Question of orthodox church

[Trevor_Stamm]

Hello all,

My question is aimed at asking Catholics about orthodox churches and the issue of valid sacraments. I read that Orthodox is the other lung of the Church and have valid sacraments. My question is, if priests and bishops require a Pope to be ordained and only the colleague of cardinals can elect a Pope how does the Orthodox Church have valid sacraments when their current priests and bishops were not ordained, those after the Schism, by any Pope and have no power themselves to elect a new Pope? I was under the impression that in order for sacraments to be valid, the laying on of hands is required by the Pope to the priest being ordained.

I can see how those priests and bishops right after the Schism still had valid sacraments but how did they have power to perpetuate their validity beyond themselves to the next generation to today?

Thanks.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello all,

My question is aimed at asking Catholics about orthodox churches and the issue of valid sacraments. I read that Orthodox is the other lung of the Church and have valid sacraments. My question is, if priests and bishops require a Pope to be ordained and only the colleague of cardinals can elect a Pope how does the Orthodox Church have valid sacraments when their current priests and bishops were not ordained, those after the Schism, by any Pope and have no power themselves to elect a new Pope? I was under the impression that in order for sacraments to be valid, the laying on of hands is required by the Pope to the priest being ordained.

I can see how those priests and bishops right after the Schism still had valid sacraments but how did they have power to perpetuate their validity beyond themselves to the next generation to today?

Thanks.

No, priest and bishops do not need a Pope to be ordained. You are in the traditional section, ask them about SSPX ordinations. Because those were definitely not by the approval of the Pope, yet everyone will agree they are valid.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

You may be confusing valid and licit. An ordination can be valid, but illicit. The Chinese government’s situation comes to mind.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You may be confusing valid and licit. An ordination can be valid, but illicit. The Chinese government’s situation comes to mind.

Not quite. Licit is when the action complies to law. Since they are not Catholic, we cannot hold them to Catholic law. Orthodox ordinations are not illicit then. Its like asking a Canadian to follow American law while in Canada.

 

[TrentCath]

Hello all,

My question is aimed at asking Catholics about orthodox churches and the issue of valid sacraments. I read that Orthodox is the other lung of the Church and have valid sacraments. My question is, if priests and bishops require a Pope to be ordained and only the colleague of cardinals can elect a Pope how does the Orthodox Church have valid sacraments when their current priests and bishops were not ordained, those after the Schism, by any Pope and have no power themselves to elect a new Pope? I was under the impression that in order for sacraments to be valid, the laying on of hands is required by the Pope **It’s actually just by another Validly ordained bishop **to the priest being ordained.

I can see how those priests and bishops right after the Schism still had valid sacraments but how did they have power to perpetuate their validity beyond themselves to the next generation to today?

Thanks.

Any validly consecrated bishop can consecrate another person to be a bishop providing they follow the proper matter and form of the sacrament of orders. That is what is meant by ‘Valid’, however doing so without the popes permission is a grave delict, that is a breach of Canon Law, as it threatens the unity of the Church and causes grave scandal to the faithful. It is therefore illicit. It is also worth noting that only the Pope can give Jurisdiction e.g over a diocese, to claim otherwise is a schismatic act.

As regards the ‘Orthodox’ seeing as they are in schism and have arguably departed from some of the Churches doctrines, ordaining bishops is the least of their worries.

The New Catholic Encylopaedia has a helpful article on the consecration of bishops here

 

[GloriousOrder]

Doesn’t the duality of this Orthodox-Catholic validity make mockery of the fact that we are in One Body, the Body of Christ? St. Paul himself says there are not two Christs or three Christs, but One, and so the entire Body is in Him. How can the Head have two valid offshoots? Why is this distinction even extant? It seems very queer. There are a lot of historical documents of the West wherein the “Greeks” are called schismatic, in error, and treacherous, etc., so why the sudden warm, cuddly feelings on our part?

Can a document be brought out to show that the Catholic Church has always taught the Orthodox have valid sacraments, after 1054? All I see is vitriol and calls of “heresy” on both sides for countless years.

