Rome's authority over Orthodox; Validity of Orthodox sacraments

[Dan_Daly]

What you have displayed here is a complete lack of understanding of the Orthodox faith.

Pax brothers!

I have never claimed to be an expert on the Orthodox faith. I am also fully aware that what one sees on TV, hears on the radio, and reads on the internet is…GASP…not always true. I know that you will find many Catholics, including many priests and Bishops, who say things are Church teachings- which are not church teachings. So if you want to convince me that Orthodox teachings have been misrepresented to me, I am fully open to hearing the argument, because I know it happens to Catholics all the time.

Bottom line: I participate in these forums to help others AND myself to learn.

So, if I understand what folks have said here correctly:

-The Orthodox Church teaches that direct abortion is a mortal sin in all cases.
-The Orthodox Church accepts the primacy of the Pope.

Is that correct?

If so, I would like to hear some further explanation of how exactly they accept it.

I don’t have the book in front of me, but I was reading through “My Catholic Faith” a Roman Catholic Catechism from the 1950s over the weekend and in one section it speaks to issues with the Orthodox Church. It comes to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church is not only a schismatic church but also a heretical one. I will post the exact passage when I am able to do so.

Pax and God Bless.

Note from Moderator:

This discussion on Rome’s views on and relationship with the Orthodox Churches was sufficiently off-topic to create a new thread from it. Please see here for the original discussion on attending Orthodox worship in place of Catholic worship in Eastern Catholicism.

May God Bless You Abundantly,
Catherine Grant
Eastern Catholicism Moderator

 

[Dan_Daly]

Here is the quote from “My Catholic Faith”. It’s an excerpt from a larger discussion on the history of the Orthodox Church:

The Orthodox Eastern Church denies the Catholic dogma that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. It also teaches that the souls of the just will not attain complete happiness till the end of the world, when they will be joined to their bodies; and that the souls of the wicked will not suffer complete torture in hell until that last day. These are heresies against the doctrines of the Church.
Thus it can be seen that today the Orthodox Eastern Church is not merely schismatical, but truly heretical; for it holds primary doctrines in a different light. But it has valid orders. (See Chapter 55 on The Catholic Eastern Church; Rites)

Pax.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Here is the quote from “My Catholic Faith”. It’s an excerpt from a larger discussion on the history of the Orthodox Church:

Pax.

You do know that Eastern Catholics do not say the Filioque, right? Even the Pope do not say the Filioque if the Creed is recited in Greek.

 

[Dan_Daly]

You do know that Eastern Catholics do not say the Filioque, right? Even the Pope do not say the Filioque if the Creed is recited in Greek.

I don’t pretend to understand the Trinity in any sort of complete way. I don’t think any human being can while living on this earth.

However, the issue isn’t the wording of a prayer, it’s what is believed. If the Pope recites the creed differently in Greek than he does in Latin- that is one thing. But does he believe two different things? One when he is speaking in Latin and another when he is speaking in Greek? I do not think so.

So how does a member of the Orthodox Church respond to the passage from “My Catholic Faith”?

Pax.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Since, in fact, we believe that the venerable and ancient tradition of the Eastern Churches is an integral part of the heritage of Christ’s Church, the first need for Catholics is to be familiar with that tradition, so as to be nourished by it and to encourage the process of unity in the best way possible for each.

–Blessed Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen

 

[Dan_Daly]

–Blessed Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Orientale Lumen

I appreciate and agree with the comment. I have been drawn to the Eastern churches for most of my life, although I am a Latin Rite Catholic. Currently I am fortunate to attend a Byzantine liturgy at least once a week, and am learning a great deal.

The “eastern Churches” encompasses a lot of ground though- both Eastern Rite Catholics- in full communion with the Church- and schismatic churches.

Because we can learn from and appreciate another tradition does not necessarily mean that everything in that tradition is correct.

The quote from Pope John Paul II does not address the issues raised in the Catechism I quoted.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[louis91766]

So, if I understand what folks have said here correctly:

…
-The Orthodox Church accepts the primacy of the Pope.

