Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[MKJ]

Yes, it does cut both ways. While we cannot be completely sure that a Bishop is sinning in secret, it is our faith in God which validates the Sacraments if the Bishop IS sinning.

HOWEVER, If we know a Bishop is sinning or is promoting heresy or schism, then we are now held accountable NOT to accept the gifts he offers. They are no longer gifts, for we know of the nature of the tree, and the gifts are the fruits thereof. If we knowingly partake of the gifts of a Schismatic or heretic, then we are stating that we are KNOWINGLY in Communion and agreement with a heretic or Schismatic.

Therefore, in the knowledge that the Anglicans come from the seed of the fruit of a tree of heresy (namely the Roman Catholic doctrines held by the priests ordaining the first priests to break away from the Romans), how then can we expect them to be valid? The Anglican Church has never in its history been able to claim a Succession unbroken by heresy. It is simply impossible.

Therefore, it is the solemn duty of the Anglican priest to seek a Succession which is unbroken. It is not a chore, but a blessing, to receive Ordination into the TRUE Apostolic Succession. And seeing how Anglicans are the ONLY Protestants to receive such an offer from the Orthodox Church, it is quite an example of the Economia (grace) extended thereto.

The standard I hold is this: If heresy is known or visible in the Successive Ordination of a priest, or if heresy or sin is visible in his life in a habitual way, he is to be considered invalid. In the case of an Orthodox Priest, the discovery of heresy or habitual sins of large magnitude, or single sins of such magnitude, results in instant defrocking. It is grace which is practiced when a schismatic priest is offered re-ordination, much more so when a whole group of schismatics are offered re-ordination.

What you seem to be saying here is that because the break is so far removed, it is impossible to have reasonable assurance that the apostolic line in Anglican clergy is still functioning (to use a slightly odd word). Therefore, reordination is going to be required. I dont even think there would be a need to get into specifics like intent - it is just too long a separation with too many things going on - influence from the RCC, from the Protestant Reformation, and so on.

I have no problem with that view, I tend to feel that way about some Anglican orders myself.

In such a scenario I think it is perfectly possible for the clergy in question both to think their orders were functional as an Anglican, and also see why there would be a requirement for reordination. There is no need that I can see to make claims that they were never really part of the Church.

It does rile up the sort of Anglican who is interested in such discussions though when you go so far as to say that Anglicanism is an off-shoot of the RCC. From that perspective, you are actually accepting the RCCs version of events and the way they understand the papacy. From the Anglican perspective, our bishops have their own connection to the Church, largely independent of Rome - there were Christians in the UK as early as the 2nd century, even if you understand the story of Joseph of Arimathea as a pious legend.. We accepted the bishop of Rome as the rightful patriarch of the West at the synod of Whitby, but after roughly the time of the great schism the relationship began to deteriorate and we broke off from Rome once it became politically possible to do so.

So to tell Anglicans that they are only tied to the Church through Rome seems a lot like what Rome herself tried to claim - that our bishops were only part of the Church through their relation to the Pope (just as demands to conform liturgically are reminiscent of Romes demands at the synod of Whitby.)

I think that when one goes further and tries to say that the unity of the Church means that there will always be a hard line where the Church begins and ends, one runs into all kinds of problems.

 

[sculleywr]

What you seem to be saying here is that because the break is so far removed, it is impossible to have reasonable assurance that the apostolic line in Anglican clergy is still functioning (to use a slightly odd word). Therefore, reordination is going to be required. I dont even think there would be a need to get into specifics like intent - it is just too long a separation with too many things going on - influence from the RCC, from the Protestant Reformation, and so on.

I have no problem with that view, I tend to feel that way about some Anglican orders myself.

In such a scenario I think it is perfectly possible for the clergy in question both to think their orders were functional as an Anglican, and also see why there would be a requirement for reordination. There is no need that I can see to make claims that they were never really part of the Church.

