Prince Philip and Orthodoxy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, of course that’s the official position of the Catholic Church. My point was that Eastern Catholics follow Eastern theology in all matters… and am curious as to how a Cyprian view of orders can be reconciled with the view of Eastern Catholics, and for that matter some Orthodox, who recognize each other’s orders.
 
Londoner said:
40.png
dochawk:
He was remarried in the Church of Scotland, not England, as divorced could not remarry at the time.
Click to expand...
The marriage of Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles was a civil marriage held at the Windsor Guildhall and conducted by the superintendent registrar of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. They had a “service of prayer and dedication”, which was a Church of England service.
Click to expand...
I believe it was Princess Anne, after her divorce, who married her current husband in the Scottish Church.
 
Last edited:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I was thinking of this, from Christopher Hill, ‘Anglican Orders: An Ecumenical Context’, in R. William Franklin, Anglican Orders: Essays on the Centenary of Apostolicae Curae, 1896-1996 (London: Mowbray, 1996).

This is pretty much what it says in this Wikipedia article: Historical episcopate: Line of succession:
In 1922 the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople recognised Anglican orders as valid, holding that they carry “the same validity as the Roman, Old Catholic and Armenian Churches possess”.[6][7] In the encyclical “From the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches”, Meletius IV of Constantinople, the Oecumenical Patriarch, wrote: “That the Orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.”[8] Following this declaration, in 1923, the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church of Cyprus agreed by “provisionally acceding that Anglican priests should not be re-ordained if they became Orthodox”;[6][7] in 1936, the Romanian Orthodox Church"endorsed Anglican Orders".[7][9][10]
Click to expand...
I think that is more than one hypothetical statement by one prelate. I also see that the Orthodox position is more nuanced than I was allowing for, because I was not taking into account the Orthodox idea that the validity of orders also requires that the orders are exercised within a valid church. However, my point originally was that whereas the Catholic position is that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void”, the Orthodox view seemed to be that Anglicans had retained the apostolic succession of bishops and the ability to confer holy orders, albeit within a church that was regarded as heretical and schismatic, rather as the Catholic Church recognises the apostolic succession and holy orders in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East, and some Old Catholic Churches.
 
Re: Megan, I believe the issue was that they asked her to be baptized in some Christian church, and she went with C of E for whatever reasons. It is fairly common for some.American Protestants to attend whatever area church is closest or whatever promotes family unity. Whether she had deeper reasons, nobody but she can know.
 
twf said:
My point was that Eastern Catholics follow Eastern theology in all matters…
Click to expand...
I guess “all matters” is a bit over statement. It depends what you define by “Eastern theology” - is it Eastern Orthodox, or Eastern Catholic? I believe that because Eastern Catholics all accept Vatican II they believe in Augustinian position, rather than Cyprian’s (well after all, Cyprian’s position needed correction anyway). I myself don’t find Orthodox understanding of orders all that convincing because it would disregard quite a few Eucharistic miracles or it would disregard all their sacraments. Maybe I just don’t understand it enough though. From all I have seen and all the statements of Eastern Catholics I’ve read, they do believe Orthodoxy has valid orders in Augustinian sense and therefore valid Eucharist even if in Schism.
 
twf said:
I can’t imagine it is really possible for Eastern Catholics to hold to a purely Cyprian view of orders? I’m not thinking in terms of “submitting” to the Latin position… just in terms of logic. Every Eastern Catholic fully believes that their own sacraments and those of the Orthodox are equally valid (if you excuse the Latin terminology)… yet full communion does not exist between you.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between “full communion” and “acknowledging validity.” We’re not in communion with those churches, but they have orders and sacraments. There’s nothing inconsistent in seeing a clergyman leaving his church without entering another valid church as losing his orders.

So an EC that goes full Cyprian wouldn’t see a breakaway priest from whatever church as having orders or able to confect sacraments, for example.
 
But that’s not the position of all Orthodox, right? I thought the “pure” Cyprian position was that orders / sacraments are impossible outside of the visible confines of THE Church… and thus some (not all) Orthodox consider Catholic sacraments devoid of Grace.

What you’re describing isn’t completely at odd with the Latin position. For example, until Pope Francis decided to extend faculties to the SSPX priests, their absolutions were considered invalid… yet Orthodox absolutions have never been questioned. The ability to confect the Eucharist is strictly a matter of valid apostolic succession / orders, but other sacraments may require the jurisdiction of a legitimate church.
 
Last edited:
Orthodox on the validity of Catholic Sacraments are kind of like Baptists and three denominations (according to a Methodist theology professor who covered for my Baptist theology professor one class at my Jesuit university, “Wherever three Baptists are gathered in His name, four denominations are present.” :crazy_face::roll_eyes:)

Orthodox don’t even agree within individual churches on Catholic sacramental validly, so expecting between churches . . .

“The Church” in this regard wold be all valid apostolic churches, so no problems for EC (otherwise, all of our clergy would have needed ordination who entering or re-0establishing communion, which has never happened). And to Orthodox thinking, when a new national church breaks away, it loses orders–until it is recognized some decades later, at which point orders become valid and sacraments grace-conferring retroactively . . .
 
Last edited:
An Orthodox Church breaks away in 1990 and is declared schismatic. In 1995 a woman is baptized. In 1996 she dies. In 1997 that Church is finally recognized. Was she ever baptized? Retroactively only… despite the fact that she’s dead when the switch happens? I’m not expecting an answer. It is very complex and mysterious, but I get that it’s meant to be.

I guess the only analogy I can think of that remotely compares in the Latin Church would be radical sanation of invalid marriages… which I believe was even applied “en mass” for the hundreds (thousands?) of invalid marriages performed by the schismatic group that is now the EF only Personal Apostolic Administration in Brazil…
 
Last edited:
twf said:
An Orthodox Church breaks away in 1990 and is declared schismatic. In 1995 a woman is baptized. In 1996 she dies. In 1997 that Church is finally recognized. Was she ever baptized? Retroactively only… despite the fact that she’s dead when the switch happens? I’m not expecting an answer. It is very complex and mysterious, but I get that it’s meant to be.
Click to expand...
Baptism is the wrong Sacrament to consider, as it doesn’t require orders.

Confession, though . . .
twf said:
I’m not expecting an answer. It is very complex and mysterious, but I get that it’s meant to be.
Click to expand...
Typical Orthodox response: “We know where grace is, but not where it is not” . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top