A
ajpirc
Guest
Why is the Sacrament of Holy Orders valid in the Eastern Orthodox church but not in, say, the Lutheran church? They both seperated from the Catholic Church so why is one valid and not the other?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Basiclly the Orthodox retained apostolic succession, the protestants did not.Why is the Sacrament of Holy Orders valid in the Eastern Orthodox church but not in, say, the Lutheran church? They both seperated from the Catholic Church so why is one valid and not the other?
A
ajpirc
Guest
Was it because the Patriarch of Constantinople (I think) could ordain because he was a bishop but Luther couldn’t because he was a priest?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
There is that, there is also the fact that most protestant denonimations do not believe in the Sacrament of Holy Orders so they did away with it.Was it because the Patriarch of Constantinople (I think) could ordain because he was a bishop but Luther couldn’t because he was a priest?
As for the Church of England, they changed the rite of Holy Orders so much that it lost its sacramentality.
A
ajpirc
Guest
And without a valid Holy Orders, there is no valid Eucharist (Real Presence to be specific)? Also, I thought some Protestants had deacons, ministers (I don’t think they call them priests), and bishops?
5
5Loaves
Guest
Any priest ordained by a bishop from the direct succession of bishops from the apostles to the present day bishops is validly, tho maybe not licitly, ordained. There are many Anglican priests who can claim this. I don’t know about clergy in another Christian community, such as the Lutherans you mention. Possibly some have also been ordained by a bishop who left the Catholic Church to become a bishop in another Christian community, for example.
You can here*Apostolicae Curae * where Pope Leo XIII declared the “defect of Anglican ordination rites” finding their ordinations “absolutely null and utterly void”. See also Anglican responses there.
Eastern Orthodox clergy are validly and licitly consecrated/ordained by bishops who have always remained part of the “apostolic succession”. (Consecration rite of a bishop in Orthodoxy is different from the ordination rite for bishops in Latin Church. Three bishops are required in the consecration, except in extreme cases.)
You can here*Apostolicae Curae * where Pope Leo XIII declared the “defect of Anglican ordination rites” finding their ordinations “absolutely null and utterly void”. See also Anglican responses there.
Eastern Orthodox clergy are validly and licitly consecrated/ordained by bishops who have always remained part of the “apostolic succession”. (Consecration rite of a bishop in Orthodoxy is different from the ordination rite for bishops in Latin Church. Three bishops are required in the consecration, except in extreme cases.)
B
Barbkw
Guest
Luther was excommunicated and he wasn’t a Bishop.
The Church of England - King Henry VIII’s excommunicated. Started his own church.
The Church of England - King Henry VIII’s excommunicated. Started his own church.
S
smad0142
Guest
Are Orthodox Bishops licitly ordained? They lack papal mandate and have no legal jurisdiction?
I know they are valid though.
I know they are valid though.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic canon law, so licity in a Catholic sense is not an issue.Are Orthodox Bishops licitly ordained? They lack papal mandate and have no legal jurisdiction?
S
Spirithound
Guest
They have men (and women) that they call deacons, ministers/priests, and bishops.Also, I thought some Protestants had deacons, ministers (I don’t think they call them priests), and bishops?
A
ajpirc
Guest
So for it to be licit, it must be recognized as “legal” by the pope? I know it must be valid to be a sacrament, but why does it matter if it’s licit?Non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic canon law, so licity in a Catholic sense is not an issue.
V
valentino
Guest
Bihops ordain priests.Doesn’t the Pope select Bishop’s ?IF only one Bishop defected then the Pope wouldn’t select(ordain?)any more Bishops,right?So once the Bishop died off there wouldn’t be any more.right?
V
valentino
Guest
but for bishops to be selected(ordained?) it has to be from Pope right?So if there were no more bishops after last one died off no more priests could be ordained and they would run out,right?
G
George_Pierson
Guest
Right.but for bishops to be selected(ordained?) it has to be from Pope right?So if there were no more bishops after last one died off no more priests could be ordained and they would run out,right?
S
Spirithound
Guest
For liceity, yes a bishop must have a papal mandate. However, for validity, he only needs one bishop to ordain him.but for bishops to be selected(ordained?) it has to be from Pope right?
D
DJJG
Guest
Protestants do not have valid ordination because Luther changed the ordination rite which made it invalid. So after the bishops and priests that had joined Luther died out, they had no more priests & bishops with valid orders.
Any time any valid bishops left the catholic church, to join Luther, they could still confect a valid eucharist - but since they used Luther’s new form for ordination, the new “prists” they ordained would not have valid orders.
Any time any valid bishops left the catholic church, to join Luther, they could still confect a valid eucharist - but since they used Luther’s new form for ordination, the new “prists” they ordained would not have valid orders.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
For one to be licit, it must be in accordance with the law and the norms. Since the Orthodox are not bound by Catholic canons, then we cannot expect them to conform to it. In a way you can say that it is not licit from a Catholic perspective since we don’t consider their Sacraments to be “Catholic”. But its valid nonetheless.So for it to be licit, it must be recognized as “legal” by the pope? I know it must be valid to be a sacrament, but why does it matter if it’s licit?
G
George_Pierson
Guest
I was told by a priest that once an ordained minister leaves the Catholic Church, they can no longer effect any of the Sacraments, except perhaps Baptism. Therefore, the idea that those bishops who joined Luther could still effect the Eucharist is false.Protestants do not have valid ordination because Luther changed the ordination rite which made it invalid. So after the bishops and priests that had joined Luther died out, they had no more priests & bishops with valid orders.
Any time any valid bishops left the catholic church, to join Luther, they could still confect a valid eucharist - but since they used Luther’s new form for ordination, the new “priests” they ordained would not have valid orders.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You only have part of the story.I was told by a priest that once an ordained minister leaves the Catholic Church, they can no longer effect any of the Sacraments, except perhaps Baptism. Therefore, the idea that those bishops who joined Luther could still effect the Eucharist is false.
When a priest leaves the Church he is automatically suspended, that is he can not offer the sacraments in public. Any that he does are illicit (against the law of the Church) but are still valid.
G
George_Pierson
Guest
How can they be valid if Lutherans, Angelicans, Episcopalians, and et cetera do not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about them, for example, Transubstantiation.You only have part of the story.
When a priest leaves the Church he is automatically suspended, that is he can not offer the sacraments in public. Any that he does are illicit (against the law of the Church) but are still valid.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.