Is that correct?
.

I don’t think that is true at this point in time. I believe that presently the Patriarch of Constantinople holds primacy in the Orthodox Church and not the Pope of Rome.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I don’t think that is true at this point in time. I believe that presently the Patriarch of Constantinople holds primacy in the Orthodox Church and not the Pope of Rome.

I thought so as well. But when I said among other things, that the Orthodox denied the primary of the Pope, that I was displaying a total lack of understanding of the Orthodox Church, I thought perhaps I was mistaken.

Christ founded his Church on Peter. The Pope is Peter’s successor. Without him, and a proper understanding of his role, you can’t have the fullness of the faith.

I’m curious what the Church’s stance on the licitness of Orthodox sacraments is. I know the Orthodox Church has VALID sacraments, but are they licit? Do the Orthodox Patriarchs recieve permission from Rome when they ordain Bishops? If not, why would they be licit when ordinations by the SSPX are not precisely because they are not done with the Pope’s approval?

Hopefully someone with more knowledge can shed light on these topics as well as the other issues raised about the fate of souls after death and the understanding of the trinity.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[The_Idiot]

DanDaly said

Do the Orthodox Patriarchs recieve permission from Rome when they ordain Bishops? If not, why would they be licit when ordinations by the SSPX are not precisely because they are not done with the Pope’s approval?

Why would Orthodox Patriarchs receive permission from Rome to ordain Bishops ?

They do not owe allegiance to the Holy Father

SSPX say they honour the decisions of the Holy Father - but do not in practice, since some of their bishops were now remember they are Catholic ] ordained WITHOUT permission from Rome

 

[Formosus]

I will try my best to answer your concerns Dan.

I thought so as well. But when I said among other things, that the Orthodox denied the primary of the Pope, that I was displaying a total lack of understanding of the Orthodox Church, I thought perhaps I was mistaken.

The Orthodox beleive in the primacy of Rome. They do not beleive in the Supremacy of Rome. So their definition of primacy is one of honor and respect, not one of judicial submission.

Christ founded his Church on Peter. The Pope is Peter’s successor. Without him, and a proper understanding of his role, you can’t have the fullness of the faith.

The “proper role” of the Patriarch of Rome is actually a very vague statement. Is it the ultramontanism of Vatican I, the more conciliar attitude of VII, was Peter’s confession the rock of the Church or is it Peter himself? Even great Latin Church Fathers disagreed on these issues (Augustine himself said that Peter could either be the Rock or his Confession, he was not sure which was correct). The fact here is that there is little evidence that Orthodoxy has changed its positions towards the papacy radically. Its fair to say that the Orthodox Church has always viewed Rome’s role as a primacy of love and honor, not one of laws or legislation.

I’m curious what the Church’s stance on the licitness of Orthodox sacraments is. I know the Orthodox Church has VALID sacraments, but are they licit? Do the Orthodox Patriarchs recieve permission from Rome when they ordain Bishops? If not, why would they be licit when ordinations by the SSPX are not precisely because they are not done with the Pope’s approval?

I do not know what Rome’s view is on this matter, but considering that Rome never had jurisdiction over the Eastern bishoprics or Patriarchates, I think that the question is anachronistic. The East never needed nor asked for Rome’s permission to ordain their own bishops or for “licitey” of their sacraments. Rome at best had jurisdiction over the western empire (or at the very least the sub rubicon dioceses of Italy), not over Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, Kyiv, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc etc. Unlike the SSPX, who are Latin clergy. They are members of the Roman church and therefore subject to the Roman Patriarchate.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge can shed light on these topics as well as the other issues raised about the fate of souls after death and the understanding of the trinity.

Pax and God Bless.

I would be glad to provide what I know on those issues, but it would help if you were more specific as to what knowledge you would like.

 

[Montalo]

I’m curious what the Church’s stance on the licitness of Orthodox sacraments is. I know the Orthodox Church has VALID sacraments, but are they licit? Do the Orthodox Patriarchs recieve permission from Rome when they ordain Bishops? If not, why would they be licit when ordinations by the SSPX are not precisely because they are not done with the Pope’s approval?
Pax and God Bless.

