Validity of Protestant Holy Orders

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

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.

The first EO bishops that broke away from the Catholic Church in 1054AD, when they ordained the first EO priests, was that licit?

 

[commenter]

Orthodox bishops validly and licitly ordain their own subjects when they adhere to their own canon law.

I understand how the Orthodox validly and licitly ordain. What about the appointment of the “Ordinary” of a “diocese”? Certainly the RCC recognizes Bishop John, who is EO, as a valid bishop, but would they recognize him as the Ordinary of the Diocese of Balkan City? Even if there is an Eastern Catholic ordinary of someplace called, um, the Diocese of Balkan City, with its own parishes, its own ordinary’s chair?

I realize the RCC applies EO canon law, as the only one relating to EO members, but doesn’t the Church consider the Catholic ordinary as a kind of shepherd or pastor for all persons (Catholic, other Christian, even other persons) in Balkan City? Does the RCC recognize 2 dioceses of Balkan City?

I could muddy the waters by bringing up the PNCC, which I think also has valid bishops but not necessarily “valid” ordinaries or dioceses in Rome’s view, but I won’t bring up that topic, due to my charism of simplicity. I am guessing the PNCC bishops would be regarded as valid bishops currently without a “valid” diocese. I suspect their parishes would be not recognized as “parishes” by our local RCC, which certainly recognizes EO parishes.

 

[FrDavid96]

The first EO bishops that broke away from the Catholic Church in 1054AD, when they ordained the first EO priests, was that licit?

Quite frankly, yes.

It’s “yes” even if you don’t particularly like the answer.

As I keep saying (over and over again) the Orthodox are bound by their own set of Canon Law. When they follow that law, they act licitly.

Communion with Rome and liciety are two different things.

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Canon Law as being legally binding on members of their own Churches. That’s a fact. That fact will not change no how many rhetorical questions starting “are you saying that…?” you might post.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

The first EO bishops that broke away from the Catholic Church in 1054AD, when they ordained the first EO priests, was that licit?

Quite frankly, yes.

It’s “yes” even if you don’t particularly like the answer.

As I keep saying (over and over again) the Orthodox are bound by their own set of Canon Law. When they follow that law, they act licitly.

Communion with Rome and liciety are two different things.

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Canon Law as being legally binding on members of their own Churches. That’s a fact. That fact will not change no how many rhetorical questions starting “are you saying that…?” you might post.

So, you’re telling me they are licit solely because they got their authority from their own ecclesial law?

Are you an Orthodox priest?

 

[FrDavid96]

I understand how the Orthodox validly and licitly ordain. What about the appointment of the “Ordinary” of a “diocese”? Certainly the RCC recognizes Bishop John, who is EO, as a valid bishop, but would they recognize him as the Ordinary of the Diocese of Balkan City? Even if there is an Eastern Catholic ordinary of someplace called, um, the Diocese of Balkan City, with its own parishes, its own ordinary’s chair?

This is more a matter of church politics. That’s not hypothetical either. There are plenty of real life examples of exactly what you typed.

The response is to be charitable. Would say that he is the “bishop of X for the Orthodox” or something similar.

Interestingly, there is a “bishop of Pittsburgh” for the Latin Rite and a “Metropolitan Archbishop of Pittsburgh” for the Ruthenian Catholics.

For practical purposes, to distinguish between the 2 sees, adjectives are sometimes added, such as “Diocese of XYZ for the Malabars” or something similar. Sometimes the See is named after a saint rather than being formally named after the city.

I realize the RCC applies EO canon law, as the only one relating to EO members, but doesn’t the Church consider the Catholic ordinary as a kind of shepherd or pastor for all persons (Catholic, other Christian, even other persons) in Balkan City?

Not necessarily. If such persons already have their own pastor, then he is not considered their pastor. For those who have none, yes.

Does the RCC recognize 2 dioceses of Balkan City?

In your hypothetical, yes. Again, there are concrete examples of exactly that. See Pittsburgh.
There are quite a number of other concrete examples, where one city has both a Catholic and an Orthodox bishop.

I could muddy the waters by bringing up the PNCC, which I think also has valid bishops but not necessarily “valid” ordinaries or dioceses in Rome’s view, but I won’t bring up that topic, due to my charism of simplicity. I am guessing the PNCC bishops would be regarded as valid bishops currently without a “valid” diocese. I am sure their parishes would be not recognized as “parishes” by our local RCC.

That gets complicated. Now that they have begun attempted ordinations of women, their ordinations can no longer be considered valid without further investigation. We still allow them to receive Communion, but that does not go both ways.

