Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[dronald]

I’ll put the contradicting sources up again for reference:

“Despite the fact that the indelible mark theory acquired dogmatic formulation in the Council of Trent,18 in most circles of the Roman Catholic Church, after the Second Vatican Council, the foundational framework of effecient causality and ex opere operato, which gave rise to such an understanding of priesthood, is reckoned as belonging to a bygone age and abandoned for a more dynamic and ecclesiological approach of sacrament.19
It should be mentioned in this connection that as far as we know, no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood.”

The site no doubt takes a stance in contradiction to Catholic declarations made at Trent.

“CANON IV.–If any one saith, that, by sacred ordination, the Holy Ghost is not given; and that vainly therefore do the bishops say, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; or, that a character is not imprinted by that ordination; or, that he who has once been a priest, can again become a layman; let him be anathema.”

 

[marywarfield]

Can you cite a source for this, Mary. The source I cited directly contradicts everything you said vis a vie Orthodoxy.

Mary, if a bishop in the Catholic Church is deposed for whatever reason, are the ordinations he performs valid? If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, are the ordinations he peforms valid?

You can start here. With the joint commission.
I still say you are confusing the permanent of the
reception of the Sacrament with the actions the
Sacrament allows. Do you understand?
Nothing can ever change the fact that a man has
received that Sacrament in Orthodoxy or
Roman Catholicism. Nothing.
The only thing that can change is what he does
with it.
scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic-bishops/1988ordination.html

He will die with it whether or not he can practice it.
The Sacrament is permanent as is Baptism and
Chrismation/Confirmation. It stands on its own.

Does that mean the person can’t sin or be stopped
from in the capacity? Of course not.

 

[Per_Crucem]

You can start here. With the joint commission.
I still say you are confusing the permanent of the
reception of the Sacrament with the actions the
Sacrament allows. Do you understand?
Nothing can ever change the fact that a man has
received that Sacrament in Orthodoxy or
Roman Catholicism. Nothing.

But that’s exactly what we’re talking about, Mary. Heck, if someone is defrocked in Lutheranism, they are not “reordained,” either. It is not simply whether he can practice it. That speaks to whether it is licit or not. However, an Old Catholic bishop with valid succession MAY NOT ordain a priest, but if he does, that person is a VALID priest. This is not true in Orthodoxy. An Orthodox ex-bishop cannot confer the grace of orders on someone else. The same is not true in Catholicism.

 

[marywarfield]

But that’s exactly what we’re talking about, Mary. Heck, if someone is defrocked in Lutheranism, they are not “reordained,” either. It is not simply whether he can practice it. That speaks to whether it is licit or not. However, an Old Catholic bishop with valid succession MAY NOT ordain a priest, but if he does, that person is a VALID priest. This is not true in Orthodoxy. An Orthodox ex-bishop cannot confer the grace of orders on someone else. The same is not true in Catholicism.

Yes it is. Please do not confuse the action of the Sacrament
with the person. orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/

Reality is this: most orthodox accept the indelible
character of the Sacrament. Are there a FEW that don’t?
Of course just as they disagree on other stuff.

Now having said that let me point this out again-
You are confusing the validity of a Sacrament
with illicity.

For instance if a Roman Catholic bishop is fired
his ordination is valid. What does that mean? It
means he was validly ordained. His being fired can’t
change that.
If he ordains a priest subsequently since it is between
the priest and God THAT priests ordination is valid
but illicitly done.

You know in Stockton after the molestation scandal lots
of people worried their marriages
were not valid because the priest was in such serious
sin. Same thing. He should never have been on the
altar but he was but since the sacrament is between
the receiver and God the priest was a WITNESS.

It’s like this also- Catholics state Lutheran baptism is
valid. Why? Because you use the trinitarian formula.
No other reason. Does this make you Catholic? No.
It makes you a Lutheran. You cannot licit claim
to be an actual Roman Catholic or practice as one.

