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

[ConstantineTG]

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.

You are assuming that the Arian controversy was resolved immediately after the Council of Nicaea. It wasn’t. In fact, at the time of his death, Arius was just about to be reinstated in the Church. Some see his sudden death as divine providence. While history has shown Constantine’s personal bishop to be Arian, many clergy within the Church were at the time. It would take decades before the Arian controversy was completely resolved within the Church. The bishop in question was a full member of the Church at the time.

Also, getting baptized at your deathbed was surprisingly and alarmingly the norm of the era. Because of the very strict canons of the Church against Christians who erred from their faith, many decide to be just life-long catechumens and just get their baptisms at the last possible moment so as they don’t have to worry about the harsh punishments for certain sins. One example is people who left the Church willingly and wants to return was barred from Communion for 10 years. Today that is unthinkable, no one would return to our Church if that was the standing rule. But back then that is how serious and committed to the faith people were. And that is why many people waited before getting baptized, so that if they err, they don’t have to deal with the harsh punishment. Constantine was no different. And he came from a life that is completely opposite of what a Christian life is. So like many, he waited. And it helps a bit that you are the Emperor and that you can have a priest or bishop by your side at all time.

 

[dvdjs]

While history has shown Constantine’s personal bishop to be Arian, many clergy within the Church were at the time … The bishop in question was a full member of the Church at the time.

That is an interesting take. After Nicea I, I think that it would be better to say that while there were competing theologies, the Church was Nicean, and those holding of Arianism were outside the Church. Depending on which group had the upper hand politically, different factions would assume power locally - especially in Constantinople - and opponents would be exiled. With that level of conflict, it is hard to suggest that the different factions saw each other as full members of the same Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That is an interesting take. After Nicea I, I think that it would be better to say that while there were competing theologies, the Church was Nicean, and those holding of Arianism were outside the Church. Depending on which group had the upper hand politically, different factions would assume power locally - especially in Constantinople - and opponents would be exiled. With that level of conflict, it is hard to suggest that the different factions saw each other as full members of the same Church.

Well, the problem is people today think because of this misconception of an Ecumenical Council that is infallible as approved by the Pope, that once it has been completed, the decisions finalized, the Church just goes in one direction after that. That is not even in the same galaxy as to what really happens. I mean, even today we can see that Vatican II is far from settled 50 years later. It was only in the Second Ecumenical Council where Arianism was once and for all defeated within the Church. You are right though that how bishops then would treat being inside or outside the Church would be quite different that what we have today. It is quite possible some bishops are not in communion with one another, yet both bishops would be in communion with the same third bishop. It is a possible scenario. It was never clean cut.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, the problem is people today think because of this misconception of an Ecumenical Council that is infallible as approved by the Pope, that once it has been completed, the decisions finalized, the Church just goes in one direction after that…

No that is not the problem.

There were issues within Constantinople because of the varying positions of the Emperors and their ability to respond forcefully by exiling opponents. But, even with some local councils seeking conciliation with the Semi-Arians, Alexandria and Rome, as well as the celebrated Cappadocians, were largely immune to the maneuverings in Constantinople. The church was steadfast, even if the imperial city wasn’t. The resolution there, arrived when Theodosius took power and acted decisively against the Arians. The Constantinopolitan bishops reaffirmed their Orthodoxy in their Council. That pretty much ended the matter there, but in the meantime their Constantinopolitan missionaries had converted may Germanic tribes to Arianism, then sent them West. It took some centuries to finally root out this heresy in lands that they conquered.

 

[hazcompat]

RESPONSORY Psalm 41:10; Mark 14:18

Even my closest friend who had my trust,
– he who ate at my table, has turned against me.

One of you who is eating with me is about to betray me.
– He who ate at my table, has turned against me.