Br. JR said it very well from the catholic POV, and I shall try to find it

until i do, here is a brief summary.

The Orthodox Churches have valid, and licit sacraments. The Orthodox are not Catholic, and as such canon law does not apply. Canon Law binds Catholic’s only, and as such does not apply to the Orthodox Church. The SSPX, for as weird of a state as they are in, are Catholics, and as such would need the suitable approval(i dont know how the approvals work, if it is simply the bishop, or papal).

As far as confession and such is concerned, the SSPX confessions are invalid, because they lack facilities to do so, for their bishops are something weird, but the Orthodox Church has valid confession, because our bishops are all proper, and as such can grant facilities. Confession needs ordination+facilites in order to be valid.

(off to find that post)

 

[Montalo]

heres the post

The Church has accepted that the four bishops are validly ordained bishops. We have some major precedents.

The first generation Orthodox deacons, priests and bishops were ordained by bishops who had no jurisdiction to do so. Remeber, that generation was excommunicated. That generation was ordained illicitly. However, every generation born after that was validly and licitly ordained. We recognize as valid and licit the ordination of the Orthodox clergy. Valid, because they never lost Apostolic Succession. Licit, because the Catholic Church has no authority over the Orthodox bishops. Therfore, she cannot deny them jurisdiction. They are not ordaining Catholics. They are ordaining Orthodox. In that first generation, this was not the case. They were ordaining Catholics who had broken communion with Rome. We still recognized their ordination as valid, because they retained Apostolic Succession. However, that first generation was ordained illicitly, because it was born Catholic. Therefore, it was subject to Catholic law.

The doctrine is that a bishop with Apostolic Succession can validly ordain, provided there is no impediment to matter and form. This brings us back to the ordination of the four SSPX bishops.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not have jurisdiction to ordain. Canon Law is explicit that no bishop can ordain without permission from the Apostolic See (the pope). However, the validity of the ordination of the four bishops has never been questioned. The excommunication was over the legality.

The law does not require jurisdiction for validity. It requires jurisdiction to execute the ordination. This canon is about jurisdiction, not about validity. The canon is talking about the bishop, not the sacrament. When it says that a bishop cannot ordain, it’s not saying that he does not have the sacramental authority to ordain. It’s saying that he does not have the legal authority to ordain. The ordination is valid, no question in the mind of the Church. However, because it’s illegal, you are going to be penalized. The penalty is suspension.

It’s a very unfortunate place to be and it creates a very ambiguous situation for the laity. Everytime you receive communion at a mass celebrated by a suspended priest, you’re receiving the Blessed Sacrament in an irregular situation. I would feel very uncomfortable, unless I was in a situation where there was no other mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

from this thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=577331&highlight=orthodox

another post

All Catholic priests must be granted faculties by the bishop of the diocese in which they administer the sacrament.

The Orthodox clergy are not Catholic. Therefore, we don’t have the authority to deny them faculties. Only their patriarchs can do that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

from here, and just the thread in general
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=570779&highlight=orthodox

 

[Dan_Daly]

Thank you for the informative responses.

It does seem to create some oddities though:

1. Why doesn’t the Pope have any authority over the Orthodox? “They’re Orthodox, not Catholic” doesn’t add up with the comments made earlier in the thread that the Orthodox claim they ARE Catholic. The Pope’s authority is not limited to the Latin Rite. He’s the head of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. He’s the head of ALL the church.

I fully agree that understanding what is the proper role of the Pope is a confusing endeveaour of its own. Everything he says or does is not to be taken as direct revelation. There is great understanding of all kinds here- from those disregard the Pope completely and those who believe everything he does, says, and thinks must be infallible.

1. Discussing the SSPX and the Orthodox, it seems to point to the very odd conclusion that in some ways at least- having vaild and licit sacraments- the SSPX would be “better off” formally breaking with Rome. To be clear I hope and pray that they do NOT take such a course, but it makes little sense that folks in an irregular situation but still in the Church have invalid (some) and illicit (all) sacraments, but if you are willing to formally break away, like the Orthodox, then after a generation everything becomes valid and licit again.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you for the informative responses.

