Do Orthodox Sunday service (comparable to our Mass as the main Sunday service), able to replace Mass when a Catholic Church is not around?

  • Thread starter Thread starter foolishmortal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

foolishmortal

Guest
My friend told me he heard that on an EWTN Catholic Answers show. He heard their sacraments are valid too (including the Eucharist).

How is that? The Pope is not their Pope in their beliefs, their higher clergy, if valid after the Great Schism (that’s it’s name, right?), have already died out and so I don’t see how they could appoint valid clergy and have the sacraments after all those centuries. The SSPX will run out of valid clergy at some point, unless they get new bishops or archbishops on their side to appoint new priests as the obedient bishops, N.O. or otherwise (if that ever happens), aren’t going to do it. Their bunch and any other recent non-sedevacantist ones still would have priests and/or bishops and so they only would have a jurisdiction problem regarding certain sacraments, but the Orthodox were separated from the Catholic Church like a thousand years ago.

What, if anything, do I not understand correctly about the validity of their clergy and thus, their sacraments?
 
foolishmortal said:
My friend told me he heard that on an EWTN Catholic Answers show. He heard their sacraments are valid too (including the Eucharist).

How is that? The Pope is not their Pope in their beliefs, their higher clergy, if valid after the Great Schism (that’s it’s name, right?), have already died out and so I don’t see how they could appoint valid clergy and have the sacraments after all those centuries. The SSPX will run out of valid clergy at some point, unless they get new bishops or archbishops on their side to appoint new priests as the obedient bishops, N.O. or otherwise (if that ever happens), aren’t going to do it. Their bunch and any other recent non-sedevacantist ones still would have priests and/or bishops and so they only would have a jurisdiction problem regarding certain sacraments, but the Orthodox were separated from the Catholic Church like a thousand years ago.

What, if anything, do I not understand correctly about the validity of their clergy and thus, their sacraments?
Click to expand...
The Orthodox sacraments remain valid because their bishops at the time of the Schism were valid bishops, who ordained (not appointed) other bishops using valid ordination rites. For as long as they continue to do this, their sacraments will remain valid.
 
They must have run out of higher clergy who can ordain, right? Once the original ordainers died, who could ordain anyone? Without the Pope, how could they have jurisdiction?

BTW…what about the Anglicans?
 
Bishops have the power to ordain, or consecrate, other bishops, so the Orthodox didn’t run out of bishops. In the Catholic Church, the Pope must approve the ordination of a bishop, but he himself is not the usual ordainer.

As for the Anglicans, their orders are no longer valid because they changed the rite of ordination during the reign of Elizabeth I (or maybe James I). Either way, the Catholic Church does not recognize their orders and sacraments as valid.

But the Church does recognize the orders of the Polish National Catholic Church and the (Orthodox) Church of Antioch, as well as the mainline Orthodox Churches.

The Orthodox Church is not a single jurisdiction like the Catholic Church. They are a group of like-minded Churches with the same beliefs and similar rites who all, mostly, recognize each other, and whose sacraments are recognized by the Catholic Church.
 
As others have already stated, Apostolic succession can be validly traced to the original twelve in the Orthodox churches, and their form and intent have remained valid, so since Apostolic succession and valid form has been preserved, the Orthodox priests are still able to administer sacraments that are valid. The problem you run into is one of being “licit” (permissible and appropriately sanctioned).

It is the contention of the Catholic Church that the Orthodox mass is a valid Eucharistic sacrifice and would fulfill the weekly obligation in extraordinary circumstances. However, this would not be preferred, and because of the possibility of scandal and cooperation with those in a state of schism Catholics are required to find a Catholic mass to fulfil their obligation if it is at all possible.

To further muddy the waters just a bit, the Orthodox do not necessarily share the Catholic point of view, and are much less receptive to Catholics receiving the sacraments in an Orthodox Church, for reasons I am not educated enough to articulate since I am a Catholic and not a member fo the Orthodox Church.
 
joshua_b said:
It is the contention of the Catholic Church that the Orthodox mass is a valid Eucharistic sacrifice and would fulfill the weekly obligation in extraordinary circumstances. However, this would not be preferred, and because of the possibility of scandal and cooperation with those in a state of schism Catholics are required to find a Catholic mass to fulfil their obligation if it is at all possible.
Click to expand...
If there’s no Catholic church around, the obligation is dispensed. It might be beneficial to attend an Orthodox liturgy, but it is by no means required by the RCC.
joshua_b said:
To further muddy the waters just a bit, the Orthodox do not necessarily share the Catholic point of view, and are much less receptive to Catholics receiving the sacraments in an Orthodox Church, for reasons I am not educated enough to articulate since I am a Catholic and not a member fo the Orthodox Church.
Click to expand...
For the same reason Catholics don’t allow Protestants to receive. One must have the same faith to be in communion and receive the Eucharist, and the Orthodox position is that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not the same faith; therefore, no intercommunion.
 
wynd said:
If there’s no Catholic church around, the obligation is dispensed. It might be beneficial to attend an Orthodox liturgy, but it is by no means required by the RCC.