Second reading
From a letter to the Corinthians by Saint Clement, pope
Seek the good of all, not personal advantage

The command has been written: Cling to the saints, for those who cling to them will be sanctified. There is a passage in Scripture as well which states: With the innocent man you will be innocent, and with the chosen one you will be chosen also; likewise with the perverse you will deal perversely. Devote yourselves, then, to the innocent and the just; they are God’s chosen ones. Why are there strife and passion, schisms and even war among you? Do we not possess the same Spirit of grace which was given to us and the same calling in Christ? Why do we tear apart and divide the body of Christ? Why do we revolt against our own body? Why do we reach such a degree of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another? Do not forget the words of Jesus our Lord: Woe to that man; it would be better for him if he had not been born rather than scandalize one of my chosen ones. Indeed it would be better for him to have a great millstone round his neck and to be drowned in the sea than that he lead astray one of my chosen ones. Your division has led many astray, has made many doubt, has made many despair, and has brought grief upon us all. And still your rebellion continues.

Pick up the letter of blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you at the beginning of his ministry? Even then you had developed factions. So Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos. But that division involved you in less sin because you were supporting apostles of high reputation and a person approved by them.

We should put an end to this division immediately. Let us fall down before our master and implore his mercy with our tears. Then he will be reconciled to us and restore us to the practice of brotherly love that befits us. For this is the gate of justice that leads to life, as it is written: Open to me the gates of justice. When I have entered there, I shall praise the Lord. This is the gate of the Lord; the just shall enter through it. There are many gates which stand open, but the gate of justice is the gateway of Christ. All who enter through this gate are blessed, pursuing their way in holiness and justice, performing all their tasks without discord. A person may be faithful; he may have the power to utter hidden mysteries; he may be discriminating in the evaluation of what is said and pure in his actions. But the greater he seems to be, the more humbly he ought to act, and the more zealous he should be for the common good rather than his own interest

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

neokarny;10953504]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?

The Arian bishop who baptised Constantine was Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia who was a school friend and supporter of Arius an Arian priest. Both were deposed and excommunicated Eusebius was banished after the Council of Nicea, Arius under different councils. It was due to the sister of Constantine, Constantia who supported the Arians and replaced her banished bishop with another Arian priest in her court. This Arian history does not give us a name. This unknown Arian priest is the one who influences the Emperor later to re-instate the Arian’s Eusebius and Theognis to their sees.

What is difficult in this present time; is that Eusebius was a kinsman to the Emperor Constantine, this gives reason to why the Arian’s would later take over the East for a time.

Arius himself was constantly being excommunicated; First by Bishop Peter of Alexandria excommunicated Arius for supporting a schimastic group called the Meletians. Achillas successor to Peter removed Arius’s excommunication and ordained him a priest.

Alexander successor to Achillas tried to correct Arius views of the True Catholic doctrine and demanded Arius to retract his views. Arius finds Eusebius as his supporter. Alexander summoned a local synod of bishops A.D 320 who unanimously anathematized Arius.

Alexander called another synod, who made it known by letter to all the Church’s of the World that Arius and his followers have been excommunicated.

Arius goes to Nicomedia and disturbs the peace in the Church again. Constantine through the legate bishop of the Pope, bishop of Cordova Hosius sent a letter to Alexander and Arius to cease disturbing the peace. Later Pope Sylvester with his delegate Hosius. Constantine summoned the Council of Nicea.

It is here where the bishop of Nicomedia Eusebius is deposed, excommunicated and banished. It is from this council Eusebius makes enemies with the arch deacon of Alexander at the time St.Athanasius. These two will meet in future disputes again.

After the Council of Nicea and the death of Constantine; Eusebius is now back in power to influence the Emperor’s Court. Eusebius. He went after the Nicea bishops and began deposing them for one example; Bishop Eustathius of Antioch, was slandered and desposed by a Arian synod and replaced this Nicea bishop with an Arian bishop.

Arius is then summoned to Constantinople by the Emperor. Arius gave him an ambigious profession of faith, and was re-instated back to Alexandria where he was met with opposition by Alexander bishop of Alexandria. Alexander died, his successor Paul was deposed and replaced with an Arian bishop.

