Validity of Protestant Holy Orders

[Thom18]

We’re discussing why we’re in the church that we are. We started talking about the sacraments at some point, and I asked them who they say is authorized to dispense them. They (obviously) said that their pastors are, so I then asked who gave them that authority. To summarize, I’m asking them, “Since you believe that the Catholic Church is in error, yet we can both agree that the Catholic Church pre-dates your denomination- why do you consider your ordinations (and sacraments) valid if you had to get them from the Catholic Church, which you say is in error?”

I’m trying to learn more about them, and I want to teach them about us.

 

[Catholicos]

So churches that schism from say the Eastern Orthodox also become invalid priesthoods as well, even though Eastern Orthodox priesthood is valid correct?

 

[BlackFriar]

The flaw in your argument is that you assume your “Catholic Church” now is the same as it was before Protestantism arose.

They also assume their Church now is still the same as what you call “Catholic Church” before we started calling them “Protestants”. Theirs is a regional national version or rite, just as ours is an Italian (Roman) one.

In other words we invented “Sacraments” and all this metaphysical “Holy Orders” stuff.

So of course your arguments re “validity” are meaningless to them because they don’t believe there is any such thing where it is somehow linked to the authority of the catholic primate of Italy (Pope Francis). The catholic primate of England (the ArchBishop of Canterbury), if any, is the guarantor of their ordination.

 

[FrDavid96]

So churches that schism from say the Eastern Orthodox also become invalid priesthoods as well, even though Eastern Orthodox priesthood is valid correct?

Yes, but those are very few. Most simply ignore the topic altogether.

Yes, Orthodox ordinations are valid.

 

[AugustTherese]

Yes, Orthodox ordinations are valid

Valid, but illicit. I think it is important to add that distinction, not to denigrate the EO, but to encourage proper and lawful implementation of Sacred Holy Orders.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

Yes, Orthodox ordinations are valid

Valid, but illicit. I think it is important to add that distinction, not to denigrate the EO, but to encourage proper and lawful implementation of Sacred Holy Orders.

No according to Catholic practice. We do recognize both the validity and liciety of Orthodox orders.

And yes, I know that comes across as a surprise to many. But the fact is we do recognize their laws.

We recognize their ecclesiastical laws as being binding & loosing on them. The only exception is where they permit marriage after divorce. They do not have a single-book, one-after-another code like we have for 2 codes for East and West; but we recognize their laws as they define them.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

FrDavid96:

Yes, Orthodox ordinations are valid

Valid, but illicit. I think it is important to add that distinction, not to denigrate the EO, but to encourage proper and lawful implementation of Sacred Holy Orders.

No according to Catholic practice. We do recognize both the validity and liciety of Orthodox orders.

And yes, I know that comes across as a surprise to many. But the fact is we do recognize their laws.

Can you substantiate this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, recognizing their Orders is not immanently synonymous with them actually being licit, i.e. being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Am I missing something?

 

[FrDavid96]

Can you substantiate this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, recognizing their Orders is not immanently synonymous with them actually being licit, i.e. being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Am I missing something?

As I wrote earlier, we do recognize Orthodox Canon Law as being applicable (legally binding and loosing) on Orthodox persons. This is a general principle in Catholic canon law which is a matter of practice that no one who deals with canon law disagrees. It’s accepted as a given.

We recognize it as they apply it. Russian Church law applies to Russians, Greek law to Greek, etc. And as far as what laws they use, they decide for themselves. So if the Coptic Orthodox decide that a canon of a later council overturns a canon of an earlier one, we accept their interpretation. The key phrases are “as it applies to them” and “as they interpret their own laws.”

An example is Orthodox Marriage laws. We recognize as being licit whatever marriages the Orthodox would say are licit, and if their canons say something is illicit, we do likewise. Again, though, the one exception is 2nd marriages.

I can give you a few examples.

I know just from experience and training that we recognize their laws as applicable to them. I will look for something more substantial and get back to you.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can you substantiate this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, recognizing their Orders is not immanently synonymous with them actually being licit, i.e. being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Am I missing something?

I think you’re confusing 2 different ideas.

The liciety of a Sacrament is not about whether-or-not a person or community is in Communion with Rome. It’s about whether or not an act is in harmony with the law. They are 2 different issues.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Can you substantiate this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, recognizing their Orders is not immanently synonymous with them actually being licit, i.e. being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Am I missing something?

As I wrote earlier, we do recognize Orthodox Canon Law as being applicable (legally binding and loosing) on Orthodox persons. This is a general principle in Catholic canon law which is a matter of practice that no one who deals with canon law disagrees. It’s accepted as a given.

We recognize it as they apply it. Russian Church law applies to Russians, Greek law to Greek, etc. And as far as what laws they use, they decide for themselves. So if the Coptic Orthodox decide that a canon of a later council overturns a canon of an earlier one, we accept their interpretation. The key phrases are “as it applies to them” and “as they interpret their own laws.”

An example is Orthodox Marriage laws. We recognize as being licit whatever marriages the Orthodox would say are licit, and if their canons say something is illicit, we do likewise. Again, though, the one exception is 2nd marriages.

I can give you a few examples.

I know just from experience and training that we recognize their laws as applicable to them. I will look for something more substantial and get back to you.