For the same reason Catholics don’t allow Protestants to receive. One must have the same faith to be in communion and receive the Eucharist, and the Orthodox position is that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not the same faith; therefore, no intercommunion.
Click to expand...
On the first point, I believe you to be correct. Thank you for the clarification.

On the second, I understand this in concept, but have never seen the Orthodox arguments for refusal of communion to a Catholic. Are you able to articulate their specific arguments for such exclusion (just curious). Also, does the Orthodox Church exclude Catholics from the sacrament of confession as well?
 
joshua_b said:
On the second, I understand this in concept, but have never seen the Orthodox arguments for refusal of communion to a Catholic. Are you able to articulate their specific arguments for such exclusion (just curious).
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what type of arguments you’re looking for, beyond what I posted above.
joshua_b said:
Also, does the Orthodox Church exclude Catholics from the sacrament of confession as well?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, one must be Orthodox to receive any Orthodox sacrament (except marriage, which requires a dispensation). Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will comment.
 
Thanks! Do the Orthodox differ on something big in our faith?

If one of their bishops were not one of the apostles, then why would any group of sedevacantists, headed by a sedevacantist bishop, not be a separate jurisdiction?
 
Re. “Why would any group of sedevacantists, headed by a sedevacantist bishop, not be a separate jurisdiction?”

That’s the point! The sedevacantists are a separate jurisdiction because they separated themselves from the jurisdiction of the Pope. They claim that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pius XII, but, then, how could any of their bishops be licitly ordained? So their illicit bishops are telling our (according to them) illicit bishops that they’re wrong!!!

The sedevacantist bishops might be validly ordained bishops, but, since they were not consecrated with the authorization of the Pope, they are illicitly ordained, and, as such, are out of communion with the See of Rome, making them a separate jurisdiction, just like the Orthodox.
 
wynd said:
I’m not sure what type of arguments you’re looking for, beyond what I posted above.

As far as I know, one must be Orthodox to receive any Orthodox sacrament (except marriage, which requires a dispensation). Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will comment.
Click to expand...
What are their arguments that we are not of the same faith ? Other than the difference over Petrine supremacy (which I don’t personally see as disqualifying me from the proper reception of communion), what are the differences that would prevent me from being properly disposed to receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church ?
 
joshua_b said:
What are their arguments that we are not of the same faith ? Other than the difference over Petrine supremacy (which I don’t personally see as disqualifying me from the proper reception of communion), what are the differences that would prevent me from being properly disposed to receive the Eucharist in an Orthodox Church ?
Click to expand...
At minimum, papal supremacy/infallibility and the Filioque clause in the creed. Despite the Catholic church’s position that these aren’t obstacles to communion, the Orthodox church maintains that these are indeed big enough differences that intercommunion must be suspended.
 
foolishmortal said:
They must have run out of higher clergy who can ordain, right? Once the original ordainers died, who could ordain anyone? Without the Pope, how could they have jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Validity of ordination is not affected by jurisdiction. When the Orthodox bishops ordained more bishops, they were doing so validly, and the ordinands were real bishops, and so the apostolic line continued. Without Papal approval, they would have been “illicit”, and I say it in quotes because since the Schism, they are not under Rome’s jurisdiction, and so I’m not sure how relevant “licit” is to them. But the Orthodox have used the same ritual, and so the validity of their ordinations remains.
BTW…what about the Anglicans?
Click to expand...
Had they not messed with their ordination ritual and started ordaining women, they could have easily maintained valid orders as well. As it is, the Edwardian revision to the Anglican ritual is defective, and the Catholic Church considers those ordained by the new ritual invalidly ordained.
 
foolishmortal said:
They must have run out of higher clergy who can ordain, right? Once the original ordainers died, who could ordain anyone?
Click to expand...
Wrong. Just as the pope, the Patriarch of the West, is the successor of St. Peter; The Patriarch of the East is the successor of St. Andrew, The Patriarch of Alexandria is the successor of St. Mark, etc. They have direct Apostolic succession going right back to the Apostles.
Those who left The Church after the 1500’s like the Anglicans and Lutherans have no such succession from the Apostles.
 
I find this question a really good one because it reminds us that Christ calls us to unity. The excommunications have been lifted. All that needs to be done is to pray, fast, and support true dialogue.

The question also points to the need to evangelize. The implication of the question is that there are no Catholic churches in particular places. I find that where ever I have traveled inside and outside the US that there is always a church somewhere. It is then my obligation to figure out how to get there. I can not say it is too far as many of our brethren walk days and hours to get to the Sunday Liturgy. However, if there is not a Catholic Church near by. It would in fact be fine to attend Liturgy there as it would fulfill one’s obligation.

However, if one does not understand the Eastern Liturgy and Traditions, others will notice and I would recommend not going to communion. However, I am a bi-ritual Catholic and would go up because I know that I may need to receive Christ with a spoon and with the acolytes ensuring no spillage.
 