Later the Emperor Constantius ruled the East, who was an outright Arian. From here the Arians triumph in the East. These Arian rulers even went as far as exiling Pope Liberius, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari and Dionysius of Milan who refused to the Emperor’s demand of re-instating excommunicated Arians into their church’s.

The Emperor Valens another Arian Emperor persecuted Catholics and sought to retrieve the declinging fortunes of Arianism.

Now enters; St.Basil in the three Cappodician Fathers, and the Catholic Emperors who raised to power Gratian and Theodosius who finally defeat and remove the Arian’s from power. Thus enters the second General Council’s edict from Gratian and Theodosius which states; “We will that all peoples who are ruled by the authority our clemency shall hold to the religion which the Divine Apostle Peter delivered to the Romans, and which is recognized by his having preserved it there until the present day, and which it is known that the Pontiff Damasus follows”…“We would believe in one Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, in co-equal majesty and Holy Trinity”…

From this council the Emperor’s edict removed all toleration of Arian within the Church.

1. 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.

There are circumstances arising from a baptism of desire as being valid for sure. We as Catholics recognize Constantines baptism as valid. Today’s Orthodox position against the RCC understanding of baptism conflicts with St.Constantines baptism being baptised by a known Heretic in the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;10956050]You are assuming that the Arian controversy was resolved immediately after the Council of Nicaea, it wasn’t.

It was resolved because Eusebius was banished and so was the Arian teaching which invented a Jesus to be a demi-god. These never re-entered the Nicea Church. Although the Arians would gain imperial power to promote their heresy, they were never accepted again with in the whole Church ever…

In fact, at the time of his death, Arius was just about to be reinstated in the Church. Some see his sudden death as divine providence.

Arius was re-instated!!! by a powerful Arian bishop and powerful Arian Emperor! He was never re-instated nor considered re-instatement by the Catholic Church now under persecution by Valens the Arian Emperor.

While history has shown Constantine’s personal bishop to be Arian, many clergy within the Church were at the time.

Yes, Constantines sister Constantia from her deathbed recommended her Arian priest to her brother’s care. What Emperor would not follow his sister’s dying wish?

It would take decades before the Arian controversy was completely resolved within the Church. The bishop in question was a full member of the Church at the time.

No he was not; Eusebius was a condemned heretic by the Church council and so was Arianism. The whole Church of Nicea members never accepted Arianism nor Arian priest were not allowed to be re-instated even refusing the Imperial rule to re-instate the Arians into the Church.

Also, getting baptized at your deathbed was surprisingly and alarmingly the norm of the era. Because of the very strict canons of the Church against Christians who erred from their faith, many decide to be just life-long catechumens and just get their baptisms at the last possible moment so as they don’t have to worry about the harsh punishments for certain sins. One example is people who left the Church willingly and wants to return was barred from Communion for 10 years… it helps a bit that you are the Emperor and that you can have a priest or bishop by your side at all time.

I agree to this history of baptism of adults were personally delayed until their deathbeds.

It appears you don’t disagree with me then, that we cannot generalize ex-communicants and schismatics as all being the same, because taking each case by case will reveal certain circumstances which the Church cannot change, such as a valid sacrament and circumstances which she rules on that determines the fate of a schismatic and or excommunicated clergy.

From your early Arian position was still in full communion with the Church throught the controversies. You appear to take the RCC position of future councils being needed to clarify certain doctrine that grows, matures in understanding through out the ages. Be careful here, because your present position leaves the Orthodox position of holdiing to just the first 7 ecumenical councils, you apppear to by saying more were needed to clear up the Arian heretics and the Arian heresy.

I disagree the first Counciled settled the matter. The second council removed any toleration of Arian’s, it never suggested to re-think or re-try the Arian’s nor their heresy. But it finally condemned it throughout the whole Church.

The Catholic Emperors finally take power from the Arian Emperors and confirm through their “edict of uniformity” states; that “Pope Damasus succeeds Peter and this church’s law of the Holy Trintiy and anyone who obeys this Trinitarian Law follow by the name Catholic Christians”. “All others, mad and insane, we condemn to the infamy of herresy, and they will be punished in the first place by Divine vengeance, and also by our penalties, where in we follow the will of Heaven”.

