Knighthoods! Get Yer Knighthoods Right Here!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Rich Douglas, Dec 23, 2022.

Loading...
  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I see it as another example of the Roman Catholic theology splitting hairs. How can a communion possess the sound faith and all the means of Salvation down to all 7 Sacraments (this is what "having valid Priesthood" means) and not being part of "the Church"? To me, the split between the Catholic Church and all the other Apostolic Churches amounts to an administrative conflict; when the reunion is achieved (even if it'd need another 1000 years), it will be clear that the split was never complete. In the meantime, the administrative shenanigans hurt communion and could lead to individual people and the whole groups to fall out of the Church; we do not know when this happens, and it's ultimately futile to try to find this out.

    Put another way, the only way to enter the Kingdom is to be a part of The One Church, and the Catholic Church teaches definitely that people out of visible Communion can be saved. I'm sure you have seen Catholic with icons of eg. St. Seraphim of Sarov. Actually, the Orthodox Church does NOT teach this definitely (even while not denying this dogmatically), and there is enough schismatic discourse going around it to have some Orthodox going practically Chick Tracts on Catholics (and sometimes other Orthodox for the inanest reasons). This is why I kind of feel that the Catholic Church is the more reliable source of truth (with all due reverence towards all Orthodox clergy not under the Putin's Altar Boy).
     
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Thank you, I was not familiar with this intriguing idea.
     
    Messdiener likes this.
  3. Messdiener

    Messdiener Active Member

    Per Augustinian sacramental theology (popular with the Latin Church but still sort of present within Orthodoxy), valid Sacraments require three things: form, matter, and intent. When it comes to ordination of a priest or consecration of a bishop, these three would look something like this:
    • Form: Are the correct prayers used? This would be the formula provided and recognized by the entire Church.
    • Matter: Is a baptized Catholic/Orthodox man being ordained? Does he have the use of reason, comprehend what is going on, and has the free will to accept?
    • Intent: Does the ordaining/consecrating bishop have the intention to do what the Church wishes, to make a new priest/bishop for the service of the Church (to offer the holy liturgy, to celebrate and serve the other Sacraments, to minister to the people, etc.)?
    While it seems that the third condition may be open to question, theologians and canon lawyers over the centuries have said that, unless the first two conditions are missing (wrong form, wrong matter) and/or unless the ordaining bishop explicitly speaks out a different intention (for example, "I intend to ordain this man to the priesthood of Gaia, Our Mother the Earth"), then a priestly ordination or an episcopal consecration is considered valid. As long as the bishop follows the right form (prayers), has the right matter, and has not outwardly dissented from the teachings of the Church (on ordination, principally), then valid intent is assumed.

    In the case of Anglicanism, the Anglicans had changed their form (the prayers) and their teachings on the Mass, the priesthood, etc. (nature of the Mass, nature of the priesthood, etc.), so Augustinian sacramental theology would de facto assume that their ordinations and consecrations were invalid due to both a change of form and intent. In the last century, a lack of the third criterion (valid matter: a Catholic or Orthodox man) would also invalidate Anglican orders. So, from an apostolic Church perspective, the Anglicans have all three strikes.

    (Tangential note: some more polemical Orthodox thinkers would argue that literally no grace exists outside of Orthodoxy. So, even if you had form, matter, and intent, it would be irrelevant if the ordination took place outside of the Orthodox. Thankfully, this is not the majority position. For example, a number of Roman Catholic priests are routinely welcomed into the Russian or Greek Orthodox Churches without any re-baptism or re-ordination. On the rare occasions, some bishops do require this, and it has been a cause of major disagreements within Orthodoxy.)

    To play devil's advocate, should we simply accept the Protestant reformers position simply because...they were Protestant reformers? Why is there 'no question' that their view is correct?
     
    nosborne48 likes this.
  4. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Catholic priests celebrate the sacrament of Eucharist, the major point of which is the Real Presence. Anglicans do not believe in Real Presence (at least not all of them). There is merit in "the Roman argument".
     
    nosborne48 and Messdiener like this.
  5. Messdiener

    Messdiener Active Member

    This is the distinction between heresy vs schism, is it not? While the doctrine may largely be the same (ie both Latins and Orthodox are 'orthodox' in their theology), both sides would largely agree that there is a 'schism' (a breach in visible communion between the two parties). By definition, both sides will carry on doing what they have always done, pointing back to their mutual origins and recognizing themselves as the true continuation of the early Church. I think it's only natural.

