China ignores Vatican over bishop

[Perceivence]

The state-controlled Catholic church in China has ignored the Vatican's wishes and consecrated a new bishop.

BBCNEWS.com

I'm curious: is that ordination valid? That is, if the ones (priests?) who consecrated him were ordained with valid apostolic succession, and if their teachings are in line with the Vatican's, does the Vatican's disapproval affect the ordination's validity? Why/why not?

Thanks.

 

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Validity is usually not lost due to schism. The ordinations would be considered irregular and illicit, but not invalid.

 

[gitlance]

It may be valid because of apostolic succession, but ultimately that means very little. Apostolic succession is not a magical formula. A bishop's standing with regard to the Church depends upon his union with Rome. This bishop may have valid orders, but those orders are operating outside the authority of the Kingdom which Jesus established in giving the keys only to Peter.

 

[Perceivence]

Thanks.

It may be valid because of apostolic succession, but ultimately that means very little. Apostolic succession is not a magical formula. A bishop's standing with regard to the Church depends upon his union with Rome. This bishop may have valid orders, but those orders are operating outside the authority of the Kingdom which Jesus established in giving the keys only to Peter.

How can he be operating outside of the Kingdom if he's a Christian with valid ordination? I mean, aren't all Christians part of the Kingdom of God (as per a definition of a Christian)?

 

[Ave Maria]

I thought that only a bishop could ordain another bishop?

 

[gitlance]

Thanks.



How can he be operating outside of the Kingdom if he's a Christian with valid ordination? I mean, aren't all Christians part of the Kingdom of God (as per a definition of a Christian)?

The Keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter. Non-Catholic Christians are united only in an "imperfect manner" to the Kingdom (the Church). All Christians are not part of the Church. This is unfortunate, but it is true. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Christians are not part of the Holy Catholic Church, even though they do have Holy Orders. The Church is united only under the Bishop of Rome. Holy Orders do not guarantee the truth. They may allow one to confect the sacraments, but they do not protect against heresy. This is evident from the changes the Eastern Orthodox churches have made in recent years regarding divorce, contraception, etc.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." St. Irenaeus

 

[a_ntv]

I thought that only a bishop could ordain another bishop?

China ordination was held by valid catholic bishops that now risk, with the bishop ordinated, to be extracomunicated by the pope.
This decision is by the pope himself.

Here the link: http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=6064

 

[gitlance]

The "official church" in China is not Catholic, as it is not recognized by the Vatican. The Catholic Church in China is underground.

 

[Perceivence]

Non-Catholic Christians are united only in an "imperfect manner" to the Kingdom (the Church).

What does that mean?

All Christians are not part of the Church. This is unfortunate, but it is true. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Christians are not part of the Holy Catholic Church, even though they do have Holy Orders.

This is different from what I've been hearing.

From what I understand with the Catholic position, many non-Catholic Christians -- including some Protestants and Orthodox -- are part of the Church. I'm certain you don't think that there is more than one church, so it can only be that you're saying that the Eastern Orthodox are not part of the Church of God (aka the Body of Christ), and so that they aren't Christians. This seems at odds with the Vatican's position. Isn't the Eastern Orthodox church in partial communion with Rome? How can they have valid Holy Orders if they aren't part of the Church?

 

[Febe]

Validity is usually not lost due to schism. The ordinations would be considered irregular and illicit, but not invalid.

But this is as in Sweden, the Lutheran Swedish church! The king, Gustav Wasa, desided that he needed the Churchs money and so he decided that Sweden should be a Lutheran country. Some bishops cooperated - and so the apostolic succeccion is still there... But not counted by the Holy Catholic Church! Why should it be more valid in China than in Sweden?

 

[a_ntv]

But this is as in Sweden, the Lutheran Swedish church! The king, Gustav Wasa, desided that he needed the Churchs money and so he decided that Sweden should be a Lutheran country. Some bishops cooperated - and so the apostolic succeccion is still there... But not counted by the Holy Catholic Church! Why should it be more valid in China than in Sweden?

I dont know exactly for Sweden, but anyway there are need some conditions fo Apostolic Succession:
- a true bishop (ususally three) to make ordination
- a correct form (a government degree is not a correct form)
- the will and the believe to go on in apostolic sucession, the means also the faith in priesthood and Eucaristy
- someone adds also the need of people to govern by the new bishop (I dont know if it is a condition)

Probably in Sweden the problem was that the Churche turned lutheran, and lutherans dont believe in priesthood and in trasubsantation. So in ordering a bishop the will was only to elect a head of church.
For lutheran there is no need of Apostolic Succesion

 

[Febe]

I dont know exactly for Sweden, but anyway there are need some conditions fo Apostolic Succession:
- a true bishop (ususally three) to make ordination
- a correct form (a government degree is not a correct form)
- the will and the believe to go on in apostolic sucession, the means also the faith in priesthood and Eucaristy
- someone adds also the need of people to govern by the new bishop (I dont know if it is a condition)

Probably in Sweden the problem was that the Churche turned lutheran, and lutherans dont believe in priesthood and in trasubsantation. So in ordering a bishop the will was only to elect a head of church.
For lutheran there is no need of Apostolic Succesion

As it is now, if You ask ten priests in the Swedish church about anything - You´re likely to get ten different answers!
When I was ordained as a deacon in the Swedish church, it was made by three bishops that believed in the sucession...
But things are REALLY confusing in the Swedish church!
Some are very Christian and good examples - and some are more or less pagans; the pagans becomes bishops nowadays... The last archbishop in the Swedish church don´t believe in Mary being a virgin when getting pregnant... And not that Jesus left His grave, living...

