Validity of Protestant Holy Orders

[FrDavid96]

Okay, then why don’t you point me to what the “law” says? Please, use relevant and credible material to correct my apparent misunderstanding. You keep saying the same thing without substantiating anything, and this discourse is becoming futile and lacks any constructive criticism.

1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) for the Latins

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

1990 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches (CCOE)

Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.

Now, please look carefully at both canons and read what they say, and notice what they do not say (that part I will point out to you).

The CIC ONLY applies to Latin Catholics
The CCOE ONLY applies to Eastern Catholics

Now, ask yourself the question: since NEITHER Catholic code applies to the Eastern Orthodox then how can we say that they act illicitly?

In order to be illicit, one must act contrary to the law. What law?

An Orthodox bishop can only be said to be acting illicitly when he acts in violation of a law. The CIC explicitly says that he is not bound by that law. The CCOE explicitly says that he is not bound by that law.

So we have a person who is not bound by the law. We cannot then accuse him of being in violation of the law. If the law does not apply to him, he cannot be breaking it. Do you see the logic here?

That’s the analogy I was trying to make to you earlier. I am not in Canada. I am not a Canadian citizen. I am a US citizen living in the US. As such, I cannot be in violation of Canadian law because that law does not apply to me in the first place. (Now, I’m leaving aside certain ridiculous examples here, like if I tried to use FedEx to send a poisoned package to someone in Ottawa)

Accusing an Orthodox bishop of acting illicitly when he ordains a priest is no different than accusing me of violating Canadian law because I own a rifle but I don’t have a Canadian rifle permit. I don’t care if it violates Canadian law because Canadian law has no power over me. It has no authority to make my acts either legal or illegal, licit or illicit. If I lived in Canada, I’d be breaking the law. But I don’t live in Canada.

If you want to claim that an Orthodox bishop acts illicitly when he ordains then it becomes necessary, absolutely necessary, to show WHICH LAW HE VIOLATES.

And that brings us right back to the start.

He cannot be said to violate the 1983 Code of Canon Law because that law does not apply to him.
He cannot be said to violate the 1990 Code of Canon Law Eastern because that law does not apply to him.

So what is left? Those are the only 2 Codes we have in the Catholic Church. If neither Code applies to him as a person, then he cannot be said to be acting in violation of any law.

 

[AugustTherese]

1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) for the Latins

Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.

1990 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches (CCOE)

Canon 1 - The canons of this Code affect all and solely the Eastern Catholic Churches, unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise.

Now, please look carefully at both canons and read what they say, and notice what they do not say (that part I will point out to you).

The CIC ONLY applies to Latin Catholics
The CCOE ONLY applies to Eastern Catholics

Now, ask yourself the question: since NEITHER Catholic code applies to the Eastern Orthodox then how can we say that they act illicitly?

In order to be illicit, one must act contrary to the law. What law?

An Orthodox bishop can only be said to be acting illicitly when he acts in violation of a law. The CIC explicitly says that he is not bound by that law. The CCOE explicitly says that he is not bound by that law.

So we have a person who is not bound by the law. We cannot then accuse him of being in violation of the law. If the law does not apply to him, he cannot be breaking it. Do you see the logic here?

That’s the analogy I was trying to make to you earlier. I am not in Canada. I am not a Canadian citizen. I am a US citizen living in the US. As such, I cannot be in violation of Canadian law because that law does not apply to me in the first place. (Now, I’m leaving aside certain ridiculous examples here, like if I tried to use FedEx to send a poisoned package to someone in Ottawa)

Accusing an Orthodox bishop of acting illicitly when he ordains a priest is no different than accusing me of violating Canadian law because I own a rifle but I don’t have a Canadian rifle permit. I don’t care if it violates Canadian law because Canadian law has no power over me. It has no authority to make my acts either legal or illegal, licit or illicit. If I lived in Canada, I’d be breaking the law. But I don’t live in Canada.

If you want to claim that an Orthodox bishop acts illicitly when he ordains then it becomes necessary, absolutely necessary, to show WHICH LAW HE VIOLATES.

And that brings us right back to the start.

He cannot be said to violate the 1983 Code of Canon Law because that law does not apply to him.
He cannot be said to violate the 1990 Code of Canon Law Eastern because that law does not apply to him.

So what is left? Those are the only 2 Codes we have in the Catholic Church. If neither Code applies to him as a person, then he cannot be said to be acting in violation of any law.