    As to your latter points, I know the Latins in the post-Vatican II era have spoken of 'imperfect communion'. While not going so far as to recognize the Anglican Branch Theory, it would start to head in the direction you're speaking of. In the Middle East and elsewhere, I've seen and heard about a lot of openness on the part of Orthodox congregations and priests to working alongside the Roman Catholics, but I haven't heard any Orthodox theologians speaking about 'imperfect communion'. Time will tell if this line of thinking pans out in either the Orthodox or the Catholic worlds.

    Even if it does pan out for one Church, the other, or both, I don't think either side will go so far as to recognize some or any of the garage or basement 'bishops' that started off this whole discussion. While I do agree that valid apostolic succession should count for a great deal, it should not bind or obligate the Church at large to recognize some of these nutters who play Church at their mom's house. At some point, you have to draw the line somewhere, right?

    When you bring up examples like Saint Seraphim of Sarov (or we could even look at the various Syriac & Assyrian saints recognized in both the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches), it points to a divergence between dogma and historical realities. While both the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches would profess something akin to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation outside of the Church), they have lived out a very different reality over the centuries (as evidenced by the veneration of the saints mentioned above, grassroots examples of communion between various bodies and Churches, and so forth).

    While just a humble layman at this point, I have tended to interpret this discrepancy in this way:

    The dogma (EENS) points to the ordinary means of salvation that most are called to. They/we should be in communion with their visible Church, receive the Sacraments, follow the path of repentance and theosis. Yet, God is not constrained by this ordinary path and can still offer an extraordinary grace to whomsoever He wishes.​

    Again, I'm not a theologian, but I do sometimes play one on the internet. Regardless, hopefully this framework helps, at least in part, to make sense of these conflicting teachings & historical facts.
     
  6. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It is a very common rhetorical stance, and in the absence of a clear source of authority runs kinda amok in Orthodox circles. Frankly I'm sick of it; with all the grandeur of the Roman Church, their position is way more nuanced (and IMHO correct). This is why, even though I'm technically Orthodox, I see myself more Catholic these days.

    Also, the hypocrisy. The Russian Church routinely accepts Roman Catholic (supposedly "heretical") priests without re-ordination, yet it still routinely re-baptizes anyone baptized in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (or more often, refuses them Sacraments). This is screwed up.

    To be fair, Catholic practice in these matters does not always follow the clear-cut sacramentology. Rather famous example would be recognition of orders of the aforementioned Rene Vilatte. His Apostolic Succession is clear, but the Church would not declare his ordination valid - because in this case it would implicitly accept the Orders of manyof people he ordained, plus successors. Also, couple of the recent cases of Ukrainian bishops joining Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church from autocephalous jurisdictions. Apparently, Archbishop Yury (Yurchyk) was accepted as a Bishop but only permitted to function as a priest (which he does). Archbishop Ihor (Isichenko) led his splinter diocese of UAOC to UGCC and calls himself "Archbishop Emeritus", which everyone seem to accept - but I did not see the official word on his status anywhere. I smell Ostpolitik.

    No we should not. Frankly, the Reformers' theological positions seem to rest on them discovering that the Church did things obviously wrong for 1500 years, and no one noticed before said Reformers. This is not the case.
     
    Messdiener likes this.
  7. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I'm very much not a theologian. It just seems "obvious" to me that "real" "Church" exists in both communions (though I would not go so far as to recognize the Anglican Branch Theory).

    "Recognize" for what purposes though? Applying for a job in Roman Catholic Church? The hypothetical "nutter" would at a minimum convert, would he not? even valid clergymen are not guaranteed positions.

    I know what you're saying, but how do you accept ordination of say Salomão Barbosa Ferraz while definitely rejecting ordinations of mom's garage bishops (many of whom trace their succession to the same Dom Carlos Duarte Costa, or even to Costa and Ferraz)? In practice, the Church just refuses to answer on their Orders one way or another.

