Validity of Protestant Holy Orders

[AugustTherese]

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

To say this to mean that the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church are lawful is a non sequitur. If a Roman Catholic Bishop were to take your advice and start his own Church without the authority of the Catholic Church, and deem it as licit, is completely absurd and nonsensical.

 

[FrDavid96]

Sacraments belong to the Catholic Church and outside of Her they are done illicitly without the permission of the Church.

PROVES ONLY that you have no idea of the definitions of the words you are using. No idea.
You need to pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of the word “licit.”

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.

Again, you express nothing other than your own ignorance of the subject matter.

The Catholic Church does not say that the Orthodox Churches act unlawfully when they apply their own laws.
You have NO IDEA what you’re writing.

The Catholic Church does recognize Orthodox Church Laws as they pertain to the Orthodox. This happens every single day.

 

[AugustTherese]

@FrDavid96

Goodbye, FrDavid96. May God bless and love you!

 

[FrDavid96]

To say this to mean that the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church are lawful is a non sequitur. If a Roman Catholic Bishop were to take your advice and start his own Church without the authority of the Catholic Church, and deem it as licit, is completely absurd and nonsensical.

Each time you reply you prove that you are completely and entirely ignorant of the vocabulary you are using and of the subject matter itself.

Your false characterization of what I am saying does nothing but prove that you don’t understand the subject.

 

[poche]

Pope Leo XIII decreed that the Anglican orders are invaild.

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders - Papal Encyclicals

 

[FrDavid96]

Pope Leo XIII decreed that the Anglican orders are invaild.

Yes. Exactly.

The question is how to help the OP to explain (ultimately convince, though that’s a lofty goal) that to the friends.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is how you address an ordained member of the clergy?

That such behaviour is tolerated also speaks very very poorly of the new Catholic Answers Forum indeed

 

[AugustTherese]

This is how you address an ordained member of the clergy?

That such behaviour is tolerated also speaks very very poorly of the new Catholic Answers Forum indeed

Did I call or label him anything? No! What I did, was constructively rebuke him when he called me ignorant of the words that I used and stated that I had no idea of what I was talking about. These are abrasive remarks that should be rebuked!

You have no idea what you are writing about

Each time you reply you prove that you are completely and entirely ignorant of the vocabulary you are using and of the subject matter itself

 

[poche]

Many years ago I was asked to explain Catholic beliefs to a group of Protestants. I said “We believe in the Bible and Jesus is the center of what we are about.”
One woman, a Baptist, said, That sounds like what we believe. What is the difference?"
I then briefly explained the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin and what the sacraments are.
They had to hold one guy back. He was so offended that he wanted to hit me.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Rebuking any member of the clergy is not your prerogative since you are not ordained. That prerogative would rest with a member of the hierarchy who is above – not below – the cleric in question. This is in virtue of the ontological character possessed or by virtue of occupying, by appointment, an office that places the cleric in question under that officeholder’s jurisdiction, such as a curial official.

My priesthood aside, I would moreover add as an academic that you demonstrated across your posts that, indeed, you are not competent in the areas about which you were endeavoring to comment.

 

[AugustTherese]

Rebuking any member of the clergy is not your prerogative since you are not ordained. That prerogative would rest with a member of the hierarchy who is above – not below – the cleric in question. This is in virtue of the ontological character possessed or by virtue of occupying, by appointment, an office that places the cleric in question under that officeholder’s jurisdiction, such as a curial official.

You presume I am not ordained because…? Also, am I simply to assume you and/or @FrDavid96 are ordained because…? This is CAF, not a local parish; clergy, religious, and laity aside, when you post on these threads, by the guidelines and terms of CAF, I have every prerogative to not only defend my position, but to also rebuke anyone who calls me ignorant. Also, there are many “ordained” priests and pastors of various Churches and ecclesial communities on this forum; I assure you, I have every “prerogative” to rebuke any schismatic and/or heretical priest/pastor (as I would never dare personally label anyone with those terms or assume that you fall into this category) as constructively and with as much charity possible to attempt to spark true contrition to return to the Oneness of the Catholic Church.

My priesthood aside, I would moreover add as an academic that you demonstrated across your posts that, indeed, you are not competent in the areas about which you were endeavoring to comment.

Again, that is an unsubstantiated claim. Simply saying that I am not competent without showing exactly where and/or how I am incompetent seems to be the trend you now share with @FrDavid96. I have explicitly shown evidence from both an Ecumenical Council and Saint Thomas Aquinas that a schismatic Church’s sacrament of orders is valid, but illicit by the very fact that they perform this Sacrament without the permission and authorization of the Church to which this Sacrament belongs to; and that evidence was simply ignored and overlooked. All I have received in retort to that evidence was “you have no idea what you are writing about” and “you are ignorant”; those are ad hominems which intrinsically displays a glaring lack of charity and destroys any credibility.

