Historically, were heretical bishops' ordinations valid?

[TheAdvocate]

At the council of Nicaea, there were three bishops who supported the Arian position regarding the non-divinity of the Son of God. Their position, of course, was condemned at the council, and Arius and the heretical bishops were banished and branded heretics.

Those bishop–and other bishop holding other heresies over time–DID in fact continue to promote their false teachings, AND they continued to ordain others as bishops. Were their consecrations valid?

We know that being a schismatic bishop doesn’t preclude one’s from being valid…such as in the case of the Orthodox. But what about heretical bishops? And how heretical ought one’s position be before their “ordainees” are to be considered invalidly ordained?

If anyone can provide sources, if possible, that would be helpful. I have a feeling that even Catholic theologians would have a tough time with this question.

 

[markomalley]

At the council of Nicaea, there were three bishops who supported the Arian position regarding the non-divinity of the Son of God. Their position, of course, was condemned at the council, and Arius and the heretical bishops were banished and branded heretics.

Those bishop–and other bishop holding other heresies over time–DID in fact continue to promote their false teachings, AND they continued to ordain others as bishops. Were their consecrations valid?

We know that being a schismatic bishop doesn’t preclude one’s from being valid…such as in the case of the Orthodox. But what about heretical bishops? And how heretical ought one’s position be before their “ordainees” are to be considered invalidly ordained?

If anyone can provide sources, if possible, that would be helpful. I have a feeling that even Catholic theologians would have a tough time with this question.

Holy Orders imparts a indelible character on the recipient. Like all sacraments, it is ex opere operato. So if there were no impediments to the men being ordained, then they would be validly ordained (and would validly be able to exercise the office).

By the way, by impediments, I mean something like if somebody tried to ordain them before they were baptized. I would have to go through the canons of the ecumenical councils to find other ones (obviously, the current code of canon law would not apply 1,700 years in the past).

 

[Elizium23]

The theory you propose is itself a heresy known as Donatism. Sacraments are valid ex opere operato, and are never dependent on the faith of the minister.

Footnote: the subject of ordination is known as an “ordinand”.

 

[FrDavid96]

At the council of Nicaea, there were three bishops who supported the Arian position regarding the non-divinity of the Son of God. Their position, of course, was condemned at the council, and Arius and the heretical bishops were banished and branded heretics.

Those bishop–and other bishop holding other heresies over time–DID in fact continue to promote their false teachings, AND they continued to ordain others as bishops. Were their consecrations valid?

We know that being a schismatic bishop doesn’t preclude one’s from being valid…such as in the case of the Orthodox. But what about heretical bishops? And how heretical ought one’s position be before their “ordainees” are to be considered invalidly ordained?

If anyone can provide sources, if possible, that would be helpful. I have a feeling that even Catholic theologians would have a tough time with this question.

It’s actually not as complicated as you might think.

Ordination by heretics has always been considered valid, just like Baptism. Even to this day, there’s no question that the Oriental Orthodox Churches have preserved valid Apostolic Succession. (I want to urge some caution here though, in recent decades we’ve been able to reconcile much of their theology (mostly their Christology) with the Catholic doctrines----so we need to have some restraint in using the word “heretic.”) But the point is that regardless of their Christological doctrines, they have still preserved Apostolic Succession.

The “turning point” is actually rather easy to define. The Reformation. At this point, the heresies went to the very doctrines of the Sacrament of Ordination. Many communities simply stopped having ordinations at all and just appointed their preachers. Others denied that Ordination confers the Priesthood, saying instead that it merely authorizes one to preach. Some stopped having bishops perform ordinations (or had no bishops to do so anyway) but instead had the community attempt ordination or one who had not received ordination attempt to pass that along. Although the reasons vary, the communities that have their origins in the Reformation (or separated from them to further splinter) did not preserve valid Ordinations.

If the heresy is about Christology, or some other specific matters of the faith, then Apostolic Succession is preserved. If the community has false teachings about Ordination, then it is not preserved.

 

[Elizium23]

Fr. David, don’t forget that the Anglican ecclesial community ceased having valid orders when they changed the Rite of Ordination and abandoned their understanding of the sacrificial priesthood.

