Orthodox orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter Richard_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Richard_I

Guest
I am well aware that Greek Catholics are different than Greek Orthodox. I am also aware that Greek Catholic orders of the priesthood are just as valid as the Latin ones. But my question is are Orthodox orders valid? And must Catholics believe the are valid. I know Code of Canon Law defends the validly of Orthodox sacraments. But this Traditional blog here quotes extensively from Trent and sounds to me that Trent taught there was no valid priesthood accept that from the pope. And if we believe Orthodox orders are invalid then we would have to believe that their sacraments would be invalid too. On the other hand, I know Vatican II sounded as if Orthodox orders are valid in one of it’s sections. But if I may remember so correctly, I believe it said this in a non-dogmatic section. BTW I’m not posting this to attack Orthodox orders. I know many Orthodox believe only there church has a valid priesthood. I ask to understand if the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught Orthodox orders are valid. Blessings. 🙂
 
I am well aware that Greek Catholics are different than Greek Orthodox. I am also aware that Greek Catholic orders of the priesthood are just as valid as the Latin ones. But my question is are Orthodox orders valid? And must Catholics believe the are valid. I know Code of Canon Law defends the validly of Orthodox sacraments. But this Traditional blog here quotes extensively from Trent and sounds to me that Trent taught there was no valid priesthood accept that from the pope. And if we believe Orthodox orders are invalid then we would have to believe that their sacraments would be invalid too. On the other hand, I know Vatican II sounded as if Orthodox orders are valid in one of it’s sections. But if I may remember so correctly, I believe it said this in a non-dogmatic section. BTW I’m not posting this to attack Orthodox orders. I know many Orthodox believe only there church has a valid priesthood. I ask to understand if the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught Orthodox orders are valid. Blessings. 🙂
Eastern Orthodox

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1992):

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, “through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature”(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

Assyrian Church of the East

Pontifical Council For Promoting Christian Unity, Guidelines For Admission To The Eucharist Between The Chaldean Church And The Assyrian Church Of The East

“Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

Common Declaration Of Pope John Paul Ii And His Holiness Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas

Anxious to meet their needs and with their spiritual benefit in mind, we authorize them in such cases to ask for the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick from lawful priests of either of our two sister Churches, when they need them.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19840623_jp-ii-zakka-i_en.html
 
The Catholic Church teaches that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have all seven valid sacraments, including Holy Orders. The Eastern Orthodox Churches never lost Apostolic Succession.
 
I am well aware that Greek Catholics are different than Greek Orthodox. I am also aware that Greek Catholic orders of the priesthood are just as valid as the Latin ones. But my question is are Orthodox orders valid? And must Catholics believe the are valid. I know Code of Canon Law defends the validly of Orthodox sacraments. But this Traditional blog here quotes extensively from Trent and sounds to me that Trent taught there was no valid priesthood accept that from the pope. And if we believe Orthodox orders are invalid then we would have to believe that their sacraments would be invalid too. On the other hand, I know Vatican II sounded as if Orthodox orders are valid in one of it’s sections. But if I may remember so correctly, I believe it said this in a non-dogmatic section. BTW I’m not posting this to attack Orthodox orders. I know many Orthodox believe only there church has a valid priesthood. I ask to understand if the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught Orthodox orders are valid. Blessings. 🙂
Have a look here: catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy
 
Dogmatically? Probably not. But our faith can’t be reduced to a list of dogmas. Can you reference the relevant passage from Trent? Valid apostolic succession has never required papal involvement…
 
Thanks for you guys help. The link I posted above quotes from Trent. Look at it and tell me what you think.
 
If there were any question as to the validity of Orthodox orders, then the validity of nearly all Eastern Catholic priests would also be in question, as well as the valid apostolic succession of a number of Latin Rite priests who were ordained by bishops with an Eastern Apostolic Succession. When Eastern Catholic bishops came into communion with Rome, they were not re-ordained and none of the priests involved were re-ordained.
 
If there were any question as to the validity of Orthodox orders, then the validity of nearly all Eastern Catholic priests would also be in question, as well as the valid apostolic succession of a number of Latin Rite priests who were ordained by bishops with an Eastern Apostolic Succession. When Eastern Catholic bishops came into communion with Rome, they were not re-ordained and none of the priests involved were re-ordained.
Exactly,

Richard, review the Union of Brest, where several Eastern Bishops returned to the Catholic Church. As Babochka noted, NONE of themwere subjected to repeatingANY of the Sacraments.