Surely you remember that layperson about six centuries ago that rebuked the Holy Father to return to Rome with the words “open your mouth and swallow down the bitter for the sweet.” That was none other than Saint Catherine of Siena, a Doctor of the Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

You presume I am not ordained because…?
…

You are throwing words around without knowing their meaning, the very definitions of the words you use. That much is painfully obvious. That is not an ad-hominem attack; it a plain statement of fact.

You do it several times in this post alone. You delight in throwing out the words “schismatic” and “heretic.” Do you even know the canonical definitions of those words you are using?

Then you conclude by talking about “credibility.”

What is YOUR OWN CREDIBILITY?

What training have you had in canon law? Do you deal with Orthodox marriages on a regular basis? Myself (and I daresay the other priest) do indeed deal with Orthodox Canon Law when we deal with marriage situations—and that is in real-life, not posting on the internet.

I assure you, I absolutely assure you that anyone who is actually familiar with canon law can tell very quickly that based on your mis-use of words and your mis-interpretations of the most basic (yes most basic) principles of church laws that you do not understand the subject matter one bit.

What you do not know is that matters arise each and every day on the parish, diocesan, and even Holy See level which involve the Catholic Church applying Orthodox Church Laws (some of them prefer not to say “canon law”, some do use the term)

The Catholic practice is that we recognize the legality (licitness, liciety, authority, etc.) of Orthodox Canon Law as it applies to Orthodox persons. This happens probably hundreds of times a day, every day, worldwide. The only part of their laws we don’t recognize is as the pertain to 2nd marriage when the first spouse is living.

This is not something open to debate. It is not a matter of interpretation or opinion. It is a fact, plain and simple.

Your statements are on the same level as someone who claims that the Catholic Church does not use light bulbs. No, it’s not something I would have to “prove.” It is a given. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise.

I suppose I could take you to the Vatican offices that deal with Orthodox matters on a daily basis and show you the canonists and scholars and clergy actually applying Orthodox laws; starting with the Congregation for Eastern Churches. Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, it is a fact that this is the practice of the Catholic Church.

Were it not for the fact that they have other things to do, I would tell you to telephone the Congregation for Eastern Churches a the Vatican and simply ask them to settle the matter for you. Now, I have said it. I assure you, if you were to do that, they would confirm what I keep telling you.

 

[AugustTherese]

The Catholic practice is that we recognize the legality (licitness, liciety, authority, etc.) of Orthodox Canon Law as it applies to Orthodox persons.

Exactly, “as it applies to Orthodox persons”. What does that have to do with the objective reality that an Orthodox bishop ordaining a priest without the permission of the Catholic Church being illicit? You saying it is licit as it applies to Orthodox persons is relativity, not objectivity.

Also, I do not know what kind of priest you are, and it really doesn’t matter. But, your abrasive and condescending tone, as well as calling me ignorant, is a disgrace and a dishonor to the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. If someone is truly ignorant and sincerely does not know what they’re talking about, you don’t say that to them using those words; you gently and humbly correct them by pointing out exactly where they have erred and provide tangible evidence to correct their misunderstanding. You have done none of that! You keep attempting to insult my intelligence by claiming I do not know how to use words, what words really mean etc. The insolence in your choice of words is deplorable. You provide non sequitur analogies while spitting ad hominems. You keep repeating the exact same words without referencing anything of worth. If you are a Roman Catholic priest, I’d love to know the Bishop to whom you report. If you are not, then this all makes perfect sense.

 

[FrDavid96]

Exactly, “as it applies to Orthodox persons”. What does that have to do with the objective reality that an Orthodox bishop ordaining a priest without the permission of the Catholic Church being illicit? You saying it is licit as it applies to Orthodox persons is relativity, not objectivity.

It is NOT “illicit.” Once again, you are only proving that you do not understand the definition of the word that you are using.

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, when an Orthodox bishop ordains one of his own subjects to the priesthood, it is a PERFECTLY LICIT ORDINATION; unless Orthodox law itself holds otherwise.

I challenge you to even try to prove how such an ordination would be considered illicit by the Catholic Church.

And yes, laws are relative. Laws apply to those people for whom they were promulgated.
Since you are such a fan of St Thomas Aquinas, lookup what he has to say about this.