 

[PJM]

=TheAdvocate;11787397]At the council of Nicaea, there were three bishops who supported the Arian position regarding the non-divinity of the Son of God. Their position, of course, was condemned at the council, and Arius and the heretical bishops were banished and branded heretics.

Those bishop–and other bishop holding other heresies over time–DID in fact continue to promote their false teachings, AND they continued to ordain others as bishops. Were their consecrations valid?

We know that being a schismatic bishop doesn’t preclude one’s from being valid…such as in the case of the Orthodox. But what about heretical bishops? And how heretical ought one’s position be before their “ordainees” are to be considered invalidly ordained?

If anyone can provide sources, if possible, that would be helpful. I have a feeling that even Catholic theologians would have a tough time with this question.

As you describe them: NO they were not valid nor licit

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, don’t forget that the Anglican ecclesial community ceased having valid orders when they changed the Rite of Ordination and abandoned their understanding of the sacrificial priesthood.

I didn’t forget.

I just did not mention them by name. There’s a time and place for everything.

 

[Digitonomy]

Ordination by heretics has always been considered valid, just like Baptism.

Always is a long time. The Church stood against the ideas of Novation, who in the 250s advocated rebaptism for those baptised by the too-lenient clerics of the time. (For those unfamiliar, this and the Donatist controversy are also important points in the development of the Sacrament of Reconciliation)

This heresy spread widely, so obviously a lot of people were open to the idea that impure clerics = invalid sacraments. It may simply be that many people including clerics were ignorant of Church teaching on the subject. Unless there is evidence of the Church taking such a stance earlier, however, I would suggest that it was not considered a settled issue at the time.

 

[TheAdvocate]

It’s actually not as complicated as you might think.

Ordination by heretics has always been considered valid, just like Baptism. Even to this day, there’s no question that the Oriental Orthodox Churches have preserved valid Apostolic Succession. (I want to urge some caution here though, in recent decades we’ve been able to reconcile much of their theology (mostly their Christology) with the Catholic doctrines----so we need to have some restraint in using the word “heretic.”) But the point is that regardless of their Christological doctrines, they have still preserved Apostolic Succession.

The “turning point” is actually rather easy to define. The Reformation. At this point, the heresies went to the very doctrines of the Sacrament of Ordination. Many communities simply stopped having ordinations at all and just appointed their preachers. Others denied that Ordination confers the Priesthood, saying instead that it merely authorizes one to preach. Some stopped having bishops perform ordinations (or had no bishops to do so anyway) but instead had the community attempt ordination or one who had not received ordination attempt to pass that along. Although the reasons vary, the communities that have their origins in the Reformation (or separated from them to further splinter) did not preserve valid Ordinations.

If the heresy is about Christology, or some other specific matters of the faith, then Apostolic Succession is preserved. If the community has false teachings about Ordination, then it is not preserved.

Thanks for all you replies. But I do maintain that it more complex than that. Imagine there is a renegade bishop who suddenly affirms that Jesus is not God. So he lays hands on someone who believes as he does. How can that be valid? I mean, that newly ordained heretical bishop would then consecrate the Eucharist without even believing that Jesus is God? I think there has to be a limit, depending on the severity of the heresy.

It just seems weird to me that you can be validly ordained when it’s a heresy about God, but not validly ordained if it’s a heresy about the sacrament of orders!!

 

[Elizium23]

The operative factor in the new scenario you suggest is the intent of the minister. The minister of a sacrament must always intend to do as the Church does in order to validly confect the sacrament. The standard to be met for this is very low, as is the burden of proof. Atheists can always baptize, so it is clear that they are perfectly capable of intending to do what the Church does in the sacrament of Baptism. Priests who doubt the Real Presence can validly consecrate the Eucharist. Basically this safeguard of intent is there to prevent accidental confections from happening. If a priest teaches a class in seminary and he is demonstrating the Mass, and he recites the words of liturgy including the consecration over valid matter, he does not produce the Eucharist because he did not intend to consecrate the elements. If someone sneaks a bottle of wine into Mass and puts it under his pew, it does not become the Blood of Christ because the priest never intended to consecrate that bottle.