It does seem to create some oddities though:

1. Why doesn’t the Pope have any authority over the Orthodox? “They’re Orthodox, not Catholic” doesn’t add up with the comments made earlier in the thread that the Orthodox claim they ARE Catholic. The Pope’s authority is not limited to the Latin Rite. He’s the head of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. He’s the head of ALL the church.

This is like asking, why does the President of the United States have authority over Canada? I mean, its in the same land mass, same continent. In most places you can’t even distinguish if you’re in the US or Canada (its the world’s largest unprotected border). Because Canada didn’t join the union, therefore we are not part of the United State. The same that the Orthodox Churches are not in communion with Rome, therefore are not part of the “Catholic Communion”.

I fully agree that understanding what is the proper role of the Pope is a confusing endeveaour of its own. Everything he says or does is not to be taken as direct revelation. There is great understanding of all kinds here- from those disregard the Pope completely and those who believe everything he does, says, and thinks must be infallible.

The funniest thing here is that most Orthodox have a higher regard for the Pope than many of the so-called traditionalists of our generation. The issue really here is perspective. Roman Catholics do not have a problem with the Pope having total authority over them. The Pope is after all the Patriarch of the Latin Church as well (part and parcel to being Pope and Bishop of Rome). The problem is with the East who are not members of the Roman Catholic Church and have their own hierarchy, they would want to follow that hierarchy first for ordinary authority. And the Pope as the final and extraordinary authority, which means the Pope doesn’t really meddle with Eastern stuff unless it becomes necessary.

1. Discussing the SSPX and the Orthodox, it seems to point to the very odd conclusion that in some ways at least- having vaild and licit sacraments- the SSPX would be “better off” formally breaking with Rome. To be clear I hope and pray that they do NOT take such a course, but it makes little sense that folks in an irregular situation but still in the Church have invalid (some) and illicit (all) sacraments, but if you are willing to formally break away, like the Orthodox, then after a generation everything becomes valid and licit again.

Pax and God Bless.

The SSPX and the Orthodox are really apples and oranges. The SSPX are Roman Catholics, therefore they cannot break off from Rome and become a Church of their own, and then reunite with Rome. The Anglicans today are showing this to be the case. After years of schism, they are returning and yet they are integrated into the Roman Church rather than becoming their own sui juris Anglican Catholic Church. The reason is that historically they were never a self governing Church. The SSPX are neither. The Orthodox have always been self governing. They have always been a distinct Church.

 

[Hesychios]

heres the post

I have serious problems with that post.

He says …

The first generation Orthodox deacons, priests and bishops were ordained by bishops who had no jurisdiction to do so.

The first generation of Orthodox Deacons, Priests and Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, and they had every right to do so.

But otherwise brother JR is a thoughtful contributor and always an interesting read.

As I see it, the SSPX are schismatic Roman Catholic, and according to canon law of that church they do not have the right to make bishops without the Vatican’s approval.

However Archbishop LeFebvre was a very smart individual, well educated and also highly reknowned. He probably knew that in the early church the Bishop of Rome did not have such authority over the church at large (but of course did have this power within it’s own local synod). I have not read any writings of his on the subject (if indeed there were any) but the fact is Archbishop LeFebvre’s actions were no more wrong than the Bishop of Rome’s actions in this case. Rome simply never had the right to deny ordinations or consecrations of bishops outside of it’s own Metropolitan Synod, which was pretty much confined to the area of central and southern Italy today. The Archbishop saw a church in crises, and took this radical step to (in his own perspective) help save it.

It’s too bad it worked out that way. An unnecessary tragedy on more than one level.

 

[Hesychios]

heres the post

I have serious problems with that post.

He says …

The first generation Orthodox deacons, priests and bishops were ordained by bishops who had no jurisdiction to do so.

The first generation of Orthodox Deacons, Priests and Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, and they had every right to do so.

But otherwise brother JR is a thoughtful contributor and always an interesting read.