Can. 1015 §1. Each person is to be ordained to the presbyterate or the diaconate by his proper bishop or with legitimate dimissorial letters from him

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1383 A bishop who, contrary to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1015, ordains without legitimate dimissorial letters someone who is not his subject is prohibited for a year from conferring the order. The person who has received the ordination, however, is ipso facto suspended from the order received.

How can a schismatic bishop licitly ordain valid priests?

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Can you substantiate this? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but, recognizing their Orders is not immanently synonymous with them actually being licit, i.e. being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Am I missing something?

I think you’re confusing 2 different ideas.

The liciety of a Sacrament is not about whether-or-not a person or community is in Communion with Rome. It’s about whether or not an act is in harmony with the law. They are 2 different issues.

Of course it is! Hence, the distinction between valid and licit.

 

[FrDavid96]

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

How can a schismatic bishop licitly ordain valid priests?

This is why one needs to be familiar with all of canon law.

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

Since Orthodox bishops are not members of the Latin Church, the entire 1983 Code of Canon Law does not apply to them. Therefore, canon 1382 does not apply to them.

(some obscure exceptions not germane to the topic)

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.

How can a schismatic bishop licitly ordain valid priests?

This is why one needs to be familiar with all of canon law.

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

Since Orthodox bishops are not members of the Latin Church, the entire 1983 Code of Canon Law does not apply to them. Therefore, canon 1382 does not apply to them.

(some obscure exceptions not germane to the topic)

Eastern Catholic bishops are not members of the Latin Church, but since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, their Orders are valid and licit.

 

[FrDavid96]

@AugustTherese

Look at it this way:

You’re probably familiar with the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Churches to be true Churches, and not ecclesial communities, right?

I mean, I can link to the documents, but is that necessary? I am pretty sure you already know this to be true.

Think about what that phrase means “true Churches”…

Now, if they are true Churches, does it not necessarily follow that they would have their own laws?

When speaking of Catholic Churches with that capital “C” we mean not local parishes, but Churches, or as we also say Churches sui iuris. Sui iuris=self law or able to govern themselves.

So if we say that the Coptic Orthodox Church is (to use a Catholic label) in reality the Coptic Orthodox Church, sui iuris we are affirming that they govern themselves; which is another way of saying they have their own canon law.

Since we recognize the fact that they have their own law, surely logic requires that we recognize that such law has force. Hence, when they follow their laws, they act licitly.

 

[FrDavid96]

Eastern Catholic bishops are not members of the Latin Church, but since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, their Orders are valid and licit.

No.

You don’t understand what the word “illicit” means.

It means that something is done contrary to the law.

In order for that phrase to be applied, one must first ask “which law binds the person or situation?”

You are confusing 2 different ideas.

Communion with Rome is NOT the same thing as licit. Nor is being outside of Communion the same thing as illicit.

They are 2 different concepts.

 

[FrDavid96]

Eastern Catholic bishops are not members of the Latin Church, but since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, their Orders are valid and licit.

Eastern Catholic bishops are not bound by the 1983 Latin Code of Canon Law.

They are bound by the 1990 Eastern Code (CCOE)

Canon 1382 means nothing to an Eastern Catholic Bishop.

Instead, an Eastern Bishop is bound by the equivalent canon in the Eastern Code (CCOE). Which I don’t remember offhand.

The canon is completely different.

Eastern Bishops in their own territory can indeed ordain new bishops both validly and licitly without papal mandate, so long as they follow the canons of their own Church (which usually means Patriarchal or Synodal mandate instead)

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Eastern Catholic bishops are not members of the Latin Church, but since they are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, their Orders are valid and licit.

No.

You don’t understand what the word “illicit” means.

It means that something is done contrary to the law.

In order for that phrase to be applied, one must first ask “which law binds the person or situation?”

You are confusing 2 different ideas.

Communion with Rome is NOT the same thing as licit. Nor is being outside of Communion the same thing as illicit.

They are 2 different concepts.

I do understand. Breaking off of full communion with the Bishop of Rome, regardless of maintaining Apostolic succession, viz. a schismatic, is contrary to ecclesial law whether or not you are currently bound to it or not. Unbinding yourself through schism does not nullify the illicit nature of sacramental power simply because you are now bound to the ecclesial law of your new schismatic church.

Sure, we recognize that they profess to be bound to their canon law and their Orders are licit inasmuch as they follow their own ecclesial law; but, that does not make it licit in the sense of implementing the rite of Holy Orders in the proper and lawful way Our Blessed Lord instituted and transmitted to Holy See.

 

[AugustTherese]

You don’t understand what the word “illicit” means.

It means that something is done contrary to the law.

Are you suggesting that a schismatic bishop licitly ordains a priest simply because he is following his schismatic canon law?

 

[FrDavid96]

Are you suggesting that a schismatic bishop licitly ordains a priest simply because he is following his schismatic canon law?

I am saying that you don’t understand what the word "illicit’ means.

And quite frankly, the answer to your last question is “yes.” That’s exactly what I am saying.

It is, more importantly, exactly how the Catholic Church views such a situation. Orthodox bishops validly and licitly ordain their own subjects when they adhere to their own canon law.

 

[FrDavid96]

Are you suggesting that a schismatic bishop licitly ordains a priest simply because he is following his schismatic canon law?

Have you ever studied canon law?

Are you basing your posts on any kind of formal education in canon law?

I assure you that I am.