I’m still confused. If a church is not Catholic, why are they still apostolic, whoever started up their system when they were one with the Magisterium? St. Andrew, Mark, etc. didn’t and wouldn’t create a separate church the Orthodox (even if both of us may have been wrong in the creation of the faith), schismatic, but Catholic, or the sedevacantist kinds, that is, not the one christ made. BTW, I meant a bishop who was ordained in full communion and then broke away and started ordaining.
Also, I think, without jurisdiction, Confession is invalid in ordinary circumstances, right?
 
Hi all,

Help me clarify if my understanding is correct.

When the Church was first formed, the twelve apostles set out all over the known world to evangelize. The right to preach for these twelve came directly from Christ and God Himself with the descent of the Holy Spirit heralding the beginning of ministry. Hence each had valid apostolic status.

Each apostle then set out to evangelise in certain parts of the Roman Empire - beginning with the major cities, such as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Jerusalem. Sts Peter and Paul in Rome, Peter (again) in Antioch, Mark at Alexandria and (if memory serves correct) James Brother of Jesus in Jerusalem.

The whole church was then in a unified communion, and when Peter was alive, most of the Bishops wrote to him to help provide instruction when they had certain doubts. The air of collegiality was continued even after Peter’s death with Bishops consulting each other on ecclesiastical issues with Rome generally being the final arbitrator (although rare since persecution of Bishops in Rome was rife).

**The split came around the 10th century because of pHi all,

Help me clarify if my understanding is correct.

When the Church was first formed, the twelve apostles set out all over the known world to evangelize. The right to preach for these twelve came directly from Christ and God Himself with the descent of the Holy Spirit heralding the beginning of ministry. Hence each had valid apostolic status.

Each apostle then set out to evangelise in certain parts of the Roman Empire - beginning with the major cities, such as Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Jerusalem. Sts Peter and Paul in Rome, Peter (again) in Antioch, Mark at Alexandria and (if memory serves correct) James Brother of Jesus in Jerusalem.

The whole church was then in a unified communion, and when Peter was alive, most of the Bishops wrote to him to help provide instruction when they had certain doubts. The air of collegiality was continued even after Peter’s death with Bishops consulting each other on ecclesiastical issues with Rome generally being the final arbitrator (although rare since persecution of Bishops in Rome was rife).

The split came around the 10th century because of political reasons. The church was divided with one group believing in the sanctity of the Emperor as a spiritual leader (Orthodox) and the other only accepting Bishops with apostolic succession as leaders (Catholic). When the political capital was moved to Constantinople, certain numbers of the former believed the Spiritual/Religious capital had moved with the Emperor while the latter did not accept.

However, Constantinople came to dominate the other Eastern churches (Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem) and they aligned themselves with Constantinople. Although the Orthodox do not accept the primacy of Peter what is a fact is that they do have apostolic succession not from Peter but from other Apostles, so their consecration is valid.

On the other hand, the *sedevacantist * derive their apostolic succession from the Petrine line of succession. **When they were excommunicated their Petrine succession was lost. Hence their consecrations are not valid. **

Please do enlighten me especially on the parts bolded.**
 
Re. “On the other hand, the sedevacantist derive their apostolic succession from the Petrine line of succession. When they were excommunicated their Petrine succession was lost. Hence their consecrations are not valid.”

Their consecrations are valid, but not licit. They are valid because a validly consecrated bishop is doing the consecrations. They are illicit because the Pope has not authorized them.
 
I always thought the split was about statues vs. icons (maybe stained glass came later). That was interesting.
How do they think their emperor had any authority given to bishops?
What did they do when they stopped having emperors?
 
Hi foolishmortal,

If i remember the History correctly (2000 years is alot of history), Roman Emperors were revered as Gods and this helped the Emperors greatly in ruling. After 300 years of on-off persecution and phenomenal growth of the faith, Constantine introduced the Edict of Milan that allowed tolerance of Christianity. But this didn’t mean that the Emperor had lost his godly status. Roman society was still pagan. Somehow, the belief that the Emperor was a secular representative of God was perpetuated (something like the Mandate of Heaven for Chinese Emperors).

With all politics, naturally some ambitious and properly consecrated bishops would want more power (think Michael Cerularius). In a nutshell, Constantinople was not happy with being Number 2 after Rome although it had not ecclestical history whatsoever for its plant of honour in front of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Of cause, after the split, many other contentious points of view became apparent such as the East-West understanding of the Filoque Clause (due to different cultural influences) and of cause Primacy of the Pope and Papal Infallibility. Hopefully, these will all be reconciled soon.

Maybe we could consider the idea as some sort of state church. Like the German Church during the Reformation (supported by pinces) or the Anglican Church. So even without a monarchy, the church being created round the State will have allegiance to the State. Maybe we could consider the Most Holy Synod that elects the Patriarch of Moscow as a modern day example.

Please do correct if I am wrong and I apologise if my poor command of english conveys anything that is not explicitly stated to, especially Orthodox Christians please don’t be offended.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top