In the East, there is no distinction between “valid” and “licit” - if you, as a priest, disobey the Church and go into schism, your Orders are simply vanished. You become one of the laity again, and there is none of this “eternal mark” theology. Doesn’t that represent a divergence of opinion regarding Orders, and thus a markedly different intention arises?

 

[TrentCath]

Doesn’t the duality of this Orthodox-Catholic validity make mockery of the fact that we are in One Body, the Body of Christ? St. Paul himself says there are not two Christs or three Christs, but One, and so the entire Body is in Him. How can the Head have two valid offshoots? Why is this distinction even extant? It seems very queer. There are a lot of historical documents of the West wherein the “Greeks” are called schismatic, in error, and treacherous, etc., so why the sudden warm, cuddly feelings on our part?

Can a document be brought out to show that the Catholic Church has always taught the Orthodox have valid sacraments, after 1054? All I see is vitriol and calls of “heresy” on both sides for countless years. And yet despite all this vitriol and calls of heresy no one ever called their Apostolic Succession or Orders into question. There was no enyclical like that of Apostolicae Curae by Pope Leo XII which declared Anglican orders invalid and nowhere in the Council of Florence was the issue of orders raised during the negotiation’s regarding the re-union of the various churches to the Catholic Church. This silence speaks volumes.

In the East, there is no distinction between “valid” and “licit” - if you, as a priest, disobey the Church and go into schism, your Orders are simply vanished. You become one of the laity again, and there is none of this “eternal mark” theology. Doesn’t that represent a divergence of opinion regarding Orders, and thus a markedly different intention arises?I’m going to leave that to an Eastern Catholic or ‘Orthodox’ to answer

 

[Monica4316]

Hi, well the local Bishop is the one who ordains priests, not the Pope this is true for both Catholic and Orthodox churches. So they have kept Apostolic Succession for that reason (and hence, the Sacraments).

Also, I think Pope John Paul II was saying that the Eastern Catholic churches are the “other lung” of the Church, not the Eastern Orthodox… but I don’t know. Of course, we should all strive for union of the churches.

God bless!

 

[GloriousOrder]

So, it’s possible to retain ontological Apostolic Succession without being in communion with the Chief, the Prince of the Apostles? If that is so, why even be Catholic? I mean, it’s nice to hear “the fullness of truth” rests in Rome, but if the Orthodox have the enough of a “share” of the truth to be valid without reference to the Pope, then Rome doesn’t have the complete fullness of truth. This is very basic logic, and the alternative conclusions are just as bizarre. Any good documents to dispel this confusion?

 

[TrentCath]

So, it’s possible to retain ontological Apostolic Succession without being in communion with the Chief, the Prince of the Apostles? If that is so, why even be Catholic? I mean, it’s nice to hear “the fullness of truth” rests in Rome, but if the Orthodox have the enough of a “share” of the truth to be valid without reference to the Pope, then Rome doesn’t have the complete fullness of truth. This is completely illogical. A) Other churches having a ‘share’ of the truth, means a share of the ‘fullness of truth’ Rome has and in anything that it disagrees with Rome is heretical and not the truth. (If they actually disagree and arent just using different theological expressions) B) It is not to do with ‘share of the truth’, it is to do with the matter, form and intention of consecration. So long as they are retained and so long as Apostolic succession is maintained, then there is a valid consecration regardless of heresy or schism. It can however be illicit or if there is an inherent problem with the consecration rite then the consecration fails as is the case with Anglican OrdersThis is very basic logic, and the alternative conclusions are just as bizarre. Any good documents to dispel this confusion?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Any validly consecrated bishop can consecrate another person to be a bishop providing they follow the proper matter and form of the sacrament of orders. That is what is meant by ‘Valid’, however doing so without the popes permission is a grave delict, that is a breach of Canon Law, as it threatens the unity of the Church and causes grave scandal to the faithful. It is therefore illicit. It is also worth noting that only the Pope can give Jurisdiction e.g over a diocese, to claim otherwise is a schismatic act.

As regards the ‘Orthodox’ seeing as they are in schism and have arguably departed from some of the Churches doctrines, ordaining bishops is the least of their worries.