 

[FrDavid96]

So, you’re telling me they are licit solely because they got their authority from their own ecclesial law?

YES. YES. YES.

That is what the word “licit” means. Look it up in a dictionary, would you please, already.

How many times do I have to type out the same thing???

It is not only I who say it. The Catholic Church says it.

I know you don’t like it. I get that. I can see it quite clearly.

Frankly, whether you like it or not makes no difference. It is what it is.

I don’t care if you like it. Deal with it.

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Canon Law as it applies to them.
Nothing you write here is going to change that.

Are you an Orthodox priest?

No.

What is the point of the question other than to attack me personally? Whether I am Catholic or Orthodox won’t change the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Canon Law as it applies to them.

I am trying to tell you that you do not understand the vocabulary and you do not understand how the Catholic Church acts in this regard.

Will you please, please stop asking rhetorical questions like “are you saying that…?” because it is annoying. If you have something to say, please say it. But using questions as a way of putting words into my mouth and making it seem as if I’m saying something different is quite annoying. It’s especially annoying because your characterizations of what I am saying are actually doing nothing more than repeating the position of the Catholic Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

It is not only I who say it. The Catholic Church says it.

Where? Can you substantiate this?

 

[FrDavid96]

Where? Can you substantiate this?

Absolutely

1. Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

Vatican II
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

Where? Can you substantiate this?

Absolutely

1. Already from the earliest times the Eastern Churches followed their own forms of ecclesiastical law and custom, which were sanctioned by the approval of the Fathers of the Church, of synods, and even of ecumenical councils. Far from being an obstacle to the Church’s unity, a certain diversity of customs and observances only adds to her splendor, and is of great help in carrying out her mission, as has already been stated. To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls. The perfect observance of this traditional principle not always indeed carried out in practice, is one of the essential prerequisites for any restoration of unity.

Vatican II
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Wow, I have never read this. Thanks for sharing this! Why have I been taught and told otherwise?

Seriously, why do most proclaim that the EO sacraments are valid but illicit, and no one rebukes it?

 

[Thom18]

You misunderstand. It only assumes that the Catholic Church we have today is the same Catholic Church that they split from. I’m only speaking about the period immediately prior to the Reformation when I say that the Catholic Church pre-dates them. My argument leaves open the possibility that the Church was corrupted some time before.

Anyways, if that was the case, I asked them, how could they have valid holy orders when such drastic heresy/schism/whatever occurred before their time?

 

[BlackFriar]

Not sure what you are saying sorry.

 

[AugustTherese]

FrDavid96:
ST.THOMAS AQUINAS (Doctor of the Church): SUMMA, THEOLOGICA PART 3, QUESTION 82

Article 7. Whether heretics, schismatics, and excommunicated persons can consecrate?

I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

Reply to Objection 1. Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (Question 80, Article 3), that the sinner receives Christ’s body sacramentally, but not spiritually.

Reply to Objection 2. Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the power of order, he consecrates Christ’s true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy.

Care to comment?

 

[commenter]

ST.THOMAS AQUINAS (Doctor of the Church):
I answer that, Some have contended that heretics, schismatics, and the excommunicate, who are outside the pale of the Church, cannot perform this sacrament. But herein they are deceived, because, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), “it is one thing to lack something utterly, and another to have it improperly”; and in like fashion, “it is one thing not to bestow, and quite another to bestow, but not rightly.” Accordingly, such as, being within the Church, received the power of consecrating the Eucharist through being ordained to the priesthood, have such power rightly indeed; but they use it improperly if afterwards they be separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication. But such as are ordained while separated from the Church, have neither the power rightly, nor do they use it rightly. But that in both cases they have the power, is clear from what Augustine says (Contra Parmen. ii), that when they return to the unity of the Church, they are not re-ordained, but are received in their orders. And since the consecration of the Eucharist is an act which follows the power of order, such persons as are separated from the Church by heresy, schism, or excommunication, can indeed consecrate the Eucharist, which on being consecrated by them contains Christ’s true body and blood; but they act wrongly, and sin by doing so; and in consequence they do not receive the fruit of the sacrifice, which is a spiritual sacrifice.

Reply to Objection 1. Such and similar authorities are to be understood in this sense, that the sacrifice is offered wrongly outside the Church. Hence outside the Church there can be no spiritual sacrifice that is a true sacrifice with the truth of its fruit, although it be a true sacrifice with the truth of the sacrament; thus it was stated above (Question 80, Article 3), that the sinner receives Christ’s body sacramentally, but not spiritually.

