answer from any Orthodox?

I wasn’t dealing with your question about Orthodox recognition of St. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles as a Saint, since I’m not Orthodox, and cannot speak on their behalf. I was merely pointing out your error (which you had stated repeatedly) concerning whether a priest can validly celebrate the Eucharist without his bishop’s permission. So no, I was not barking up the wrong tree. One never “barks up the wrong tree” in correcting error.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I was merely pointing out your error (which you had stated repeatedly) concerning whether a priest can validly celebrate the Eucharist without his bishop’s permission. So no, I was not barking up the wrong tree. One never “barks up the wrong tree” in correcting error.

I had not mentioned anything about a Priest having the permission of the Bishop to celebrate the Eucharist. I said a Priest cannot celebrate the Eucharist without communion with his Bishop. If a priest does, he does so without the Church. We are talking about two different things here.

Your point is directed to Constantines argument, who denies that any validly ordained Priest or Bishop who is excommunicated or in schism has lost the validity of his priesthood and sacraments. I pointed out that these have to be taken on a case by case circumstance to determine which heretic or schismatic remains apostolic and which ones possess valid sacraments.

The point I raised to the Orthodox position is;

ConstantineTG; It appears your reasoning against the RCC in regards to heretics and schismatics contradicts your own faith?

**For the fact that Orthodoxy recognizes the Emperor Constantine as a bonified Catholic Saint, who was officially baptised by a known Arian heretic on his death bed.

How do you account for this sacrament as being valid, when the baptism was conducted by a known heretic recognized by the whole Catholic Church?**

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it may have cleared up some merky waters.

 

[neokarny]

**For the fact that Orthodoxy recognizes the Emperor Constantine as a bonified Catholic Saint, who was officially baptised by a known Arian heretic on his death bed.

How do you account for this sacrament as being valid, when the baptism was conducted by a known heretic recognized by the whole Catholic Church?**

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it may have cleared up some merky waters.

I’m not entirely sure of the context of your conversation, but I’ll offer a couple comments on the topic of St. Constantine.

1. Had the bishop (it was a bishop and not a priest, correct?) that baptised him been deposed? Was he still operating in communion with other churches?
2. Isn’t it possible that the baptism wasn’t in fact valid (assuming he was schismatic and heretical), and that his sainthood was rather in spite of it? A “baptism of desire” could even be appropriate here if such is the case.