It is pointless for Lutherans to claim episcopal succession (Бессмысленно лютеранам заявлять о епископском преемстве)

[Nagomirov]

Is it? My admittedly relatively inexpert understanding of the Orthodox position is that they would reject, or at least wish to correct, a Catholic sacramentology.

We have the same doctrine of the sacraments, the same understanding of baptism, the same understanding of confirmation, the same understanding of the priesthood, marriage. Even the term "transubstantiation" is an analogue of the terms "transfiguration", "transformation". The meaning of these terms is the same, the same meaning.

 

[Nagomirov]

Is it? My admittedly relatively inexpert understanding of the Orthodox position is that they would reject, or at least wish to correct, a Catholic sacramentology.

Among the Orthodox, the priest and the layman (λαϊκός) are not sacramentally equal to each other, they are not sacramentally the same. Don't Catholics have the same understanding, the same thing? For Orthodox Christians, as for Catholics, the priesthood is a sacrament in which the grace of the priesthood is given for sacramental service. Catholic and Orthodox understandings are the same, because they are historical and traditional.

 

[Nagomirov]

Is it? My admittedly relatively inexpert understanding of the Orthodox position is that they would reject, or at least wish to correct, a Catholic sacramentology.

In traditional, historical Christianity, a priest carries out a sacerdotal ministry. He makes a Sacrifice of a propitiatory nature. The Eucharist is offered for the remission of sins, for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Paidiske]

We have the same doctrine of the sacraments, the same understanding of baptism, the same understanding of confirmation, the same understanding of the priesthood, marriage. Even the term "transubstantiation" is an analogue of the terms "transfiguration", "transformation". The meaning of these terms is the same, the same meaning.

Orthodox sources (such as this one: What are the Differences Between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? ) would beg to differ. This line is interesting: The Latins hold that the presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon of Christ."

What I was suggesting in my first post is that there may be more helpful ways of thinking of the difference between a priest and a lay person, than whether they are "sacramentally equal."

 

[Nagomirov]

Is it? My admittedly relatively inexpert understanding of the Orthodox position is that they would reject, or at least wish to correct, a Catholic sacramentology.

Please note that I am writing from Russia, I am Russian, we have an Orthodox culture, the church, but my understanding does not differ from the Catholic one, from the understanding of Rome. We also have Catholic churches, but there are few of them and there are few Catholics themselves, more Orthodox who belong to the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. We also have churches of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Russia. There is a temple of the Assyrian Church of the East in Moscow. There is a Coptic community in Moscow.

 

[Nagomirov]

Orthodox sources (such as this one: What are the Differences Between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? ) would beg to differ. This line is interesting: The Latins hold that the presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon of Christ."

What I was suggesting in my first post is that there may be more helpful ways of thinking of the difference between a priest and a lay person, than whether they are "sacramentally equal."

An action on behalf of Christ and a living icon of Christ are the same understanding, the same thing. The Orthodox priest wears robes, vestments, they symbolize historical things related to Christ. The meter, which is on the head, symbolizes the crown of thorns of Christ. The felony symbolizes the chlamydia that was put on Christ.

 

[Nagomirov]

Orthodox sources (such as this one: What are the Differences Between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? ) would beg to differ. This line is interesting: The Latins hold that the presbyter acts "in the person of Christ" when, in fact, he does no more than represent the bishop who is "the living icon of Christ."

What I was suggesting in my first post is that there may be more helpful ways of thinking of the difference between a priest and a lay person, than whether they are "sacramentally equal."

An Orthodox priest also serves, performs a service in persona Christi. Gabriel Bunge and Placida Desei, having converted to Orthodoxy, were ordained priests.

 

[Paidiske]

An action on behalf of Christ and a living icon of Christ are the same understanding, the same thing.

But that source is pointing out that it is, in Orthodox understanding, the bishop who is the living icon of Christ; not the priest.

The Orthodox would argue that the priest stands in persona ecclesiae, not in persona Christi.

 

[Nagomirov]

Among the Orthodox, in the Orthodox understanding, the priest performs sacerdotal service, sacerdotalism. Catholics have the same understanding of the priesthood, the same understanding.

 

[Paidiske]

Catholics have the same understanding of the priesthood, the same understanding.

And yet when I look at Orthodox sources, they say that in fact, you don't have the same understanding. So, I think it is not so straightforward.

 

[Nagomirov]

But that source is pointing out that it is, in Orthodox understanding, the bishop who is the living icon of Christ; not the priest.

