Schism does not per se make a Sacrament invalid, neither does heresy.I had a question concerning the validity of holy orders outside of churches in communion with Rome. I understand that Anglican priests are not considered to be validly ordained because the Anglican Church is in schism with Rome, but the Eastern Orthodox clergy are considered validly ordained yet they’ve been in schism for 400 years longer than Anglicans. I don’t get this, if one is not valid why aren’t both invalid?
It isn’t because they are in schism but that they didn’t retain a valid ordained priesthoodI had a question concerning the validity of holy orders outside of churches in communion with Rome. I understand that Anglican priests are not considered to be validly ordained because the Anglicn Church is in schism with Rome, but the Eastern Orthodox clergy are considered validly ordained yet they’ve been in schism for 400 years longer than Anglicans. I don’t get this, if one is not valid why aren’t both invalid?
Which is why the Catholic Church’s view is so confusing. The Anglican view is that priests do have a special separate role just as Catholic clergy do. The form of Anglican ordination and the episcopate is not that different from the Catholic form and includes the laying of hands by a bishop. In fact as I understand it the big objection from the Catholic side is primarily that the bishops in the Anglican line of the episcopate do not have valid consecration, and thus cannot confer holy orders (despite Anglican claims to the contrary, which are backed by some compelling evidence I’d add).Schism does not per se make a Sacrament invalid, neither does heresy.
The Anglicans do not have valid orders because they long ago changed the form for the sacrament; form is one thing required for validity. Also, then lack the requisite intention (for a number of reasons).** But I would say that Anglicans, like other Protestants, do not see priests as having that special separate role that the Catholic Church teaches.** The declaration that Anglican orders are null and void is considered an example of a dogmatic fact, an infallible judgment of the prudential order.
newadvent.org/cathen/01644a.htm
The Orthodox believe in all seven Sacraments, and they have the same view of the priesthood as Catholics. They are not in the same situation as the Anglicans because their form and intention remains valid, from a Catholic point of view. The Catholic Church has stated that the Orthodox have all seven Sacraments.
When Henry VIII broke from Rome, his priests and bishops were validly ordained, and continued to be.Oh I thought it was the schism caused be Henry viii that caused their orders to be invalidated. Thanks for the clarification
Valid, no.Also I thought that for the consecration of a bishop to be valid it must be approved by the pope.
Excommunicated for disobedience. But their Orders, and therefore their consecrations, remain valid-- a cursory reading of any of the Vatican documents on SSPX will show this such as ability to attend Mass at SSPX chapels, rulings on their sacraments, etc.That’s why the Sspx priests and bishops were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II, I find it doubtful that the patriarchs of Constantinople have sought the approval of the Pope for 900 years every time they or their other bishops consecrated a new bishop.
You are confusing licety with validity. They are not the same thing.If the bishops are not valid then the priests they ordain are not so then the sacraments by these priests are not. I just don’t see how this works out that the Eastern Orthodox still have valid priests and sacraments
Required for liciety, i.e. for it to be legal. Not validity. For Catholics, any bishop who ordains another bishop without Papal mandate incurs an automatic excommunication, as is the ordained bishop. But the ordained bishop is indeed validly ordained. The SSPX bishops are validly therefore ordained.Also I thought that for the consecration of a bishop to be valid it must be approved by the pope. That’s why the Sspx priests and bishops were excommunicated by Pope John Paul II, I find it doubtful that the patriarchs of Constantinople have sought the approval of the Pope for 900 years every time they or their other bishops consecrated a new bishop. If the bishops are not valid then the priests they ordain are not so then the sacraments by these priests are not. I just don’t see how this works out that the Eastern Orthodox still have valid priests and sacraments
Licit/illicit = legal vs. illegal.I guess that’s where I was confused, I assumed if something was illicit then it was also invalid. I think I’ve got it now
It’s not because of schism, it’s because they themselves changed their ordination so that their priests and bishops no longer received valid ordination. From that point on, there were no longer valid bishops able to consecrate men to the sacrificial ministerial priesthood.. I understand that Anglican priests are not considered to be validly ordained because the Anglican Church is in schism with Rome
I think your understanding is false I used to have an Eastern Orthodox professor who is also an Eastern Orthodox priest and they usually use the term mystery as they do in Eastern Christian churches as far as I know instead of the term sacrament and there are in fact seven even with them.Well, the Orthodox view Sacraments a bit different. Orthodox do not teach that there are exactly 7 Sacraments, Orthodox do not like to specify their number, Orthodox say that every cleric effect is Holy Sacrament. St John Chrysostom teaches us that all Sacraments are part of One Whole Sacrament which is God’s gift to the faithful People through His Church.
This 7 Sacraments thing comes from the Roman-Catholic Council of Trent if i am not wrong.