This helped me tremendously. I completely understand and fully agree. I also agree with your interpretation of what V2 said regarding the Eastern Churches governing themselves.

The problem I have, and this could be my personal problem that I need help with, is how can we legitimately say with certainty that the original Bishops that broke away from the Catholic Church and established the EO, how can we deem their ordination of priests as lawful? Is it an after-the-fact kind of recognition?

 

[FrDavid96]

This helped me tremendously. I completely understand and fully agree. I also agree with your interpretation of what V2 said regarding the Eastern Churches governing themselves.

The problem I have, and this could be my personal problem that I need help with, is how can we legitimately say with certainty that the original Bishops that broke away from the Catholic Church and established the EO, how can we deem their ordination of priests as lawful? Is it an after-the-fact kind of recognition?

You’re asking the question: was it lawful?

Again, that question is meaningless until we FIRST ask the question “what did the law say at the time?” What law?

You’re asking about an event 1,000 years in the past.

At that time, the law said that bishops ordain only their own subjects—that they cannot go outside their own diocese and perform ordinations. That has been the law since the Council of Nicaea.

What you are expecting is to find a law that says that if a bishop is not in communion with Rome, then that makes his ordinations illicit. I do not know of any such law, and I frankly doubt that any such law existed in 1054 AD. I’m not capable of proving it, not without literally years of research, but I can safely say that I highly doubt it, and doubt it in the extreme.

What I can say, with regard to the Orthodox is that the Catholic Church regarded their laws as being legitimate and having force-of-law even after the events of 1054. In other words, we have constantly recognized their own internal government (though not always perfectly and not always charitably).

At that time, the laws we had were mostly the canons of the ecumenical councils and the canons of local councils. It would be another 900 years before the first actual Codex of church laws came into existence. That would be the 1917 Code.

In any case, regardless of how the Catholic Church might-or-might-not have viewed Orthodox ordinations from 1054 to the present, the fact is that TODAY, we recognize the authority of the Orthodox to govern themselves—to promulgate their own laws as pertain to them. For reference, see the Vatican II documents and see John Paul II in ut unum sint.

 

[PJM]

You’re on the RIGHT TRACK,

The Orthodox maintained PROVABLE Direct Apostolic succession.

God Bless you, and keep asking when your in doubt’

Patrick

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

This helped me tremendously. I completely understand and fully agree. I also agree with your interpretation of what V2 said regarding the Eastern Churches governing themselves.

The problem I have, and this could be my personal problem that I need help with, is how can we legitimately say with certainty that the original Bishops that broke away from the Catholic Church and established the EO, how can we deem their ordination of priests as lawful? Is it an after-the-fact kind of recognition?

You’re asking the question: was it lawful?

Again, that question is meaningless until we FIRST ask the question “what did the law say at the time?” What law?

You’re asking about an event 1,000 years in the past.

At that time, the law said that bishops ordain only their own subjects—that they cannot go outside their own diocese and perform ordinations. That has been the law since the Council of Nicaea.

What you are expecting is to find a law that says that if a bishop is not in communion with Rome, then that makes his ordinations illicit. I do not know of any such law, and I frankly doubt that any such law existed in 1054 AD. I’m not capable of proving it, not without literally years of research, but I can safely say that I highly doubt it, and doubt it in the extreme.

What I can say, with regard to the Orthodox is that the Catholic Church regarded their laws as being legitimate and having force-of-law even after the events of 1054. In other words, we have constantly recognized their own internal government (though not always perfectly and not always charitably).

At that time, the laws we had were mostly the canons of the ecumenical councils and the canons of local councils. It would be another 900 years before the first actual Codex of church laws came into existence. That would be the 1917 Code.

In any case, regardless of how the Catholic Church might-or-might-not have viewed Orthodox ordinations from 1054 to the present, the fact is that TODAY, we recognize the authority of the Orthodox to govern themselves—to promulgate their own laws as pertain to them. For reference, see the Vatican II documents and see John Paul II in ut unum sint.

Thank you, Father!

On another note, I want to apologize for my comment in the other thread, “I pray your Bishop sees this”. I honestly did not mean to be offensive towards you, even though in hindsight that comment was probably uncalled for. The only reason I said that was because I personally felt offended by continuously being called ignorant and that I had no idea what I was talking about. Frankly, I think you were right; I was ignorant and did not know what I was talking about. But, nonetheless, your words did seem like ad hominems at times and that is why I said what I said. Again, I am sorry for that comment.