 

[Per_Crucem]

For instance if a Roman Catholic bishop is fired
his ordination is valid. What does that mean? It
means he was validly ordained. His being fired can’t
change that.
If he ordains a priest subsequently since it is between
the priest and God THAT priests ordination is valid
but illicitly done.

Yes, Mary, and that’s exactly the difference. If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, any ordinations he does after being deposed are not valid ordinations. The person he ordains will not be a priest at all.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Can you cite a source for this, Mary. The source I cited directly contradicts everything you said vis a vie Orthodoxy.

Mary, if a bishop in the Catholic Church is deposed for whatever reason, are the ordinations he performs valid? If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, are the ordinations he peforms valid?

Eastern Orthodox don’t use terms like “valid”, a deposed bishop is outside the Communion and can’t have the mind of the Church. Catholicism would accept that deposed Eastern Orthodox bishop’s ordination as “valid” (considering everything else is done correctly), but those EO not in Communion with that bishop would reject it. But more than likely should he or any of those ordained return to full union, those ordained would NOT be re-ordained, just accepted as is.

You are attempting to square a circle with statements like “valid” in regard to Orthodox.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Eastern Orthodox don’t use terms like “valid”, a deposed bishop is outside the Communion and can’t have the mind of the Church. Catholicism would accept that deposed Eastern Orthodox bishop’s ordination as “valid” (considering everything else is done correctly), but those EO not in Communion with that bishop would reject it. But more than likely should he or any of those ordained return to full union, those ordained would NOT be re-ordained, just accepted as is.

It’s true that they would not be reordained. They are, however, prior to that, ex bishops. No apostolic succession anymore, no ability to confer grace, etc. In all respects, they are laymen.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Yes it is. Please do not confuse the action of the Sacrament
with the person. orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/

By the way, this is not Eastern Orthodox.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes, yes; I get it. Evangelicals are in huge danger for not including certain books but Catholics are cool with closing their Canon never to be opened again even in the midst of there being other books that could be inspired and are thought to be by many in Orthodoxy.

You again miss the point. Catholicism is not only Latin Catholicism. The various Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Canon of Scripture. It’s not the Canon that matters so much, it’s the faith that the Canon’s convey. Potentially, Luther’s Canon could have been acceptable, as a German Church Tradition, had he remained in the Church and accepted everything else.

The number of Books of the Canon has never been a reason to schism, but what protestantism did is make it the only element of Faith they have left as a standard, and incomplete at that!

 

[marywarfield]

Yes, Mary, and that’s exactly the difference. If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, any ordinations he does after being deposed are not valid ordinations. The person he ordains will not be a priest at all.

But the argument is about the indelible character of
Ordinational SACRAMENT.
There literally is nothing in any church of any rite
anywhere that claims the permanent mark of the
Bishops ordination has changed deposed or not.
Why? Because the Sacrament is permanent.
The SACRAMENT.
Which is why ESPECIALLY in EO he can never
ever be re-ordained.

Just as if today you left Lutheranism completely.
Rejected it as a heretical sect. Denounced Lutherans
and called for them to be burned at the stake.
You would STILL be considered validly baptized
by the Catholic church and you would not be re-baptized.
It is the sacrament itself that is indelible. Permanent.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s true that they would not be reordained. They are, however, prior to that, ex bishops. No apostolic succession anymore, no ability to confer grace, etc. In all respects, they are laymen.

yes and no. That depends on who accepts it.

There was the former Russian Orthodox Exarch of Europe deposed by the Russian Synod, but accepted into the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Europe as it’s Head bishop.

Is he “valid” or not? He was definitely not a layman.

Generally, as far as Catholicism goes, that man is a bishop whether accepted by Russia or the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or no one. If he is rejected by everyone, then a bishop deposed. Any future ordinations will probably be questionable.

 

[benjohnson]

An Orthodox ex-bishop cannot confer the grace of orders on someone else. The same is not true in Catholicism.

I know this is certainly true in the Greek Orthodox - a defrocked or retired priest that has gone back to the laity is no longer priest and any new sacraments are invalid, or more accurately not sacraments to begin with.

