ELCA Apostolic succession

No, the hotheads are wrong...lol! Since no other EO has stepped in to defend RC orders I will. I'm EO, and yes, the Church does accept that RC priests and Bishops are really priests and Bishops with Apostolic Succession. We also accept the Bishop of Rome, ie: the Pope of Rome, as being the Successor of St. Peter's See in Rome, and indeed he is, and would be, if we were reunited the "first among equals". The confusion comes in because the East doesn't look at the question of "validity" in precisely the same way as Western Christianity does, and so often times some EO will say things like "Rome doesn't have valid orders"....partly because the concept of "validity" and so forth is a bit different. As one of the other posters on here said, it's valid in as far as the Church they take place in are orthodox in faith. Since Rome isn't orthodox (in the EO view) then they aren't "valid", but by valid we're actually meaning something entirely different than what Rome means.

I can prove this when for example a Catholic priest becomes Orthodox (and it has happened) they are not normally ordained/reordained....in fact I don't know of ANY that have ever been re-ordained. Indeed, if we were to be reunited, the Orthodox Church would not ask all priests and Bishops of the Roman See to be ordained, we would simply accept them because they already have Apostolic Succession. However when Protestant ministers, Lutherans and I believe Anglican priests become Orthodox, they must be ordained. So we do see Rome as "closer" to us than all other Christian traditions.

There is a tendency among some EO to have an all or nothing approach, especially in certain circles, which are prominent on the Net, hence you'll hear "debates" about whether Rome has any grace at all similar to some of the ultra-traditionalist Latin Catholics. (outside the Church there is no Salvation types) The Net is a breeding ground for these people to push their agenda, however like the RCC, the EO Church's official stance does not line up with these ultra Fundies, and rightly so.

Regardless of any arguments an EO gives you, when push comes to shove, the consensus and voice of the Church has always said Rome is part of the Church, albeit in schism. Very few priests and even fewer Bishops have (when cornered) said that Rome is "heretical" even though you'll hear that by all kinds of laymen, and writers who have nothing better to do than to point out every elses faults.

With EO doctrine and belief, the proof is always on the ground and practical level, and here it is: in certain circumstances EO may take Communion in a Catholic Church if the need is serious enough, (no EO priest, or Church, death bed, etc) or if an EO is isolated by extreme circumstances. We certainly aren't as open as Rome is with accepting us in their communion, but it does happen. Now no EO can argue, "yeah but those are exceptions we still don't believe they are valid"....if someone asks that, then ask then, can an EO on his death bed take Communion from a Methodist Church, or even a Lutheran Church? The answer under ANY condition is always NO...the reason, Apostolic Succession has been broken, AND the faith is far too different. The EO is much closer to Rome than many EO like to admit, but again, when push comes to shove, we're really not that different. Different enough to keep us a part, but the issue of Apostolic Succession is simply not one of these differences as far as I'm concerned.

This is a very interesting question, but in practice it would be a rare thing. Maybe you could look into it and see if it can be nailed down for certain, one way or the other.

However, I have the feeling at this time that you are mistaken about this. I think that there are cases of ministers being received into episcopal churches from non-Apostolic ones, without re-ordination, and then ultimately being consecrated a bishop. To be sure, there are some Apostolic churches where that could not happen, but is it true of all of them......?????

This is a good post, but not entirely accurate.

First of all, many Catholic priests who convert to Orthodoxy are rechrismated and reordained. Offhand, I can think of numerous examples and this is the common practice in many Orthodox Churches. Other places receive Catholic priests by confession and vesting.

"yes, the Church does accept that RC priests and Bishops are really priests and Bishops with Apostolic Succession."

You will have trouble finding any Church Fathers to support that view, but I suppose a lot hinges on what you mean by "really" and "Apostolic Succession."