The Orthodox would argue that the priest stands in persona ecclesiae, not in persona Christi.

A bishop is also a priest, the third degree of the priesthood. When the liturgy is celebrated by the bishop and the presbyter, they perform the same service, and they both perform it in the person of Christ when they serve separately from each other. A bishop or presbyter, if he himself directly performs the Eucharist, is himself the head of the Eucharist, then he performs it on behalf of Christ. I have a seminary education, I know better.

 

[Paidiske]

A bishop is also a priest, the third degree of the priesthood. When the liturgy is celebrated by the bishop and the presbyter, they perform the same service, and they both perform it in the person of Christ when they serve separately from each other. A bishop or presbyter, if he himself directly performs the Eucharist, is himself the head of the Eucharist, then he performs it on behalf of Christ. I have a seminary education, I know better.

But a priest (who is not a bishop) is not a bishop. They are not interchangeable.

And as I said, what you are articulating does not match the way the Orthodox would express this.

(I also have a seminary education. ).

 

[Nagomirov]

And yet when I look at Orthodox sources, they say that in fact, you don't have the same understanding. So, I think it is not so straightforward.

Whoever stands at the throne, who directly celebrates the Eucharist, does it on behalf of Christ. It may be a bishop, or it may be a presbyter. It depends on the liturgist. And as for the bishop, he is also a priest, he represents the third degree of the priesthood, the presbyter represents the second degree of the priesthood. The difference between a bishop and a presbyter is that he can perform ordination, plus, the bishop performs administrative service. Sacramentally, the bishop is superior to the presbyter only in the right of ordination, and administratively higher in that he is the overseer.

 

[Nagomirov]

But a priest (who is not a bishop) is not a bishop. They are not interchangeable.

And as I said, what you are articulating does not match the way the Orthodox would express this.

(I also have a seminary education. ).

Three-stage priesthood, three degrees of priesthood. A bishop is a priest, but he is not a presbyter, a bishop differs from a presbyter by the right of ordination and administrative primacy. Otherwise, everything is the same, when they celebrate the liturgy, they do not differ from each other in the sacramental sense.

 

[Nagomirov]

(I also have a seminary education. ).

I graduated from an Orthodox seminary, and what kind of Protestant seminary are you, probably?

 

[Paidiske]

The difference between a bishop and a presbyter is that he can perform ordination, plus, the bishop performs administrative service. Sacramentally, the bishop is superior to the presbyter only in the right of ordination, and administratively higher in that he is the overseer.

It goes beyond that. The priest ministers on behalf of the bishop, as the bishop's representative. The ministry of the priest does not stand on its own, it only stands as it is authorised by the bishop.

I graduated from an Orthodox seminary, and what kind of Protestant seminary are you, probably?

I am an Anglican priest.

 

[Nagomirov]

But a priest (who is not a bishop) is not a bishop. They are not interchangeable.

And as I said, what you are articulating does not match the way the Orthodox would express this.

(I also have a seminary education. ).

The bishop and the presbyter, when they celebrate the Liturgy, when they celebrate the Eucharist, offer the same Sacrifice, they have the same type of Eucharistic service. So they do it in the person of Christ. A bishop and a presbyter perform baptism in the same way, perform chrismation in the same way, marry in the same way, make confession.

 

[Nagomirov]

It goes beyond that. The priest ministers on behalf of the bishop, as the bishop's representative. The ministry of the priest does not stand on its own, it only stands as it is authorised by the bishop.

I am an Anglican priest.

Is this where women are ordained and perform same-sex marriages?

 

[Paidiske]

Is this where women are ordained and perform same-sex marriages?

We do not solemnise same-sex marriages (at least in Australia, where I am).

 

[Nagomirov]

I am an Anglican priest.

Catholics and Orthodox do not recognize your priesthood. If you convert to Orthodoxy with us, you will be re-ordained, because the Anglican priesthood is considered invalid. The Orthodox do not recognize the Anglican priesthood as valid, and the Catholics do not recognize it either. You have changed the matter of the sacrament, which means that the sacrament is considered invalid, there is no sacrament. Back during the time of Pope Leo 13, the Anglican ordination was invalidated, was rejected because the formula was changed by the Anglicans. You yourself do not consider your priesthood a sacrament, according to 39 articles. And also, your understanding of the Sacrament has changed, you understand it Calvinistically, in the spirit of Calvinism, this also affects the denial of the priesthood by other Christians.