Peace be with you

 

[neokarny]

There are circumstances arising from a baptism of desire as being valid for sure. We as Catholics recognize Constantines baptism as valid. Today’s Orthodox position against the RCC understanding of baptism conflicts with St.Constantines baptism being baptised by a known Heretic in the Church.

I suppose I just don’t see where your argument leads, apart from pointing out that we may differ (as Orthodox don’t have a universally uniform understanding of non-Orthodox sacraments). He could very well have an invalid baptism by a canonically deposed, excommunicated heretic, and still be a saint.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I suppose I just don’t see where your argument leads, apart from pointing out that we may differ (as Orthodox don’t have a universally uniform understanding of non-Orthodox sacraments). He could very well have an invalid baptism by a canonically deposed, excommunicated heretic, and still be a saint.

The misunderstanding comes when one generalizes and groups all of these into one category. One runs the risk of contradicting the Catholic faith and what a sacrament is.The Church has taken them on, on a case by case, for each case brings on a whole different set of circumstances. For example Arian heresy and the Nestorian heresy.

For the record the only sacraments to which non-catholic Christians (protestants) which the church recognizes are baptism and marriage and even these when coming into the Church have to be scrutinized to consider them valid or in need of validation on a case by case. Apostolic succession and holy orders, confession, confirmation, Eucharist, anointing of the sick (viaticum) if we generalize them are never considered valid by non-catholic Christians or protestants, unless they are taken on a case by case which others may have validity and other’s do not.

For the simple fact that no man can put asunder what God has joined together. In other words no man nor Church has the power to invalidate a valid sacrament. The Church only has the keys to reconcile these back to the fold. For example the great mind of Tertullian a great theologian and mystic never makes it to saint hood as far as canonization is concerned. Because he fell into heresy at one time. Yet today and most Early Church Fathers quote him from antiquity.

The bishop Eusebius possessed the apostolic office with holy orders. Although a deposed Catholic, his baptism never the less is valid. We know from historical accounts however when ever a deposed or even a supposed heretic confected the Eucharist, it was not recognized by some and trampled underfoot. Yet the baptism from these, as far as the Roman Catholic church is concerned remain valid.
**
That is why we cannot generalize or “unversalize” these heretics and schismatics as all being invalid. When baptism and marriage are probably the only two sacraments that can be accepted as valid when all other sacraments require a valid bishop and valid priest in order to be valid such as the Eucharist and or apostolic succession of holy orders.
** We have not discussed what is Licit and what is invalid. To do so as we have demonstrated briefly in Eusebius’s baptism, we would have to take each one case by case to see how the church ruled on them, and what constitutes their validity and what does not. Again the Church is careful to never step overbounds and reject a valid sacrament which God has joined together, although she possesses the keys to bind and loose those things within the Church by removing the faculties of such heretics and schismatics to operate within the Church.

Peace be with you

 

[neokarny]

For the simple fact that no man can put asunder what God has joined together. In other words no man nor Church has the power to invalidate a valid sacrament.

I’m not sure that the hardliner Orthodox who view all sacraments outside canonical Orthodox as graceless would say that it’s mere men putting them “asunder,” but rather God himself.

But regarding your comments in general, they seem only relevant to a Roman Catholic’s position and not an Orthodox one.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It was resolved because Eusebius was banished and so was the Arian teaching which invented a Jesus to be a demi-god. These never re-entered the Nicea Church. Although the Arians would gain imperial power to promote their heresy, they were never accepted again with in the whole Church ever…

Arius was re-instated!!! by a powerful Arian bishop and powerful Arian Emperor! He was never re-instated nor considered re-instatement by the Catholic Church now under persecution by Valens the Arian Emperor.

Yes, Constantines sister Constantia from her deathbed recommended her Arian priest to her brother’s care. What Emperor would not follow his sister’s dying wish?