As I see it, the SSPX are schismatic Roman Catholic, and according to canon law of that church they do not have the right to make bishops without the Vatican’s approval.

However Archbishop LeFebvre was a very smart individual, well educated and also highly reknowned. He probably knew that in the early church the Bishop of Rome did not have such authority over the church at large, east or west (but of course did have this power within it’s own local synod). I have not read any writings of his on the subject (if indeed there were any) but the fact is Archbishop LeFebvre’s actions were no more wrong than the Bishop of Rome’s actions of monopolizing the selection of bishops, in this case. Rome simply never had the right to select candidates or to deny ordinations and consecrations of bishops outside of it’s own Metropolitan Synod (which was pretty much confined to the area of central and southern Italy today). The Archbishop saw a church in crises, and took this radical step to (in his own perspective) help save it.

Of course, the good Archbishop himself did not constitute a synod either.

It’s too bad it worked out that way. An unnecessary tragedy on more than one level.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have serious problems with that post.

He says …

The first generation of Orthodox Deacons, Priests and Bishops were ordained by the Apostles, and they had every right to do so.

But otherwise brother JR is a thoughtful contributor and always an interesting read.

What Br. JR meant was the first generation after the schism. Of course prior to that we were one Church and the distinction between Orthodox and Catholic wasn’t necessary.

As I see it, the SSPX are schismatic Roman Catholic, and according to canon law of that church they do not have the right to make bishops without the Vatican’s approval.

However Archbishop LeFebvre was a very smart individual, well educated and also highly reknowned. He probably knew that in the early church the Bishop of Rome did not have such authority over the church at large, east or west (but of course did have this power within it’s own local synod). I have not read any writings of his on the subject (if indeed there were any) but the fact is Archbishop LeFebvre’s actions were no more wrong than the Bishop of Rome’s actions of monopolizing the selection of bishops, in this case. Rome simply never had the right to select candidates or to deny ordinations and consecrations of bishops outside of it’s own Metropolitan Synod (which was pretty much confined to the area of central and southern Italy today). The Archbishop saw a church in crises, and took this radical step to (in his own perspective) help save it.

Of course, the good Archbishop himself did not constitute a synod either.

It’s too bad it worked out that way. An unnecessary tragedy on more than one level.

Wait, Abp. Lefebvre isn’t a local ordinary, isn’t he? He is the archbishop of the society, thus he is directly under Rome even from an Orthodox perspective of hierarchy. Of course from the Catholic perspective, there is no question that any Roman Catholic bishop is under the direct authority of the Pope.

 

[Hesychios]

What Br. JR meant was the first generation after the schism.

In which case he was completely wrong, for the bishop of Rome never once had jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics of the first millennium in such a way, and had no ability to withdraw a right he never had.

Secondly, it was a Cardinal of Rome who initiated the excommunications, the Pope of the day was dead, and the Cardinal had no right to excommunicate his ecclesiastical superior, a patriarch of the Holy Church.

By issuing the Bull, he placed his own church in jeopardy of schism, and as events played out the Roman church and the churches of the west following it cut themselves out from Holy Orthodoxy.

Wait, Abp. Lefebvre isn’t a local ordinary, isn’t he?

He was, at one point, the Archbishop of Dakar, but at the time of his consecrating the SSPX bishops he was not the Archbishop of Dakar. He was, basically, a bishop without a See.

He is the archbishop of the society, thus he is directly under Rome even from an Orthodox perspective of hierarchy.

Such societies (like the Holy Ghost Fathers) are not typical of Holy Orthodoxy. Religious communities are usually controlled by the local bishops, and in some cases the Metropolitans (Stavropegial houses), but never is a religious community in one synod controlled by a bishop in another synod.

The Bishops of Rome did not start to authorize that type of organization until some decades after the great schism with the orthodox Catholics.

Of course from the Catholic perspective, there is no question that any Roman Catholic bishop is under the direct authority of the Pope.

I am not justifying the good man’s actions in this case, but I am pointing out that the Pope’s monopoly on naming bishops throughout the western church could be seen (from the historical standpoint of the canons of the early church) as illegal as the renegade consecrations.

