Eastern Orthadox Bishops Valid?

[Montie_Claunch]

I can’t remeber where I heard it but, I heard that in the Eastern Orthadox church had valid Holy Orders and could preform the Conscration of the Eucharist. Is this True? If so, How? I thought that the Eastern Orthadox church was excommunicated at some point which (I think) there administration of those two sacraments null and even if they wern’t I thought you had to be in full communion with the Church to preform those sacraments. Can anyone shed any light on this confusion for me? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Aureole]

Glory to Jesus Christ.

The Bishops of the Eastern Orthodox are validly ordained and they have valid sacraments. Orthodox Bishops are seen as validly ordained because they can trace an unbroken line of Apostolic Succession to the apostles, just the same as Catholic Bishops. The Orthodox are in schism though, so the sacraments are illicit and a Catholic shouldn’t receive any sacrament in an Orthodox church (Though of course there are exceptions to this).

An Orthodox Bishop is much like a SSPX Bishop: both have validly ordained bishops with valid sacraments. An excommunication doesn’t take away the validity of ordination (Once a priest, always a priest - the same applies for bishops). I would also suspect the same could have been said about Anglican ordinations before Edward VI changed the ordination rite.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

An Orthodox Bishop is much like a SSPX Bishop: both have validly ordained bishops with valid sacraments. An excommunication doesn’t take away the validity of ordination (Once a priest, always a priest - the same applies for bishops).

I knew that they would always be a priest or bishop I just didn’t think that they could validly preform the sacraments.

Why wouldn’t one be able to take sacraments from them? If they are valid, why would it matter? Granted I see why it would be prefrential to go to a Catholic Mass than a EO Service (To get correct teachings) but, Why would it be wrong to receive confession or the Eucharist from an EO priest? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Aureole]

It would be wrong to receive the sacraments from an Eastern Orthodox priest (Or SSPX) because, while it’s valid, it’s also illicit (Here’s something to help explain that). The Eastern Orthodox are in schism so receiving a sacrament, particularly the Eucharist, would identify one with that schism. Basically, the sacrament is given without Rome’s consent.

 

[mchale]

Just a point, I do think the Church has allowed that Catholics may receive from the Orthodox under special circumstances (generally emergencies).

It should be noted that the Orthodox Schisim is somewhat different than the SSPX situation. Unlike SSPX, there really was no discreet moment when the whole of Orthodoxy fell away from the Church. Rather it happened gradually over time and had as much to do with language and culture as anything else. Basically it took centuries for people to realize that there were defacto two different churches.

–
Bill

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

there really was no discreet moment when the whole of Orthodoxy fell away from the Church.

Inasmuch as Orthodoxy is the Church it did not fall away from anything. It simply continued to be what it had always been, not changing one iota of its doctrines.

The “discreet moment” came in 1054 when Cardinal Humbert issued a Bull of Excommunication in the name of Pope Julius against the Patriarch of Constantinople and “all who follow him.”

As the news of this unjust Excommunication spread through the Catholic Churches of the East, one by one they broke communion with the Popes of Rome. If you would like to see the Bull of Excommunication with its really ludicrous charges against the Catholics of the East such as that they castrated their guests, it is here: acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Popes did nothing at all to remedy the great damage to unity caused by the Bull. They did not annul it. They let it stand. They seem to have been content to withdraw into the isolation of Western Europe and ignore the rest of the Church.

 

[Rowsdower]

Inasmuch as Orthodoxy is the Church it did not fall away from anything. It simply continued to be what it had always been, not changing one iota of its doctrines.

The “discreet moment” came in 1054 when Cardinal Humbert issued a Bull of Excommunication in the name of Pope Julius against the Patriarch of Constantinople and “all who follow him.”

As the news of this unjust Excommunication spread through the Catholic Churches of the East, one by one they broke communion with the Popes of Rome. If you would like to see the Bull of Excommunication with its really ludicrous charges against the Catholics of the East such as that they castrated their guests, it is here: acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Popes did nothing at all to remedy the great damage to unity caused by the Bull. They did not annul it. They let it stand. They seem to have been content to withdraw into the isolation of Western Europe and ignore the rest of the Church.

Sorry Father but after reading much in secular history I decided that the Catholic version of history was more “correct” than the Eastern Orthodox version of history - which is why I joined the Catholic Church. And I view your post as an attack on us.

It’s ironic how when we criticize the Eastern Orthodox we are being racist and uncharitable (its rather funny with the racism part, since I’m a Slav) but when Eastern Orthodox attacks us and call us “unjust” and “heretics” it’s okay. Reminds me of the Muslims…

And to the original poster - the Father is incorrect. Various popes and saints tried very hard to remedy the schism. If you want to learn more about the Eastern Orthodox from a Catholic perspective please look up newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm

edited for spelling

 

[Saint_Michael]

Inasmuch as Orthodoxy is the Church it did not fall away from anything. It simply continued to be what it had always been, not changing one iota of its doctrines.

The “discreet moment” came in 1054 when Cardinal Humbert issued a Bull of Excommunication in the name of Pope Julius against the Patriarch of Constantinople and “all who follow him.”

As the news of this unjust Excommunication spread through the Catholic Churches of the East, one by one they broke communion with the Popes of Rome. If you would like to see the Bull of Excommunication with its really ludicrous charges against the Catholics of the East such as that they castrated their guests, it is here: acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Popes did nothing at all to remedy the great damage to unity caused by the Bull. They did not annul it. They let it stand. They seem to have been content to withdraw into the isolation of Western Europe and ignore the rest of the Church.