It does rile up the sort of Anglican who is interested in such discussions though when you go so far as to say that Anglicanism is an off-shoot of the RCC. From that perspective, you are actually accepting the RCCs version of events and the way they understand the papacy. From the Anglican perspective, our bishops have their own connection to the Church, largely independent of Rome - there were Christians in the UK as early as the 2nd century, even if you understand the story of Joseph of arimathea. We accepted the bishop of Rome as the rightful patriarch of the West at the synod of Whitby, but after roughly the time of the great schism the relationship began to deteriorate and we broke off from Rome once it became politically possible to do so.

So to tell Anglicans that they are only tied to the Church through Rome seems a lot like what Rome herself tried to claim - that our bishops were only part of the Church through their relation to the Pope (just as demands to conform liturgically are reminiscent of Romes demands at the synod of Whitby.)

I think that when one goes further and tries to say that the unity of the Church means that there will always be a hard line where the Church begins and ends, one runs into all kinds of problems.

Saying that Anglicanism is an ordinal child of Rome is simply a matter of history. All of the ordinations do trace back to Rome or one of her bishops. It took around 500 years for the political possibility to occur, and the ordinations do constitute an issue. The excommunication of Rome (mostly by Rome itself) was an excommunication of all of the bishops which followed her.

 

[sculleywr]

Yes they have. They've been around for over a millennium.

Or is there only a lee-way period of one generation (a policy with no canonical basis afaik)? If the UOC-KP were to re-unite with us, all bishops, priests, and deacons ordained by once-removed bishops would have to be re-ordained?

I don't see that happening.



In the Church, "in the course of human events", that is typically determined by mutual commemoration in the diptychs, not by investigating sacramental validity as such. Hence there is no discussion of "valid and/or licit" sacraments and/or mysteries.

So you could discuss how to determine validity, how to recognize it, etc. all you want, and reasonable people aren't gonna yell stuff about scholasticism and whatnot, because nobody cares. The OCC simply doesn't really focus on "validity" as the litmus test for unity.

Considering that the Anglicans proper have only been around since the 1500's I don't see a millennia. Also, which canonical priest? where in the 500 years of Roman priests was there a Canonical priest?

 

[searn77]

Also I understand questioning the validity of the Sacraments from heretic and schismatic hierarchs, but isn't questioning the validity of the Sacraments from a hierarch who is guilty of sin Donatism?

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Also I understand questioning the validity of the Sacraments from heretic and schismatic hierarchs, but isn't questioning the validity of the Sacraments from a hierarch who is guilty of sin Donatism?

That was my thought, also.

Mary

 

[Mary of Bethany]

In such a scenario I think it is perfectly possible for the clergy in question both to think their orders were functional as an Anglican, and also see why there would be a requirement for reordination. There is no need that I can see to make claims that they were never really part of the Church.

It does rile up the sort of Anglican who is interested in such discussions though when you go so far as to say that Anglicanism is an off-shoot of the RCC. From that perspective, you are actually accepting the RCCs version of events and the way they understand the papacy. From the Anglican perspective, our bishops have their own connection to the Church, largely independent of Rome - there were Christians in the UK as early as the 2nd century, even if you understand the story of Joseph of arimathea. We accepted the bishop of Rome as the rightful patriarch of the West at the synod of Whitby, but after roughly the time of the great schism the relationship began to deteriorate and we broke off from Rome once it became politically possible to do so.

So to tell Anglicans that they are only tied to the Church through Rome seems a lot like what Rome herself tried to claim - that our bishops were only part of the Church through their relation to the Pope (just as demands to conform liturgically are reminiscent of Romes demands at the synod of Whitby.)

Yes, the Church in England was part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church until the schism, and it isn't like it immediately was heretical or devoid of grace.

Mary

 

[MKJ]

Saying that Anglicanism is an ordinal child of Rome is simply a matter of history. All of the ordinations do trace back to Rome or one of her bishops. It took around 500 years for the political possibility to occur, and the ordinations do constitute an issue. The excommunication of Rome (mostly by Rome itself) was an excommunication of all of the bishops which followed her.

I think you have totally missed the point.

 

[Cappadocious]

Considering that the Anglicans proper have only been around since the 1500's I don't see a millennia.