The New Catholic Encylopaedia has a helpful article on the consecration of bishops here

I see, thank you.

So, the bishops after the Schism were given premission by the Pope to ordain other bishops, so and and so forth to present day?

 

[TrentCath]

I see, thank you.

So, the bishops after the Schism were given premission by the Pope to ordain other bishops, so and and so forth to present day?

No but as I said that doesnt make them in-valid just illicit, but seeing as they’re in schism they have much more serious things to worry about.

 

[Molotov]

I see, thank you.

So, the bishops after the Schism were given premission by the Pope to ordain other bishops, so and and so forth to present day?

Actually, its simpler than that.

When the Roman Church broke away from Orthodox Christianity in 1054, the Papacy became an exclusively Roman institution.

The Orthodox Church declined to establish a “Papacy of the East” because there was simply no need. The Churches [and Patriarchs] of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople could trace their episcopal succession to one or more of the Apostles of Christ.

Unless and until the Roman Church reconciles its differences with Orthodoxy, each branch of Christianity will continue to consecrate its bishops.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I see, thank you.

So, the bishops after the Schism were given premission by the Pope to ordain other bishops, so and and so forth to present day?

Nope, nobody was given permission by the pope to ordain other bishops at the time of the schism because at that time, there was no such concept that one needed the permission of the pope to ordain. That concept is not historic and runs contrary to the canons of the pre-schism Church, which the Eastern Orthodox firmly believe that they have preserved.

 

[SteveVH]

I see, thank you.

So, the bishops after the Schism were given premission by the Pope to ordain other bishops, so and and so forth to present day?

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. All bishops have always had the authority to ordain priests and other bishops as well, not just after the schism. The Pope is a sign of unity and all Catholic bishops must be in union with the Pope. The Orthodox, from what I can gather, while having valid apostolic succession are not even in union with one another and are split along ethnic lines for the most part. Nevertheless, the differences in doctrine between Catholic and Orthodox are slight, for the most part.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. All bishops have always had the authority to ordain priests and other bishops as well, not just after the schism. The Pope is a sign of unity and all Catholic bishops must be in union with the Pope. The Orthodox, from what I can gather, while having valid apostolic succession are not even in union with one another and are split along ethnic lines for the most part. Nevertheless, the differences in doctrine between Catholic and Orthodox are slight, for the most part.

Incorrect. The Eastern Orthodox Church is made up of 14 autocephalous churches (like the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, etc.) which are all in full communion with each other.

 

[byeveryword]

Nope, nobody was given permission by the pope to ordain other bishops at the time of the schism because at that time, there was no such concept that one needed the permission of the pope to ordain. That concept is not historic and runs contrary to the canons of the pre-schism Church, which the Eastern Orthodox firmly believe that they have preserved.

From Bishop Cyprian’s 67th Epistle (249 AD)

1. “For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct… “A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” Titus 1:7”

 

[Cavaradossi]

From Bishop Cyprian’s 67th Epistle (249 AD)

1. “For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct… “A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God.” Titus 1:7”

That quote says that a bishop should be chosen by a Synod of local area (Metropolis, archdiocese or Patriarchate), not that the pope must give permission for the ordination of a new bishop. By the way, that practice is still how ordinations of bishops are done in the modern Orthodox Church; bishops are ordained by a Synod of the local autocephalous church in which they are ordained, and nobody needs to run it past the Ecumenical Patriarch for approval (unless of course, it’s in his patriarchate, in which case he’s participating in the Synod).

 

[byeveryword]

That quote says that a bishop should be chosen by a Synod of local area (Metropolis, archdiocese or Patriarchate), not that the pope must give permission for the ordination of a new bishop.

Yes, is this done in the Orthodox Church? Respectfully, may I ask, is such a candidate chosen among the congregation so as to know his habits of living and conduct?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Yes, is this done in the Orthodox Church? Respectfully, may I ask, is such a candidate chosen among the congregation so as to know his habits of living and conduct?

Yes, I just edited my response to you in regards to that. The Orthodox Church chooses her bishops through Synods.