I think that the archbishop knew this. It could have been one of the reasons he did what he did, he could have known the system with all that power centralized at the Vatican was the main reason why the liturgy and culture of the church was under threat, and that it was contrary to the early church canons.

Let me say that his actions were drastic, and I do not condone them here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In which case he was completely wrong, for the bishop of Rome never once had jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics of the first millennium in such a way, and had no ability to withdraw a right he never had.

Its a matter of perspective I guess

Secondly, it was a Cardinal of Rome who initiated the excommunications, the Pope of the day was dead, and the Cardinal had no right to excommunicate his ecclesiastical superior, a patriarch of the Holy Church.

Yup, I know.

By issuing the Bull, he placed his own church in jeopardy of schism, and as events played out the Roman church and the churches of the west following it cut themselves out from Holy Orthodoxy.

Again, a matter of perspective

He was, at one point, the Archbishop of Dakar, but at the time of his consecrating the SSPX bishops he was not the Archbishop of Dakar. He was, basically, a bishop without a See.
Such societies (like the Holy Ghost Fathers) are not typical of Holy Orthodoxy. Religious communities are usually controlled by the local bishops, and in some cases the Metropolitans (Stavropegial houses), but never is a religious community in one synod controlled by a bishop in another synod.

Well I’m sure you know that in the Catholic Church, such groups with their own bishops are their own jurisdictions and are directly under the Pope. Although I am not so sure myself here because they are a society and not a religious order. I could be talking about a religious order here and it does not apply to the SSPX. But yeah, he was not a local ordinary at the time he did what he did.

The Bishops of Rome did not start to authorize that type of organization until some decades after the great schism with the orthodox Catholics.
I am not justifying the good man’s actions in this case, but I am pointing out that the Pope’s monopoly on naming bishops throughout the western church could be seen (from the historical standpoint of the canons of the early church) as illegal as the renegade consecrations.

Your point can be debated. The issue really is that the Archbishop is Roman Catholic, believes in and subscribes to the authority of the Pope over him, and therefore cannot really argue otherwise. He never protested Vatican I and the Doctrine of Papal Supremacy at any point, so he or anyone cannot argue the merits of what you speak about. He was in a situation he accepted and yet broke the rules of that situation.

I was reading an article from an Orthodox a while back about this situation and he says that the problem of the SSPX really is not specifically what they did, but because they were Roman Catholics. He said that if they were Orthodox, what they did was perfectly fine. But being Roman Catholics and following the doctrine on Papal Supremacy, they are bound to follow the law set out by the Pope, which is in Canon Law.

I think that the archbishop knew this. It could have been one of the reasons he did what he did, he could have known the system with all that power centralized at the Vatican was the main reason why the liturgy and culture of the church was under threat, and that it was contrary to the early church canons.

Let me say that his actions were drastic, and I do not condone them here.

I doubt it because its an issue that traditionalists never bring up. I mean just look at the other thread here about mortal and venial sins, there’s a whole lot of argument about submitting to the supremacy of the Pope and this is being done by traditionalists. I don’t think any traditionalist would challenge Papal Supremacy. They in fact are more often holders of the Absolute Petrine view, even the sedevacantists. Of course the Sedes believe the seat is vacant, therefore no one wields the absolute authority. But if one were to take the seat in their view, then that person would have such authority.

 

[Vico]

… To be clear I hope and pray that they do NOT take such a course, but it makes little sense that folks in an irregular situation but still in the Church have invalid (some) and illicit (all) sacraments, but if you are willing to formally break away, like the Orthodox, then after a generation everything becomes valid and licit again.

Pax and God Bless.

The validity of the sacraments requires three things: intent, matter, and form.

The Holy Mysteries operate ex opere operato (from the act itself) through the power of Christ, not ex opere operantis (from the disposition of the minister). Holy Orders are received through apostolic succession and only when meeting those three requirements. It is because of a different intention that the Anglicans lost the succession.

Licitness is another matter.