Holy Orders in Eastern Orthodoxy (and other non-Catholic Apostolic churches)

[Micosil]

In Catholicism, it is understood that the Sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of a baptized male who is ordained into the priesthood. Thus, even when a priest is laicized or even defrocked, he will always have the ability to, illicitly or not, confect the Eucharist.

I was made aware in another thread that this is not the understanding in Eastern Orthodoxy; when a priest is forcibly removed from ministry by his bishop or whatever, his ability to confect the Eucharist goes with it.

Is this a common view in Eastern Orthodoxy? What about the other Apostolic churches with valid priesthood (Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, etc.)?

If it is a common view, how does Orthodoxy reconcile it with Hebrews 7? Is there another interpretation of Hebrews 7 that Orthodox adhere to?

 

[RyanBlack]

I cannot speak about other apostolic Churches, but the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that Holy Orders bestows an indelible mark. As for Hebrews 7, no doubt the Orthodox would say that it refers to the priesthood of Christ.

 

[Micosil]

I cannot speak about other apostolic Churches, but the Eastern Orthodox don’t believe that Holy Orders bestows an indelible mark. As for Hebrews 7, no doubt the Orthodox would say that it refers to the priesthood of Christ.

That is most interesting.

I doubt God looks at an Orthodox ordination and goes, “OK, so this ordination is conditional”, and then looks at a Catholic ordination and says, “Alrighty, this ordination is for good”.

I mean, it doesn’t make sense, either it is permanent, or it isn’t. As for Hebrews 7 being a reference to Christ … that may be true up to a point, but ultimately that seems like a very Protestant interpretation to me.

 

[RyanBlack]

It seems obvious to me that Hebrews 7 is in reference to the priesthood of Christ. I don’t see that as an exclusively Protestant reading at all.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The priesthood is a function of the episcopacy. A priest cannot function alone, he must be under the authority of some bishop. How the Latin Church deals with this is to separate faculty and personality. All priests have, in the Latin mode, the personality of priesthood, but only one authorized by his bishop has faculties to function.

The East doesn’t always separate the two. A priest has no right to do any liturgical or sacerdotal act without his bishop authorization. The bishop, theoretically, could consider you a laymen (although, canons protecting a priest from an arbitrary decision prevent this, in addition to the right of appeal to the entire Holy Synod)

 

[Micosil]

The priesthood is a function of the episcopacy. A priest cannot function alone, he must be under the authority of some bishop. How the Latin Church deals with this is to separate faculty and personality. All priests have, in the Latin mode, the personality of priesthood, but only one authorized by his bishop has faculties to function.

The East doesn’t always separate the two. A priest has no right to do any liturgical or sacerdotal act without his bishop authorization. The bishop, theoretically, could consider you a laymen (although, canons protecting a priest from an arbitrary decision prevent this, in addition to the right of appeal to the entire Holy Synod)

A priest in the Western Church can also be laicized or defrocked, but that isn’t what I am referring to here. In the West, a priest doesn’t have the right to do anything without approval of his superior, the bishop.

What I am discussing here is more general, namely the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which cannot be different in the East and in the West.

 

[SyroMalankara]

A priest in the Western Church can also be laicized or defrocked, but that isn’t what I am referring to here. In the West, a priest doesn’t have the right to do anything without approval of his superior, the bishop.

What I am discussing here is more general, namely the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which cannot be different in the East and in the West.

It cannot be different in essence, but different points can be emphasized by different theological perspectives.

 

[Micosil]

It cannot be different in essence, but different points can be emphasized by different theological perspectives.

That is correct. However, what I mean is this…

The Sacrament of Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark on the soul of a baptized male who is ordained into the priesthood. Thus, even when a priest is laicized or even defrocked, he will always have the ability to, illicitly or not, confect the Eucharist.

This is a statement that is either true or false, and it cannot change from true to false when one goes from East to West or vice versa; because that is part of the essence of the Sacrament.

That is what I am trying to say.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Do you personally believe this indelible mark language is essential to the Sacrament, or a theology of explanation of a great Mystery? I believe it is the latter, not essential to the orthopraxis of the Sacrament itself. It seems that if the Latin Church disagreed, it would require conditional ordination due to lack of intent if an Orthodox clergyman were to move to Catholicism, however no such action is required

 

[commenter]

The priesthood is a function of the episcopacy. A priest cannot function alone, he must be under the authority of some bishop. How the Latin Church deals with this is to separate faculty and personality. All priests have, in the Latin mode, the personality of priesthood, but only one authorized by his bishop has faculties to function.

The East doesn’t always separate the two. A priest has no right to do any liturgical or sacerdotal act without his bishop authorization. The bishop, theoretically, could consider you a laymen (although, canons protecting a priest from an arbitrary decision prevent this, in addition to the right of appeal to the entire Holy Synod)

I wonder if the Catholic and EO are really the same viewpoint but expressing in language unfamiliar to the other.

Do the 2 churches have a different understanding of the bishop’s Holy Orders?

 

[Orthodolic]

I know that Orthodox don’t have the theology of “indelible mark” as the Latins do. The priests serve only at the Bishops command, so the Bishop can revoke their ability to confect the bread and wine. Think of the priests ability to confect the host like a water faucet being turned off and on, with the Bishop controlling the flow.