In my opinion, there’s a tiny shade of Donatism in this… it sure would need exploring during any reunification.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Can you cite a source for this, Mary. The source I cited directly contradicts everything you said vis a vie Orthodoxy.

Mary, if a bishop in the Catholic Church is deposed for whatever reason, are the ordinations he performs valid? If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, are the ordinations he peforms valid?

What you don’t get is that the dogma shared is the indelible mark.

We don’t know with certainty what the end means. That is up to God. In the west we presume validity. In the east they don’t. Neither deny the dogma that holy orders is a permanent mark leaving sacrament. I read your article and see no problem.

 

[marywarfield]

By the way, this is not Eastern Orthodox.

Oops wrong link copied. Quite frankly I have no idea
who these guys are!!!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes, Mary, and that’s exactly the difference. If an Eastern Orthodox bishop is deposed, any ordinations he does after being deposed are not valid ordinations. The person he ordains will not be a priest at all.

According to Orthodox discipline and tradition. But this is not a dogma it is a speculation of what may happen. Which is a critical point.

 

[marywarfield]

yes and no. That depends on who accepts it.

There was the former Russian Orthodox Exarch of Europe deposed by the Russian Synod, but accepted into the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Europe as it’s Head bishop.

Is he “valid” or not? He was definitely not a layman.

Generally, as far as Catholicism goes, that man is a bishop whether accepted by Russia or the Ecumenical Patriarchate, or no one. If he is rejected by everyone, then a bishop deposed. Any future ordinations will probably be questionable.

But again was his ordination to begin with valid?
Of course. Can it ever change? No. Because it
is a permanent grace received from God not the Church.
The Church can accept or depose him.
What they cannot do is erase the grace already received.

Now having said that do any of us know what that means?
No. Lol. I guess we will all find out when we die.

 

[dronald]

You again miss the point. Catholicism is not only Latin Catholicism. The various Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Canon of Scripture. It’s not the Canon that matters so much, it’s the faith that the Canon’s convey. Potentially, Luther’s Canon could have been acceptable, as a German Church Tradition, had he remained in the Church and accepted everything else.

The number of Books of the Canon has never been a reason to schism, but what protestantism did is make it the only element of Faith they have left as a standard, and incomplete at that!

I don’t understand.

I thought because Trent was an Ecumenical council it represented all of the Catholic Church. That is, you must agree with what Trent states? You’re saying that Luther could have had seven less books in the OT and remained in the Church, with that teaching being accepted by the Catholic Church?

I really don’t think this is what Catholics teach.

 

[benjohnson]

Neither deny the dogma that holy orders is a permanent mark leaving sacrament. I read your article and see no problem.

And I certainly don’t speak for them, but do you think our Othodox friends would say that the The Confession of Dositheus is the equivalent to Dogma?

I’ve understood that the Orthodox refer to Holy Mysteries and not Sacrements - though that may be splitting hairs.

 

[marywarfield]

It’s true that they would not be reordained. They are, however, prior to that, ex bishops. No apostolic succession anymore, no ability to confer grace, etc. In all respects, they are laymen.

And yet when they die will God see that He ordained them?
You bet at least that’s what we all count on right?

My daughters father in law is an apostate catholic.
Joined the Assembly of God and now turns family
events into his opportunity to foam at the mouth
because we have icons of the Theotokos on the
walls and a Holy Trinity Crucifix (which is apparently
worse in his brain then just a regular crucifix).

My daughter always warns him- hey you are a
confirmed Catholic nothing will ever change that.

True but none of us knows what that means in the end.
Poor guy I don’t want to be in his shoes. I think.

 

[marywarfield]

And I certainly don’t speak for them, but do you think our Othodox friends would say that the The Confession of Dositheus is the equivalent to Dogma?

I’ve understood that the Orthodox refer to Holy Mysteries and not Sacrements - though that may be splitting hairs.

It is. We call them Sacraments but will be the first
to tell you the Sacraments are mysteries to us. Lol.