As a local church they have existed for some 1500 years.

Also, which canonical priest?

The apostles, if you want to go back that far.

where in the 500 years of Roman priests was there a Canonical priest?

Where in the canons does it say that once the generation of the originally-schismatic bishops have passed, subsequent bishops in that line must be re-ordained upon restoration?

 

[Crandaddy]

Yes, it does cut both ways. While we cannot be completely sure that a Bishop is sinning in secret, it is our faith in God which validates the Sacraments if the Bishop IS sinning.

HOWEVER, If we know a Bishop is sinning or is promoting heresy or schism, then we are now held accountable NOT to accept the gifts he offers. They are no longer gifts, for we know of the nature of the tree, and the gifts are the fruits thereof. If we knowingly partake of the gifts of a Schismatic or heretic, then we are stating that we are KNOWINGLY in Communion and agreement with a heretic or Schismatic.

Therefore, in the knowledge that the Anglicans come from the seed of the fruit of a tree of heresy (namely the Roman Catholic doctrines held by the priests ordaining the first priests to break away from the Romans), how then can we expect them to be valid? The Anglican Church has never in its history been able to claim a Succession unbroken by heresy. It is simply impossible.

Therefore, it is the solemn duty of the Anglican priest to seek a Succession which is unbroken. It is not a chore, but a blessing, to receive Ordination into the TRUE Apostolic Succession. And seeing how Anglicans are the ONLY Protestants to receive such an offer from the Orthodox Church, it is quite an example of the Economia (grace) extended thereto.

The standard I hold is this: If heresy is known or visible in the Successive Ordination of a priest, or if heresy or sin is visible in his life in a habitual way, he is to be considered invalid. In the case of an Orthodox Priest, the discovery of heresy or habitual sins of large magnitude, or single sins of such magnitude, results in instant defrocking. It is grace which is practiced when a schismatic priest is offered re-ordination, much more so when a whole group of schismatics are offered re-ordination.

Alright, but now I must ask this: What are the requisite conditions to be met for there to be known or visible heresy in a cleric's ordinal line?

As I see it, two conditions need to be met for there to be a true case of heresy:

(1) An individual must hold a belief that is significantly at odds with with the orthodox dogma of the Church, and

(2) said individual must willfully subscribe to said belief, despite having sufficient knowledge that it is at odds with orthodox dogma.

Note that although (1) is a necessary condition for there to be a case of heresy, it is not a sufficient condition.

Why? Take tritheism, for example. Tritheism is heterodox theology. Orthodox dogma holds that the three Divine Hypostases are three distinct Persons, but these Persons are not three distinct gods. Nevertheless, it is possible for someone to subscribe to tritheism and not be a heretic. This is because it is possible for someone to subscribe to tritheism and yet lack sufficient knowledge to understand that his belief is at odds with the orthodox teaching of the Church (as in the case of, e.g., a child, or a recent convert who is ignorant of Church teaching on this matter). Condition (1) does not by itself does not constitute the sin of heresy; in order for there to be heresy, it must be conjoined with condition (2).

It seems to me that your standard needs to be able to identify that, for a single case of ordination in a cleric's ordinal line, condition (2) holds in addition to condition (1) for the particular individual performing that particular ordination in order for heresy to be known or visible in that cleric's line.

But let's say that you can meet this requirement. Let's say that you can positively identify a heretic in a cleric's ordinal line (or at least that you can positively confirm that he has at least one heretic in his ordinal line, even if you can't point that particular individual out). Does this invalidate that cleric's orders? I don't think so. I can spot at least three problems:

First, although it may be clear to you that the cleric has a heretic in his line, it might not have been clear to the ordinand. Clarity is an epistemic issue. What is clear to one person might not be clear to another. You seem to be willing to say that even if a cleric is guilty of invalidating sin, the faith of those who receive his sacraments confers the validity thereto. If the ordinand submits to ordination in good faith, and is therefore not complicit in the heresy of his ordainer, then why should his faith not validate the sacrament?