No he was not; Eusebius was a condemned heretic by the Church council and so was Arianism. The whole Church of Nicea members never accepted Arianism nor Arian priest were not allowed to be re-instated even refusing the Imperial rule to re-instate the Arians into the Church.

I agree to this history of baptism of adults were personally delayed until their deathbeds.

It appears you don’t disagree with me then, that we cannot generalize ex-communicants and schismatics as all being the same, because taking each case by case will reveal certain circumstances which the Church cannot change, such as a valid sacrament and circumstances which she rules on that determines the fate of a schismatic and or excommunicated clergy.

From your early Arian position was still in full communion with the Church throught the controversies. You appear to take the RCC position of future councils being needed to clarify certain doctrine that grows, matures in understanding through out the ages. Be careful here, because your present position leaves the Orthodox position of holdiing to just the first 7 ecumenical councils, you apppear to by saying more were needed to clear up the Arian heretics and the Arian heresy.

I disagree the first Counciled settled the matter. The second council removed any toleration of Arian’s, it never suggested to re-think or re-try the Arian’s nor their heresy. But it finally condemned it throughout the whole Church.

The Catholic Emperors finally take power from the Arian Emperors and confirm through their “edict of uniformity” states; that “Pope Damasus succeeds Peter and this church’s law of the Holy Trintiy and anyone who obeys this Trinitarian Law follow by the name Catholic Christians”. “All others, mad and insane, we condemn to the infamy of herresy, and they will be punished in the first place by Divine vengeance, and also by our penalties, where in we follow the will of Heaven”.

Peace be with you

Again, after Nicaea the issue was not settled. While there were anathemas issued, like I said, Arianism crept back in over the next few years. No, I did not say Arius was reinstated, I said he was about to be. Had he not died suddenly, he would have been.

The point here is that Arianism wasn’t eradicated overnight. In fact it gained enough supporters that it was almost accepted back into the Church’s theological discussions. It took decades before it was clearly stamped out. So any clergy who were Arian at that time doesn’t mean they were already thrown out of the Church. Arius still had a lot of supporters even though he himself was anathemized.

 

[dvdjs]

Again, after Nicaea the issue was not settled. While there were anathemas issued, like I said, Arianism crept back in over the next few years. No, I did not say Arius was reinstated, I said he was about to be. Had he not died suddenly, he would have been.

The point here is that Arianism wasn’t eradicated overnight. In fact it gained enough supporters that it was almost accepted back into the Church’s theological discussions. It took decades before it was clearly stamped out. So any clergy who were Arian at that time doesn’t mean they were already thrown out of the Church. Arius still had a lot of supporters even though he himself was anathemized.

Pretty much just in Constantinople.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I’m not sure that the hardliner Orthodox who view all sacraments outside canonical Orthodox as graceless would say that it’s mere men putting them “asunder,” but rather God himself.

But regarding your comments in general, they seem only relevant to a Roman Catholic’s position and not an Orthodox one.

I would disagree with you when it comes to the Church recognizing what is a valid and invalid sacrament outside the Church. For the fact that not all baptism’s are considered valid in non-catholic Christian communities making any or all of their sacraments invalid, whereby others may practice a valid baptism.

The Roman Catholic Church has been around since Pentecost, she knows what constitutes a valid sacrament and what does not. The Orthodox are misleading when they accuse the RCC as generalizing all sacraments as being valid outside the Church, for the fact that these are all taken on a case by case. The issue here is what constitutes a valid sacrament, not because one is opposed to the Church’s position. No one has the power to invalidate a sacrament when it is found to be valid.

If the Orthodox believe that they can invalidate a valid baptism because they disagree with a Church does not invalidate the sacrament, because they say it is. This is man playing god and opposes what God has joined. God does not invalidate a convenant or sacrament, God fulfills them.

Generalization does not apply to the RCC because the only two sacraments found to have any validity on a case by case is baptism and marriage, all the other sacraments are not even considered valid outside the Catholic Church, and the latter are considered on a case by case not by generalization of validation.