Reply to Objection 2. Baptism alone is allowed to be conferred by heretics, and schismatics, because they can lawfully baptize in case of necessity; but in no case can they lawfully consecrate the Eucharist, or confer the other sacraments.

Reply to Objection 3. The priest, in reciting the prayers of the mass, speaks instead of the Church, in whose unity he remains; but in consecrating the sacrament he speaks as in the person of Christ, Whose place he holds by the power of his orders. Consequently, if a priest severed from the unity of the Church celebrates mass, not having lost the power of order, he consecrates Christ’s true body and blood; but because he is severed from the unity of the Church, his prayers have no efficacy.

Care to comment?

Vatican II is more authoritative than St. Thomas Aquinas. Of course, his works were consulted during the Council, along with other things. You might disagree with the Catholic Church on this, but I think the thread seems to be asking what is the Church’s official position.

Are you saying the Vatican II reference is not relevant to this thread?

 

[FrDavid96]

Care to comment?

Yes.

The simple fact is that you do not know what you’re writing about. It is that simple.

I have had years of training and decades of experience in applying the laws of the Church. I know what I’m saying.

On the other hand, you are basing your comments on little more than what you read on CAF and what you can find by doing internet searches for key terms–without understanding it.

I can assure that everyone who works with church laws, especially in matters where Catholic and Orthodox laws apply to a given situation,
the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy and legality (the licitness) of Orthodox Church Law.
as it applies to them, and as they interpret/apply the law (except for 2nd marriage).

This is a FACT. It is not a matter of opinion. It is not something subject to debate.

You don’t like it. I don’t care if you like it or not.

You don’t seem to understand that point. Nothing you write here can change that fact. The Church recognizes Orthodox laws. Deal with it.

If you were to try to argue that the United States does not recognize the legality of Canadian law as it pertains to Canadian citizens within Canada, I would say that you are wrong. It would not matter what you think, you would still be wrong. It is not a topic that is debatable.

 

[AugustTherese]

The simple fact is that you do not know what you’re writing about. It is that simple.

Is that how you reply to Saint Thomas Aquinas? Your ad hominem intrinsically discredits your “years of training and decades of experience in applying the laws of the Church”.

I have had years of training and decades of experience in applying the laws of the Church. I know what I’m saying.

Is this an attempt to make your claim carry more weight? Supplying personal experience, viz. anecdotal evidence, presumes your training might have been inadequate; even if you complement it with an obscure passage from Vatican II that says nothing about schismatic Churches having legal authorization/permission to administer Sacraments.

On the other hand, you are basing your comments on little more than what you read on CAF and what you can find by doing internet searches for key terms–without understanding it.

That is the most overly-presumptuous retort I have received on “CAF”. You claim to know how much or little I know, and precisely how I know it because I asked you questions on this thread?! You see, your presumptions are self-indicative of how you are truly dealing with the fact that schismatic Churches illicitly administer their sacraments. Having decades of training and experience is irrelevant. Also, your stark abrasiveness and insolence in your wording is also self-indicative of what you know to be true; hence why you keep saying “you do not know what you’re writing about. It is that simple”.

I can assure that everyone who works with church laws, especially in matters where Catholic and Orthodox laws apply to a given situation,
the Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy and legality (the licitness) of Orthodox Church Law.
as it applies to them, and as they interpret/apply the law (except for 2nd marriage).

This is an unsubstantiated claim and it begs the question. The Catholic Church does not recognize the “legality” of any schismatic Church and its Sacraments. If She did, it would undermine and downgrade the seriousness of breaking off with the Church Christ founded.

If you were to try to argue that the United States does not recognize the legality of Canadian law as it pertains to Canadian citizens within Canada, I would say that you are wrong.

No offense, but this is a remarkably horrible non sequitur analogy. Canada and Canadian law do not receive authority from the United States and most certainly does not derive its judicial power from the US. Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, or any other Church! Any Church that sustains valid sacraments is only because of the authority of the Catholic Church. However, anything done outside of Her and without Her authority and permission, i.e. the Orthodox Church, is ILLICIT, unlawful.

 

[AugustTherese]

Are you saying the Vatican II reference is not relevant to this thread?