If a Ruthenian wasin Holy Orders, they wereaccepted into the Church as a priest or bishop.
 
Here’s the link. It quotes from Trent. What do you all think about this?
betrayedcatholics.com/catacomb-catholics/traditionalist/
The source is Betrayed Catholics. The Holy See affirms that the Orthodox orders are valid, and that does conform to the canons.

Trent is quoted from Denzinger (Sources of Catholic Dogma):

960 But since in the sacrament of orders, as also in baptism and in confirmation, a sign is imprinted [can. 4], which can neither be effaced nor taken away, justly does the holy Synod condemn the opinion of those who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only a temporary power, and that those at one time rightly ordained can again become laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the word of God [can. 1 ]. But if anyone should affirm that all Christians without distinction are priests of the New Testament, or that they are all endowed among themselves with an equal spiritual power, he seems to do nothing else than disarrange [can. 6] the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is “as an army set in array” [cf. Song. 6:3], just as if, contrary to the teaching of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors [cf. 1 Cor. 12:29; Eph. 4:11]. Accordingly, the holy Synod declares that besides the other ecclesiastical grades, the bishops who have succeeded the Apostles, belong in a special way to this hierarchial order, and have been “placed (as the same Apostle says) by the Holy Spirit to rule the Church of God” [Acts 20:29], and that they are superior to priests, and administer the sacrament of confirmation, ordain ministers of the Church, and can perform many other offices over which those of an inferior order have no power [can. 7]. The holy Synod teaches, furthermore, that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of other orders, the consent, or call, or authority of the people, or of any secular power or magistrate is not so required for the validity of the ordination; but rather it decrees that those who are called and instituted only by the people, or by the civil power or magistrate and proceed to exercise these offices, and that those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as “thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door” [cf. John 10:1; can. 8]. These are the matters which in general it seemed well to the sacred Council to teach to the faithful of Christ regarding the sacrament of order. It has, however, resolved to condemn the contrary in definite and appropriate canons in the following manner, so that all, making use of the rule of faith, with the assistance of Christ, may be able to recognize more easily the Catholic truth in the midst of the darkness of so many errors, and may adhere to it.

967 Can. 7. If anyone says that the bishops are not superior to priests; or that they do not have the power to confirm and to ordain, or, that the power which they have is common to them and to the priests; or that orders conferred by them without the consent or call of the people or of the secular power are invalid, or, that those who have been neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority, but come from a different source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].
 
I understand what the pope has said? But did he speak dogmatically or infallibility or even authoritatively? Please understand I’m not arguing. Blessing.
 
I understand what the pope has said? But did he speak dogmatically or infallibility or even authoritatively? Please understand I’m not arguing. Blessing.
That article is hogwash. Don’t waste your time with self-proclaimed “theologians” who openly dissent from the teaching of the Holy See. We as Catholics do not limit our faith to a list of dogmas…we trust all that the Magisterium proposes for our belief…and the Magisterium has consistently taught that their sacraments are valid. Some (not all) Orthodox reject our sacraments…but we have always accepted their’s. Of course sacraments cannot, properly speaking, exist outside of the Catholic Church, the mystical body of Christ, but the Orthodox Churches are still united to Her, though imperfect. St. John Paul II declared the Catechism a “sure norm” for the teaching of the faith. The Catechism affirm these positions. Canon law even allows Catholics to receive the sacraments from Orthodox priests under certain circumstances.
The quote from Trent simply says that it is unlawful to ordain clerics without proper ecclesiastical authority. Of course its unlawful. That doesn’t mean the ordinations are therein invalid. One can be validly yet illicitly ordained. The four bishops Archbishop Lefebrve consecrated come to mind. He consecrated them illicitly and was excommunicated for doing so…yet no one has ever questioned that they are true, validly ordained bishops.
 
I understand what the pope has said? But did he speak dogmatically or infallibility or even authoritatively? Please understand I’m not arguing. Blessing.
Richard,

Popes don’t issue those kinds of statements about this kind of question. Depending on how one sees things, the split between Catholics and Orthodox has existed for nearly 1,000 years (AD 1054 or AD 1208); and between Catholics and the Oriental Orthodox for 1500 years (AD 451).