I think the issue between Orthodox and Roman Catholic’s as far as a valid sacrament is concerned; is when the sacrament took place was it valid. If it was, The personal sacrament never becomes invalid because one is excommunicated by the Church. The Orthodox appear to make the false case, that the sacrament becomes invalid because communion is broken or excommunication has occurred after the valid sacrament was adminstered.

This is why it is wrong to think the RCC generalizes all sacraments are valid outside the Church, and Orthodox generalizes as all sacraments are invalid outside of their own church because another Church has broken off communion with them, that does not justify to make the false claim of a previous valid sacrament becomes invalid. Their are a lot of different circumstances that apply to both positions, which we have not introduced in this discussion because to generalize them would lead to error. Unless these are taken case by case.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Again, after Nicaea the issue was not settled. While there were anathemas issued, like I said, Arianism crept back in over the next few years. No, I did not say Arius was reinstated, I said he was about to be. Had he not died suddenly, he would have been.

The point here is that Arianism wasn’t eradicated overnight. In fact it gained enough supporters that it was almost accepted back into the Church’s theological discussions. It took decades before it was clearly stamped out. So any clergy who were Arian at that time doesn’t mean they were already thrown out of the Church. Arius still had a lot of supporters even though he himself was anathemized.

Arianism was rejected and so was Eusebius after Nicea council settled the matter. The only reason Arianism was kept alive was due to the fact that the banished bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia was a distant relative to the Emperor Constantine. So long as the blood line of Constantine remained in power, Arian’s through Eusebius gained favor within the Empire, especially when the Emperor’s were Arians themselves.

It was the Arians in power who were re-instating banished Arians.The Church never tried to re-instate any Arians after Nicea I. The Church even disobeyed the Emperor’s imperial law for the Church to re-instate the Arians and fell under persecution for rejecting the Arians back into the Church.

When the Arians were in power, they added to their longevity due to the fact the Emperor’s sent Arian clergy to the West under imperial law. Ultimately they were defeated.

Peace be with you

 

[neokarny]

I would disagree with you when it comes to the Church recognizing what is a valid and invalid sacrament outside the Church. For the fact that not all baptism’s are considered valid in non-catholic Christian communities making any or all of their sacraments invalid, whereby others may practice a valid baptism.

The Roman Catholic Church has been around since Pentecost, she knows what constitutes a valid sacrament and what does not. The Orthodox are misleading when they accuse the RCC as generalizing all sacraments as being valid outside the Church, for the fact that these are all taken on a case by case. The issue here is what constitutes a valid sacrament, not because one is opposed to the Church’s position. No one has the power to invalidate a sacrament when it is found to be valid.

If the Orthodox believe that they can invalidate a valid baptism because they disagree with a Church does not invalidate the sacrament, because they say it is. This is man playing god and opposes what God has joined. God does not invalidate a convenant or sacrament, God fulfills them.

Generalization does not apply to the RCC because the only two sacraments found to have any validity on a case by case is baptism and marriage, all the other sacraments are not even considered valid outside the Catholic Church, and the latter are considered on a case by case not by generalization of validation.

I think the issue between Orthodox and Roman Catholic’s as far as a valid sacrament is concerned; is when the sacrament took place was it valid. If it was, The personal sacrament never becomes invalid because one is excommunicated by the Church. The Orthodox appear to make the false case, that the sacrament becomes invalid because communion is broken or excommunication has occurred after the valid sacrament was adminstered.

This is why it is wrong to think the RCC generalizes all sacraments are valid outside the Church, and Orthodox generalizes as all sacraments are invalid outside of their own church because another Church has broken off communion with them, that does not justify to make the false claim of a previous valid sacrament becomes invalid. Their are a lot of different circumstances that apply to both positions, which we have not introduced in this discussion because to generalize them would lead to error. Unless these are taken case by case.

Others might have, but I wasn’t making any generalizations about the RCC’s approach to non-Catholic Sacraments.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Others might have, but I wasn’t making any generalizations about the RCC’s approach to non-Catholic Sacraments.

The same case by case rule would apply to those Catholics both east and west who are out of communion or are holding to a known heresy by no fault of their own.