Sure, when quoted and used in the proper context. Are you saying that Vatican II is “more authoritative than” the Ecumenical Council of Florence:

"Finally, how indivisible is the sacrament of unity! How bereft of hope, and how punished by God’s indignation with the direst loss, are those who produce schism and, abandoning the true spouse of the church, set up a pseudo-bishop! Divine scripture declares this in the book of Kings, which says that when ten tribes had separated themselves from the tribe of Judah and Benjamin and abandoned their king, setting up for themselves another king: the Lord was indignant with all the descendants of Israel and gave them over to destruction till he cast them away from his face. It says that the Lord was indignant and gave over to destruction those who split off from unity and set up for themselves another king. Indeed, so great was the wrath of God against those who had brought about a schism that even when the man of God had been sent to Jeroboam to reprove his sins and to predict a future vengeance, the man of God was forbidden to eat bread with them or to drink water and when he did not obey this order of the Lord and dined, straightaway the divine retribution struck him and he was killed by a lion on his return journey. Hence, as blessed Jerome declares, nobody should doubt that the crime of schism is very wicked since it is avenged so severely.

It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church." ?

 

[FrDavid96]

Is that how you reply to Saint Thomas Aquinas? Your ad hominem intrinsically discredits your “years of training and decades of experience in applying the laws of the Church”.

Is this an attempt to make your claim carry more weight? Supplying personal experience, viz. anecdotal evidence, presumes your training might have been inadequate; even if you complement it with an obscure passage from Vatican II that says nothing about schismatic Churches having legal authorization/permission to administer Sacraments.

That is the most overly-presumptuous retort I have received on “CAF”. You claim to know how much or little I know, and precisely how I know it because I asked you questions on this thread?! You see, your presumptions are self-indicative of how you are truly dealing with the fact that schismatic Churches illicitly administer their sacraments. Having decades of training and experience is irrelevant. Also, your stark abrasiveness and insolence in your wording is also self-indicative of what you know to be true; hence why you keep saying “you do not know what you’re writing about. It is that simple”.

This is an unsubstantiated claim and it begs the question. The Catholic Church does not recognize the “legality” of any schismatic Church and its Sacraments. If She did, it would undermine and downgrade the seriousness of breaking off with the Church Christ founded.

No offense, but this is a remarkably horrible non sequitur analogy. Canada and Canadian law do not receive authority from the United States and most certainly does not derive its judicial power from the US. Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church, or any other Church! Any Church that sustains valid sacraments is only because of the authority of the Catholic Church. However, anything done outside of Her and without Her authority and permission, i.e. the Orthodox Church, is ILLICIT, unlawful.

You have no idea what you are writing about. That much is plain from your posts. You know nothing about this particular issue of how the Catholic Church regards Orthodox church laws.

Whether you like it or not, this is a fact:
The Catholic Church recognizes the legality (liciety or licitness) of Orthodox Church Laws as it applies to them.

You can like it or not, it makes no difference.

That is the point you’re not seeing. This is not something for you to decide on your own. It is a fact that describes how the Catholic Church operates.

As I’ve said before, I don’t care if you like it. That won’t change things.

 

[AugustTherese]

You have no idea what you are writing about. That much is plain from your posts. You know nothing about this particular issue of how the Catholic Church regards Orthodox church laws.

Whether you like it or not, this is a fact:
The Catholic Church recognizes the legality (liciety or licitness) of Orthodox Church Laws as it applies to them.

You can like it or not, it makes no difference.

That is the point you’re not seeing. This is not something for you to decide on your own. It is a fact that describes how the Catholic Church operates.

As I’ve said before, I don’t care if you like it. That won’t change things.

No, what I do not “like” is people lording over others with their pomp and “years of experience and training” pretending to convict themselves of what they presume to know without substantiating anything.

 

[FrDavid96]

No, what I do not “like” is people lording over others with their pomp and “years of experience and training” pretending to convict themselves of what they presume to know without substantiating anything.

This is not something that ANYONE who has ANY competence in the subject matter disputes. It is a fact accepted by every single person who knows anything at all about canon law.

Whether you like it or not makes no difference–that’s the point you just refuse to see.

It is a fact. It is not a matter of opinion or even interpretation.

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Church laws as it applies to them.

 

[AugustTherese]

This is not something that ANYONE who has ANY competence in the subject matter disputes. It is a fact accepted by every single person who knows anything at all about canon law.

Whether you like it or not makes no difference–that’s the point you just refuse to see.

It is a fact. It is not a matter of opinion or even interpretation.

The Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Church laws as it applies to them.

Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church and outside of Her they are done illicitly without the permission of the Church. Regardless of the Catholic Church and what She recognizes as it applies to schismatics, heretics, and apostates; it does not change the fact of what She promulgates as unlawful without Her permission and authority.