My point in mentioning that is that there is no one, single document that declares Orthodox orders to be valid—instead, what we have is a 1,000 + year history of always accepting their ordinations as valid, and never finding them invalid, indeed never even questioning their validity (discussing and examining yes, but not questioning in the sense of doubting).

The history between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, or between East and West, is a very complicated one and that’s putting it mildly. Understanding it (if indeed anyone can ever understand it fully) requires years of formal education in theology, ecclesiology and church history.

Likewise, understanding the authority of Church documents requires quite a bit of formal education on the subject. The vocabulary that we use has changed over the centuries, and we cannot always apply a word as it is used today to a papal document which was written hundreds of years ago. For example the words “dogmatically taught” (which you used in your original question) took on a new meaning after the First Vatican Council in 1870.

I’ll re-post your original question (at the end)
I ask to understand if the Catholic Church has dogmatically taught Orthodox orders are valid
Frankly, the answer is “no.” But not because their orders are invalid, but because of the way you phrased the question. The Catholic Church does not “dogmatically teach” that their orders are valid–instead, we accept as a given that their orders are valid. The Church only makes dogmatic statements about issues when those issues are in dispute or somehow threatened: since the issue has never been disputed, no dogmatic statement has ever been necessary.

Despite what I just wrote, Vatican II did make dogmatic statements about issues that were not disputed, but that Council was exceptional and unique in that regard.

When we look at the totality of Catholic teaching and Catholic practice over the past 1,000 years, we know that whenever the subject has presented itself, we have always recognized the validity of Orthodox ordinations.

What I am trying to caution you against here is about self-directed research, most especially when it comes to internet documents. One needs to have a firm foundation in theology before searching the internet or before following links or websites that others might have recommended. The same applies to written books, of course, but in the internet age, the problem is multiplied. As a Catechumen, you should trust the official Catechism and whatever materials your parish supplies or recommends. Once you have a firm foundation, then you’ll be ready to research other topics or delve deeper into some. Even reading the documents of the Council of Trent requires some formal education on the subject or else one will inevitably misunderstand them. This is especially true when someone uses and manipulates the teachings of Trent in an attempt to make an absurd point. The documents of Trent have long been used as a tool to confuse people. Somehow you stumbled upon just such a site (which is admittedly quite easy to do).

The site you’re reading does not present serious theology or Church history. Believe me that no theologian would take it seriously after reading nothing more than the table of contents. It truly is that far from being serious theology.

A desire to go deeper in understanding Church history and ecclesiology, and specifically the issue of Orthodox ordinations, is a good thing. But one needs to take things slowly and proceed in order by first having a firm grasp of the basics. Please take things one step at a time.

For the moment, just to be clear: yes, the Catholic Church does accept that Orthodox Ordinations are valid, and accepts that as a given.

I encourage you to go deeper into theological matters; just please do so in-order. Right now, as a Catechumen, stick to the basics, above all the Catechism and trust what you read there. The time for self-directed theological research will come later, and even then you’ll still need a trusted guide.
 
Richard,

I urge you to read the historical account of how the Ruthenia Orthodox were received into the Church by Pope Clement VIII.

Note that Pope Clement accepted the bishop’s Orders as being valid, as well as the Orders of all the Ruthenian clergy.

newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
 
Richard,

I urge you to read the historical account of how the Ruthenia Orthodox were received into the Church by Pope Clement VIII.

Note that Pope Clement accepted the bishop’s Orders as being valid, as well as the Orders of all the Ruthenian clergy.

newadvent.org/cathen/15130a.htm
That’s a bit “heavy” in the history department. One still needs a firm foundation in the previous history & ecclesiology to actually understand what’s being said there.

Can you provide something a little more basic and fundamental? Perhaps some brief histories or brief explanations from some of the Eparchial websites might be a little more to the level that the OP can understand (remember, he’s a Catechumen).
 
That’s a bit “heavy” in the history department. One still needs a firm foundation in the previous history & ecclesiology to actually understand what’s being said there.

Can you provide something a little more basic and fundamental? Perhaps some brief histories or brief explanations from some of the Eparchial websites might be a little more to the level that the OP can understand (remember, he’s a Catechumen).
I think CNEWA has some high level summaries of the history of reunification and the various Eastern Catholic Churches. Anyone have a link?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top