In order to invalidate an ordination or any other sacrament, it would have to be proved that the minister did not intend to do what the Church does, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This almost never happens. A priest who denied that Jesus is God can still intend to ordain as the Church does, so in your scenario, it’s still definitely valid.

 

[markomalley]

Thanks for all you replies. But I do maintain that it more complex than that. Imagine there is a renegade bishop who suddenly affirms that Jesus is not God. So he lays hands on someone who believes as he does. How can that be valid? I mean, that newly ordained heretical bishop would then consecrate the Eucharist without even believing that Jesus is God? I think there has to be a limit, depending on the severity of the heresy.

It just seems weird to me that you can be validly ordained when it’s a heresy about God, but not validly ordained if it’s a heresy about the sacrament of orders!!

Implicit with any sacrament is “intent.”

The Council of Trent (Session VII) states:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
That is the reason why apostolic succession does not continue to be passed on with Protestant denominations who “ordain” bishops…they don’t generally have Holy Orders as a sacrament and so intend the “ordination” to be an act of appointment to a post.

Now, if you take a look at what Holy Orders is and does:

Can. 1008 By divine institution, the sacrament of orders establishes some among the Christian faithful as sacred ministers through an indelible character which marks them. They are consecrated and designated, each according to his grade, to nourish the people of God, fufilling in the person of Christ the Head the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing.
In the case of the bishop who, for whatever reason, becomes a Unitarian…if he no longer believes in the Blessed Trinity, is it even possible for him to **intend what the Church intends **in the first place?

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for all you replies. But I do maintain that it more complex than that. Imagine there is a renegade bishop who suddenly affirms that Jesus is not God. So he lays hands on someone who believes as he does. How can that be valid? I mean, that newly ordained heretical bishop would then consecrate the Eucharist without even believing that Jesus is God? I think there has to be a limit, depending on the severity of the heresy.

It just seems weird to me that you can be validly ordained when it’s a heresy about God, but not validly ordained if it’s a heresy about the sacrament of orders!!

That’s not heresy, it’s apostasy

.

 

[johnnykins]

Actually the fine distinctions we now make concerning heresy, schism and apostasy have not always been so clearly delineated in the way they are now. At what point does heresy become apostasy? Many early writings sure make it look like heresy is the sine qua non of apostasy. I know we are much more careful nowadays, but…it does make one pause.

Also, it’s not at all clear that the Orthodox - as their many posters have made clear here and in other fora - accept the Catholic position on the effect/non-effect of heresy on the sacraments. Indeed, more than one Orthodox priest has, on this very forum, made clear that heresy is reason enough to render the purported sacraments graceless. Indeed, if you read around enough you will find there are many Orthodox, including monks and Bishops, who at best will say they do not know if a Catholic Baptism conveys grace or not. (They are being much more polite than those who more forthrightly simply say - Catholic Baptisms are graceless because we are heretics/schismatics/apostates or whatever you want from their point of view.) If I recall correctly there was an ecumenical meeting back in the 90’s where the Catholic participants walked out after that disconcerting fact was made amply clear.

Sometimes I think we get too caught up in our own understanding of these things to actually understand that others disagree - or have another POV.

 

[johnnykins]

Here’s a link and small quote from a 2010 interview with the Russian Orthodox Church’s chief ecumenical representative:

mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/
In a 2010 interview, the head of the Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk,of the Russian Orthodox Church:

- Did you discuss the recognition of ‘sacraments’ administered by schismatics? What is your attitude to this issue?

• This issue has been repeatedly discussed both in private talks of the Commission members and at the meeting. The Church does not recognize and cannot recognize as grace-giving and salvific any ‘sacraments’ including Baptism administered in a schism. This is a common point of view confirmed by many testimonies of the church Tradition. ‘Recognition of schismatics’ sacraments’ is an altogether improper expression which can be only misleading….

It looks like we are all pagans…or at least certainly not Baptized Christians.

 

[Elizium23]

That is the Orthodox answer but we are not the Orthodox and it was not the subject of discussion in this thread or forum. This is about Catholic sacraments. Even Eastern Catholic Churches recognize Orthodox and others as conferring valid sacraments. The Orthodox have a different sacramental theology and a different discipline than Catholics do. To bring it up in this thread is only to confuse the issue at hand.