Second, If you stipulate that conferral of the sacramental grace of ordination is dependent upon the ordainer's innocence of the sin of heresy, then I fail to see how your standard doesn't qualify as a case of Donatism.

And third, your standard still doesn't entirely ward off the threat of decimation of Orthodox clerical ranks. Say that you have an Orthodox ordination where the ordainer and the ordinand are both heretics, and they both keep quiet about their heretical beliefs and so are never found out. In this case, you don't have the good faith of the ordinand to supply sacramental validity, so then where does it come from?

You might say that the validating faith comes from those who are in the Church, and who have faith in God that He will faithfully deliver to them the sacraments through His ministers, despite their faults. But might we not have this in the Roman West also? Might we not also have a faithful contingent therein, whose faith supplies the validity to the sacraments which they would otherwise lack?

And lest you should say that those faithful must hold certain proper beliefs in order for their faith to count--that they must fail to meet even my condition (1) above, in other words--then I ask you this: Why should the faith of a child, or of a simpleton, or of one who for whatever reason lacks sufficient knowledge to form proper theological beliefs be any less valuable than the faith of one who does?

 

[sculleywr]

Alright, but now I must ask this: What are the requisite conditions to be met for there to be known or visible heresy in a cleric's ordinal line?

As I see it, two conditions need to be met for there to be a true case of heresy:

(1) An individual must hold a belief that is significantly at odds with with the orthodox dogma of the Church, and

(2) said individual must willfully subscribe to said belief, despite having sufficient knowledge that it is at odds with orthodox dogma.

Note that although (1) is a necessary condition for there to be a case of heresy, it is not a sufficient condition.

Why? Take tritheism, for example. Tritheism is heterodox theology. Orthodox dogma holds that the three Divine Hypostases are three distinct Persons, but these Persons are not three distinct gods. Nevertheless, it is possible for someone to subscribe to tritheism and not be a heretic. This is because it is possible for someone to subscribe to tritheism and yet lack sufficient knowledge to understand that his belief is at odds with the orthodox teaching of the Church (as in the case of, e.g., a child, or a recent convert who is ignorant of Church teaching on this matter). Condition (1) does not by itself does not constitute the sin of heresy; in order for there to be heresy, it must be conjoined with condition (2).

It seems to me that your standard needs to be able to identify that, for a single case of ordination in a cleric's ordinal line, condition (2) holds in addition to condition (1) for the particular individual performing that particular ordination in order for heresy to be known or visible in that cleric's line.

But let's say that you can meet this requirement. Let's say that you can positively identify a heretic in a cleric's ordinal line (or at least that you can positively confirm that he has at least one heretic in his ordinal line, even if you can't point that particular individual out). Does this invalidate that cleric's orders? I don't think so. I can spot at least three problems:

First, although it may be clear to you that the cleric has a heretic in his line, it might not have been clear to the ordinand. Clarity is an epistemic issue. What is clear to one person might not be clear to another. You seem to be willing to say that even if a cleric is guilty of invalidating sin, the faith of those who receive his sacraments confers the validity thereto. If the ordinand submits to ordination in good faith, and is therefore not complicit in the heresy of his ordainer, then why should his faith not validate the sacrament?

Second, If you stipulate that conferral of the sacramental grace of ordination is dependent upon the ordainer's innocence of the sin of heresy, then I fail to see how your standard doesn't qualify as a case of Donatism.

And third, your standard still doesn't entirely ward off the threat of decimation of Orthodox clerical ranks. Say that you have an Orthodox ordination where the ordainer and the ordinand are both heretics, and they both keep quiet about their heretical beliefs and so are never found out. In this case, you don't have the good faith of the ordinand to supply sacramental validity, so then where does it come from?

You might say that the validating faith comes from those who are in the Church, and who have faith in God that He will faithfully deliver to them the sacraments through His ministers, despite their faults. But might we not have this in the Roman West also? Might we not also have a faithful contingent therein, whose faith supplies the validity to the sacraments which they would otherwise lack?