Many groups have "Apostolic Succession" in the sense of a literal chain of men laying hands on the head of men going back to the Holy Apostles. If that's what you mean by the term, then lots of people have that. However, the ministries of bishop, priest, and deacon are ministries within the Church, not outside of Her.

Apostolic Succession isn't some sort of viral contagion that passes on to anyone who is touched by someone that has it. It's integral to the grace-filled life of the Church of Christ and goes hand-in-hand with Apostolic Faith, of which there is, and can be, only one.

"the Pope of Rome, as being the Successor of St. Peter's See in Rome, and indeed he is, and would be, if we were reunited the "first among equals""

This is incorrect. The Pope of Rome is not currently the first among equals within the Orthodoxy Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople is. We don't recognize the pope as currently having any position within the Church at all. If the Roman Patriarchate was to be reunited to the Church, it is likely that Roman would get the highest place in the diptychs, but by no means a given. That would be decided by the council that would bring about the reunion.

"Indeed, if we were to be reunited, the Orthodox Church would not ask all priests and Bishops of the Roman See to be ordained, we would simply accept them because they already have Apostolic Succession"

It's true that in the case of reunion, Roman clergy would almost certainly not be reordained, but that isn't because of any sort of recognition of the validity of their orders. It has far more to do with the principle of economia laid out in St. Basil's 1st Canon, whereby as long as the outer shell (ie the proper form of baptism or Apostolic Succession) is present, that shell can be filled with grace when one is joined to the Church.

We don't tend to work with the same categories of validity and licitness that the Catholics do. It's a different paradigm. Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky writes on this issues in terms of the (possible) reception of Anglican clergy in their orders. It's a good article. I'll find the link.

"So we do see Rome as "closer" to us than all other Christian traditions."

I would say that we see the Oriental Orthodox as being much closer than the Catholics and we certainly have, practically speaking, a much healthier dialogue and working relationship with them.

"Regardless of any arguments an EO gives you, when push comes to shove, the consensus and voice of the Church has always said Rome is part of the Church, albeit in schism."

The Church is one. It is not true that the consensus of the Church has always been that Rome is part of the Church. In fact, since not long after the Schism, the consensus was the opposite. See the writings of Patriarch Theodore in the 1190s on the issue, as well as numerous saints and fathers. If Rome were part of the Church, there would be no need for Catholics to convert to Orthodoxy, and yet the Church has, since the schism, received Catholics as heretics, sometimes baptizing, sometimes chrismating, and sometimes receiving by confession, but almost always by making them first renounce specific teachings, deemed to be heretical.

"in certain circumstances EO may take Communion in a Catholic Church if the need is serious enough, (no EO priest, or Church, death bed, etc) or if an EO is isolated by extreme circumstances"

That is an allowance made by a few bishops and roundedly condemned by many bishops throughout the Orthodox world and it only applies to someone on their death bed. Most bishops don't allow that in any circumstances. I know my bishop would not let me take communion in a Catholic Church under any circumstances and the canons themselves forbid taking communion from schismatics or heretics under any circumstances, even at the point of death. Surely the canons are a more trustworthy source for Orthodox practice than a very recent allowance by a few isolated bishops?

That having been said, we do have a lot in common with Rome in a number of areas, just like we did with various groups throughout history, like the Donatists, the Novatianists, the Monothelites, etc. Those areas of commonality should give us reason to hope. However, the only possible reunion is, and always has been, within the same Apostolic Faith.

Grace and peace,
Sbn John

The position espoused in this reply seems kind of Donatist to me. The Sacraments in these other churches aren't valid because the Bishop performing them is in Schism, what if he's just in Heresy? What if in a state of mortal sin?


It is Christ who performs the sacraments no?

The position espoused in this reply seems kind of Donatist to me. The Sacraments in these other churches aren't valid because the Bishop performing them is in Schism, what if he's just in Heresy? What if in a state of mortal sin?


It is Christ who performs the sacraments no?

So do EO not believe that Holy Orders are indellible? Is this a specifically western idea?