=(

 

[Febe]

Sorry - my computor is angry at me, and makes copys!

 

[Febe]

Sorry - my computor is angry at me, and makes copys!

 

[Epiphanygirl]

But this is as in Sweden, the Lutheran Swedish church! The king, Gustav Wasa, desided that he needed the Churchs money and so he decided that Sweden should be a Lutheran country. Some bishops cooperated - and so the apostolic succeccion is still there... But not counted by the Holy Catholic Church! Why should it be more valid in China than in Sweden?

Kinda off topic, but Febe....I read somewhere about the Swedish Lutherans....how they fought to keep the vestments and other things that were being stripped by the German Lutherans etc....that they wanted to remain in practice like the Catholic church when the reformation happened....is this correct? Are Swedish lutherans seen as a step child because of this? Sorry, I know this is totally OT...

 

[Febe]

Kinda off topic, but Febe....I read somewhere about the Swedish Lutherans....how they fought to keep the vestments and other things that were being stripped by the German Lutherans etc....that they wanted to remain in practice like the Catholic church when the reformation happened....is this correct? Are Swedish lutherans seen as a step child because of this? Sorry, I know this is totally OT...

Yes! When Gustav Wasa decided about Sweden being a Lutheran country, the people fought against this; we wanted to be Catholics! But the king used the Churchs money to pay soldiers, and killed a lot of priests and others... He forced the people to obey; and after some hundred years of lies about Catholich being wrong, worshipping Mary and about Luther being the great Genius, nowadays this is a Lutheran country...

But some of us, like me, converts and get back home...

 

[plainswolf]

I dont know exactly for Sweden, but anyway there are need some conditions fo Apostolic Succession:
- a true bishop (ususally three) to make ordination
- a correct form (a government degree is not a correct form)
- the will and the believe to go on in apostolic sucession, the means also the faith in priesthood and Eucaristy
- someone adds also the need of people to govern by the new bishop (I dont know if it is a condition)

Bishops can also be consecrated as auxiliary bishops, in which case they don't govern a diocese. But in the case of the communist Chinese bishops, they have usurped the Sees of the real, underground, Catholic bishops.


+

 

[gitlance]

What does that mean?



This is different from what I've been hearing.

From what I understand with the Catholic position, many non-Catholic Christians -- including some Protestants and Orthodox -- are part of the Church. I'm certain you don't think that there is more than one church, so it can only be that you're saying that the Eastern Orthodox are not part of the Church of God (aka the Body of Christ), and so that they aren't Christians. This seems at odds with the Vatican's position. Isn't the Eastern Orthodox church in partial communion with Rome? How can they have valid Holy Orders if they aren't part of the Church?

The Eastern Orthodox Christians are schismatic -- they rejected the authority of the Holy Father about 1000 years ago. As a result, they voluntarily separated from the visible Catholic Church, which is only to be found with the Bishop of Rome. These Eastern Orthodox, along with the protestants, are "separated brethren." Separated, because they are not part of the One True Church. Brethren, because by virtue of their baptism they have experienced some of God's graces, and are therefore "imperfectly united" to the Church through their baptism.

From Vatican II's Lumen Gentium:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

From the Catechism:

"All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."


"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"
"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter." Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."

While there is a profound unity regarding doctrine with the Eastern Orthodox, there is still their lack of unity with Rome preventing them from fully sharing in the Catholic Church.

 

[Perceivence]

The Eastern Orthodox Christians are schismatic -- they rejected the authority of the Holy Father about 1000 years ago. As a result, they voluntarily separated from the visible Catholic Church, which is only to be found with the Bishop of Rome. These Eastern Orthodox, along with the protestants, are "separated brethren." Separated, because they are not part of the One True Church. Brethren, because by virtue of their baptism they have experienced some of God's graces, and are therefore "imperfectly united" to the Church through their baptism.

It seems like you're mincing words. It's either that they're part of the Church or they aren't. How can they be imperfectly united to the Church if they aren't part of the Church at all, as you say? Are you saying that imperfect unity (or 'communion' as the Catechism calls it) is no unity?

 

[lionroar0]

It's not a valid ordination. For a bishop's ordination to be valid it has to be approved by the Pope.

Peace