United States laws apply to U.S. citizens, and within that territory.
Canadian laws apply to Canadian citizens, and within that territory.
The 1983 Code of Canon Law applies ONLY to Catholics of the Latin Rite.
The 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches applies ONLY to Catholics of the Eastern Churches.

Thus, laws are relative. The 1983 Code has no force of law over Eastern Catholic laity or clergy; even though it does have force of law over Latin Catholics. In other words, it is relative. The law only applies relative to the persons in question.

Likewise, Orthodox Church laws are relative in that they apply to Orthodox persons and diocese and synods. Russian law applies to Russian Orthodox persons, diocese and synods. Greek law applies to Greek Orthodox persons, diocese and synods. Coptic law applies to Copts. Georgian law applies to Georgians.

In cases of marriages or an issue which involves parties from two or more codes of law, the laws workout which ones apply.

Of course laws are relative.

Anyone can read through this thread and see that I have indeed made every attempt to explain things to you.
Your accusation against me is false.

Only because you refuse to actually read what I am writing did this reach this point.

You keep attempting to insult my intelligence by claiming I do not know how to use words, …

I am not insulting your intelligence. I am pointing out the obvious fact that you are using words when you do not know the definitions of those words. In fact, you do that every time you post something.

If you do not know the definition of a term, how in the world do you think you can say that someone else is wrong? Someone who has genuine expertise in the field?

Do you go around telling doctors that they don’t know how the blood flows through the body?
Do you go around telling carpenters that they don’t know what a hammer is for?
Do you go around telling chemists that they don’t know how to read a periodic table?

 

[FrDavid96]

As a priest I deal with this sort of thing regularly. I handle pre-marriage investigations involving Orthodox persons. I handle petitions for declarations of nullity involving Orthodox persons. I might not have a “pending” file involving an Orthodox person sitting on my desk every day, but I still I deal with these situations constantly and I’ve been doing it for decades.

Yes, education and decades of experience actually do matter.

This is not a complicated matter. It is not a disputed matter. This is not a matter of interpretation, where some experts think one way, but others think differently.

It is far, far from being anything like it.

The Catholic Church has recognized the legitimacy of Orthodox Church Laws for centuries.

In no way, shape, or form, is this matter disputable or questionable. It is a plain fact of everyday life of the Catholic Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

@FrDavid96

Okay, you’re an expert. I am an “ignorant” layman who “doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.

Please, answer me this question:

Is it lawful, licit for a Roman Catholic Bishop to join the Orthodox Church and ordain priests?

 

[FrDavid96]

@FrDavid96

Okay, you’re an expert. I am an “ignorant” layman who “doesn’t know what he’s talking about”.

Please, answer me this question:

Is it lawful, licit for a Roman Catholic Bishop to join the Orthodox Church and ordain priests?

Because of the way that you phrased your question, such ordinations would be licit. (That is, assuming that the bishop follows all prescriptions of Orthodox Church Laws.)

At this point, I’m going to address a few words to the people out there who DO know how the law works: Don’t answer too quickly. Think about it. Really think about it. Look at the question. Take the time to think-through each and every event of the timeline of that question–each and every step. Yes, I have thought this through before responding.

You’re trying to trap me. I can see that quite plainly.

The problem is that you don’t understand what the law says.

You keep asking me questions thinking “if he says yes, now I’ve got him. Now I can accuse him of this-that-or-the-other.”

What you do not realize is that the actual canonical answers to your questions are exactly the opposite of what you expect them to be.

Your questions are based on your own misconception of how the law works, not the reality of how it works.

What’s next: will you ask me if it’s lawful to pay the tax to Caesar?

 

[AugustTherese]

You’re trying to trap me. I can see that quite plainly

For goodness’ sake, where do you get that impression?! I am asking a question in the most simple matter possible. If you want to accuse me of Pharisaical tendencies, then fine, answer in the way Our Lord answered when asked entrapping questions by the scribes. What I am having trouble wrapping my mind around is you are the only person, regardless how renowned in canon law you may be, that I have heard that Orthodox Sacraments are licit.

The problem is that you don’t understand what the law says.

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.

 

[AugustTherese]

Father,

I’m sorry for not addressing you as Father.

Please forgive me.

@FrDavid96

 

[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.

I will do this one-at-a-time, so as to avoid posts and replies merging into each other.

I will start here.

This is a quote from Vatican II

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

Please read the words and think about what they mean.

The words “power to govern themselves” is nothing more than another way of saying “the power to make their own laws.”

So Vatican II is teaching, quite clearly, and uses the words “solemnly declares” that the Orthodox (and in this context, Eastern Catholics as well) have the power to promulgate their own Church laws.