 

[johnnykins]

That is the Orthodox answer but we are not the Orthodox and it was not the subject of discussion in this thread or forum. This is about Catholic sacraments. Even Eastern Catholic Churches recognize Orthodox and others as conferring valid sacraments. The Orthodox have a different sacramental theology and a different discipline than Catholics do. To bring it up in this thread is only to confuse the issue at hand.

We were one church for somewhere between about 1100 and 1200 years. It sure seemed pertinent to me. Also, since the Oriental churches were raised as an issue (and Chalcedon pre-dates the split with the Orthodox), it seemed relevant.

I don’t know how you can really answer the OP question without considering the Orthodox and Orientals. Perhaps the OP is in the wrong area?

 

[markomalley]

Here’s a link and small quote from a 2010 interview with the Russian Orthodox Church’s chief ecumenical representative:

mospat.ru/en/2010/10/06/news27421/
In a 2010 interview, the head of the Department for External Church Relations, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk,of the Russian Orthodox Church:

It looks like we are all pagans…or at least certainly not Baptized Christians.

That is an Orthodox view. Each autocephalous Church has its own view on this (the old calendarists are the strictest in this regard, from my limited experience).

 

[johnnykins]

That is the Orthodox answer but we are not the Orthodox and it was not the subject of discussion in this thread or forum. This is about Catholic sacraments. Even Eastern Catholic Churches recognize Orthodox and others as conferring valid sacraments. The Orthodox have a different sacramental theology and a different discipline than Catholics do. To bring it up in this thread is only to confuse the issue at hand.

BTW your post 7 brings up the Anglicans. Admittedly from the Catholic POV. Just all seems relevant. How much more relevant is the Orthodox POV since we deem them a true particular Church with valid orders…even if they say we are not even Christian? It certainly raises interesting historical issue a propos the OP. Certainly a question about Catholic sacraments and their validity - and especially the historic interpretation of same - requires a look at how the Orthodox view things.

Clearly, we say they were valid, but if the Orthodox say they were invalid…and all this while we are one Church is an interesting and pertinent issue of catholic sacramental theology. How do we reconcile the divergent answers? Were they divergent then?

 

[johnnykins]

That is an Orthodox view. Each autocephalous Church has its own view on this (the old calendarists are the strictest in this regard, from my limited experience).

I agree with that…but it is also the official position of the largest orthodox church

 

[FrDavid96]

…
It just seems weird to me that you can be validly ordained when it’s a heresy about God, but not validly ordained if it’s a heresy about the sacrament of orders!!

I see how it can sound confusing.

The difference is that when the issue involves ordination itself then Apostolic Succession is lost.

The reason are:

1. In order for a bishop to validly ordain, he must himself FIRST be a valid bishop.
2. Even when a valid bishop attempts Ordination, but he and his community deny some essential element of Ordination, he cannot intend to pass-along that which he denies.

What we have to do is get more specific here.

When a community ceases even to practice Ordination as such, and simply appoints their preachers, then we must say that Succession is lost. If no ordination is even attempted, then it cannot be happen.

When a community denies that the priesthood even exists, but says instead that the new minister is a preacher, not a priest, then we must say that it’s lost.

When a community does not even have validly ordained bishops (meaning no bishops went into schism with them), then we must say that it’s lost.

There were many different reasons why the communities arising from the Reformation lost Apostolic Succession. Each one has a slightly different answer. It just happens to be that all of them lost it. The common thread that unites them, even though each one was different, is that they all based their thoughts on the teaching of Luther, who denied the priesthood and denied that it was a sacrament.

On the other hand, with regard to the Christological heresies, none of those denied the Sacraments. None even came close. They were all careful to preserve Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments in their fullness.

If the community were to be apostate rather than heretical, meaning that they deny the Christian faith itself (like the example you gave) then there would be no question but to say that their Apostolic Succession was lost.

Here’s the bottom line:
Each community must be evaluated based on its own history, when determining if they preserved Apostolic Succession or not. The fact that they just happen to fall into 2 groups, the Oriental Churches on the one hand and the Reformation communities on the other hand is itself coincidence. History might have happened in a different way, but it simply did not.