What about birth control? Didn’t the East change their doctrine?

Ignore the rest of the Church? Except the Eastern Catholics who came back in communion with the Church in Rome? The Eastern Orthodox seem to be the ones content to withdraw into isolation. At least for any unbiased commentator. Since the schism the E.O. Churches have dwindled and dwindled in isolation from the Body of Christ.

 

[mchale]

Inasmuch as Orthodoxy is the Church it did not fall away from anything. It simply continued to be what it had always been, not changing one iota of its doctrines.

The “discreet moment” came in 1054 when Cardinal Humbert issued a Bull of Excommunication in the name of Pope Julius against the Patriarch of Constantinople and “all who follow him.”

There was no Pope Julius in 1054? Do you mean Leo IX?

As the news of this unjust Excommunication spread through the Catholic Churches of the East, one by one they broke communion with the Popes of Rome. If you would like to see the Bull of Excommunication with its really ludicrous charges against the Catholics of the East such as that they castrated their guests, it is here: acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

The Popes did nothing at all to remedy the great damage to unity caused by the Bull. They did not annul it. They let it stand. They seem to have been content to withdraw into the isolation of Western Europe and ignore the rest of the Church.

I will accept that my choice of words regarding falling away was ill chosen. Lets say the two churches went their seperate way, each convinced that they represented true continuity with the past. However, having studied the issue, I would say that the “discreet moment” you mention was chosen somewhat in hindsight. Certainly the 1054 event went along way to strengthening a rift that had been developing for some time. That being said, communications between East and West did not break down for some time after 1054. While there were certainly issues between the heirarchies of both churches, it certainly did not stop the Western Church from seeking to aid the East when Crusades were started less than 50 years later.

Lets be honest, historians like to assign dates to things even if such a date indicates a certainty that does not exist. The same sort of thing happened with the fall of the Western Roman Empire. there was no discreet point where the you could say the Empire is here and the next it is gone (for example the Roman Senate continued to meet for years after the 476 date normally used as the date for the end of hte Empire). 1054 was certainly the most dramatic incident in the development of the Schism, but I would say the Schism itself was not real until sometime later when the councils that attempted to heal the breach had failed.

–
Bill

 

[Aureole]

Just a point, I do think the Church has allowed that Catholics may receive from the Orthodox under special circumstances (generally emergencies).

It should be noted that the Orthodox Schisim is somewhat different than the SSPX situation. Unlike SSPX, there really was no discreet moment when the whole of Orthodoxy fell away from the Church. Rather it happened gradually over time and had as much to do with language and culture as anything else. Basically it took centuries for people to realize that there were defacto two different churches.

–
Bill

You’re correct on both accounts mchale. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, the thread has started to stray from the question the original poster asked. The schism between East and West is a different topic than the validity of the ordination of Orthodox Bishops. Another thread should be opened if the everyone wants the discussion on the schism to continue.

 

[StMarkEofE]

You’re correct on both accounts mchale. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, the thread has started to stray from the question the original poster asked. The schism between East and West is a different topic than the validity of the ordination of Orthodox Bishops. Another thread should be opened if the everyone wants the discussion on the schism to continue.

YES and maybe they should take this to its proper forum “Eastern Christianity” and allow the full breath of opinions contribute answers to this topic. Why try to resolve this on the “Apologetics” forum where it will have too narrow a response?

Back to lurk mode…

 

[WanderAimlessly]

It would be wrong to receive the sacraments from an Eastern Orthodox priest (Or SSPX) because, while it’s valid, it’s also illicit (Here’s something to help explain that). The Eastern Orthodox are in schism so receiving a sacrament, particularly the Eucharist, would identify one with that schism. Basically, the sacrament is given without Rome’s consent.

I believe you are wrong about the licitness of the Eastern Orthodox sacraments.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Sorry Father but after reading much in secular history I decided that the Catholic version of history was more “correct” than the Eastern Orthodox version of history - which is why I joined the Catholic Church.

It is very true that the way Orthodox see history differs a lot from the Roman Catholic viewpoint. The Crusades would be one example. The Schism is another.

And I view your post as an attack on us.

Well, of course it’s not. Please read it again.

It’s ironic how when we criticize the Eastern Orthodox we are being racist and uncharitable (its rather funny with the racism part, since I’m a Slav) but when Eastern Orthodox attacks us and call us “unjust” and “heretics” it’s okay. Reminds me of the Muslims…

Now that is indeed an attack, on Orthodoxy.
Ans when did I accuse you of being “racist and uncharitable”? I did not. You seem to be spinning a bellicose attitude out of thin air.

And to the original poster - the Father is incorrect. Various popes and saints tried very hard to remedy the schism.

You mean the Council of Florence - 400 years about the Schism, after the Roman Catholics excommunicated the Eastern Catholics?

If you want to learn more about the Eastern Orthodox from a Catholic perspective please look up newadvent.org/cathen/06752a.htm

The online Catholic Encyclopedia is used a lot by all of us, but we all know, Catholics also, that its article on Orthodox topics show all the bias, historical inaccuracy, and sometimes bigotry (try its article on “Hesychasm” as an example) you would expect in 1913. You’d be far better finding a modern Catholic article.

 

[Aureole]

StMarkEofE you’re a rather reasonable lurker, I agree with you. It’s not fair that this discussion not be in the Eastern Christianity forum since many Eastern Christians may not see or contribute to it.

Anyone who wants to discuss the schism or anything other than the validity of Eastern Orthodox ordination please start another thread.