    Orthodox Church in Ukraine has an interesting problem along these lines. As a condition of recognition, Patriarch Filaret of UOC-KP was passed over in electing the new Metropolitan. He signed on to that plan and stepped down, but once the new Church got Her chapter, demanded a special status amounting to a de-facto leadership. And once the Synod rejected this (as being against the current Statute), he "re-established" UOC-KP (in reality, started a new schism) and proceeded to ordain a bunch of bishops (pretty much serving in little more than their mom's houses). The question becomes, how should OCU treat these people (ordained by a guy who is technically still an OCU Bishop, and who personally ordained a majority of OCU episcopate, including the Primate)? They are basically just ignored for now.

    Lex orandi, lex credendi.

    I'm very much not a theologian, but this sounds about right. Except God clearly chose to preserve the ordinary means of salvation in at least the more normal communities outside of communion with Rome. Along with the freedom for the people in these communities to muck it up by, eg., spreading the Russian World false teaching.
     
  8. Messdiener

    Messdiener Active Member

    I did follow several of the Ukrainian cases you mentioned, and it seems to me that:

    1. There are often discrepancies in how the Eastern Catholic Churches would wish to receive some of the mainstream and independent Orthodox bishops and priests and how Rome signs off on individual cases. For better or worse, this is the nature of the Unia.

    2. As a general principle, Rome seems to err on the side of caution when receiving non-Catholic clergy into communion with Herself. While orders may be recognized, offices may not be granted. This is particularly the case when the man in question is a former Catholic, who left for (easy?) ordination outside the proverbial fold.

    3. In both mainstream and independent (read: traditionalist) Orthodox circles, priests and bishops are often received far more easily. For example, the jurisdiction founder/hopper Archbishop Ramzi Musallam of the Catholic Church of the East was received into ROCOR and ordained a deacon (and maybe even a priest). He quickly left after receiving more recognized orders, was independent for some more years, was received again by some Old Calendarists and consecrated a bishop, and later went independent once again after having been made a 'more legitimate' bishop.

    Some years ago, I met an Eastern Catholic bishop at the funeral of the late Archbishop Vsevolod of Chicago. Said Catholic bishop later fielded a question of why God would allow both Catholics and Orthodox to co-exist. While I can't quote him exactly a decade and a half later, the gist was that, the Catholics see unity as God's plan and that God has willed both to work towards that end.
     
  9. Rachel83az

    Rachel83az Well-Known Member

    This is (mostly) an incorrect view of the Reformation, as I understand it.

    a.) There we're a lot of "heresies" or now-heretical branches of the church in the early years. As in, the first 500-ish years. They were wiped out by one means or another, but at least some of them had views that weren't too dissimilar from some post-Reformation churches. Some of them were really weird by modern standards, too. Very mixed bag of theologies.

    b.) The Reformation was largely started based on the premise that the church had lost its way in the past couple hundred years, not it's entire history. Indeed, I think that many, if not most, of Luther's complaints have since been adopted by the modern Catholic Church. I'd have to reread them and ask a Catholic to confirm.
     
  10. Messdiener

    Messdiener Active Member

    So just to clarify, the premise is that the Protestant reformers were reviving some of the teachings of groups originally labelled heretical in the first 500 years of Christianity? And somehow, after 1000 years, they were able to revive those teachings and practices, labelling them instead as the original, orthodox teachings of Christ and/or the early Church? I'm not sure I'm so convinced about that.

    As to modern Catholicism embracing Luther or Lutheran teachings, I'd be interested to hear more. I know there have been *dialogues* between Rome and various parties, but I haven't heard of any dogmatic changes on Rome's part.
     
  11. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to say that it's historically pretty certain that the English reformers wanted to end the idea of the priest re-offering the sacrifice not whether they were right or wrong. The latter question does not interest me.
     
  12. Messdiener

    Messdiener Active Member

    That could very well be, and I would imagine that the Anglican reformers did hold such a position. Yet, having said so...

    I would have to go back and re-read some liturgical history texts from years ago, but my understanding of the Western perspective is that their priests are not offering the Sacrifice again and again (ie crucifying Christ anew each and every time) but rather making present the eternal Sacrifice, joining themselves and their congregations to that moment.

    This has got me curious though, so I'll see if I can find some time to dig out some old books and articles. Should I find anything interesting, I'll post it here ... eventually.
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Well put. That used to be the nadir of the LP, but now, given the last year... ugh.
     
  14. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Messdiener likes this.

Share This Page