And lest you should say that those faithful must hold certain proper beliefs in order for their faith to count--that they must fail to meet even my condition (1) above, in other words--then I ask you this: Why should the faith of a child, or of a simpleton, or of one who for whatever reason lacks sufficient knowledge to form proper theological beliefs be any less valuable than the faith of one who does?

hmmm, so you posit that a Roman Bishop in the time of the Filioque controversy was uninformed about the true dogma of the Orthodox Church? Or perhaps the fairly widely discussed Councils which anathematized the Filioque? Or maybe the fact that the Pope himself condemned both it and the theory of Papal Supremacy?

It is not saying that a simple faith is less valorous or honorable than an advanced theological faith. Rather, it is a fact that those who lead should not be simple. They should be aware of the true doctrine. It is their duty to lead the Church. How can they lead if they cannot comprehend the truth well enough to teach it to others?

Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.​

The standard is that a person who has been ordained canonically later accepts a heresy, then he is stripped of his canonicity. Those whom he already ordained are transferred up to the next ordinal line, and those ordained after his heresy are non-canonical. Non-canonical clergy are to be re-ordained.

It is a fact that 500 years passed between the Schism and the first Anglican priests/bishops. The rule for entrance to the Church is less stringent for them than for clergy of other churches. Why ask for more?

 

[sculleywr]

As a local church they have existed for some 1500 years.


The apostles, if you want to go back that far.


Where in the canons does it say that once the generation of the originally-schismatic bishops have passed, subsequent bishops in that line must be re-ordained upon restoration?

So a heretical line of 500 years is of no danger to the succession? Really? I thought we cherished the Apostolic Succession of the Church. If the purpose of the Apostolic Succession is not fulfilled (that is, if the true Tradition of the Church is lost in the Succession of a Bishop), then there is no true Succession. I won't go to a canon. I'll go to the second Century with Irenaeus in Against Heresies. The purpose of Succession is to preserve the Tradition. As the Tradition was not preserved by the Roman Bishops, they have no Succession.

 

[Crandaddy]

hmmm, so you posit that a Roman Bishop in the time of the Filioque controversy was uninformed about the true dogma of the Orthodox Church? Or perhaps the fairly widely discussed Councils which anathematized the Filioque? Or maybe the fact that the Pope himself condemned both it and the theory of Papal Supremacy?

It is not saying that a simple faith is less valorous or honorable than an advanced theological faith. Rather, it is a fact that those who lead should not be simple. They should be aware of the true doctrine. It is their duty to lead the Church. How can they lead if they cannot comprehend the truth well enough to teach it to others?

To understand that the teachings of one's church are at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church is not necessarily the same as to understand that they are at odds with the true doctrine of the Church simpliciter. False beliefs do not become heresy until the one who holds them understands not only that they are at odds with another church's teachings, but also that the other church's teachings are the true teachings of the Church.

If to understand what the Orthodox Church teaches is also to understand that what the Orthodox Church teaches is true, then I think you have to say that everyone who understands that the Orthodox Church teaches, e.g., that the Filioque is theologically heterodox is also guilty of the sin of knowingly, heretically accepting the Filioque.

Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The standard is that a person who has been ordained canonically later accepts a heresy, then he is stripped of his canonicity. Those whom he already ordained are transferred up to the next ordinal line, and those ordained after his heresy are non-canonical. Non-canonical clergy are to be re-ordained.

It is a fact that 500 years passed between the Schism and the first Anglican priests/bishops. The rule for entrance to the Church is less stringent for them than for clergy of other churches. Why ask for more?

I don't ask for more if, as you say, Anglican ordinations are truly invalid. However, I'm not convinced that they are.

 

[sculleywr]

To understand that the teachings of one's church are at odds with the teachings of the Orthodox Church is not necessarily the same as to understand that they are at odds with the true doctrine of the Church simpliciter. False beliefs do not become heresy until the one who holds them understands not only that they are at odds with another church's teachings, but also that the other church's teachings are the true teachings of the Church.

If to understand what the Orthodox Church teaches is also to understand that what the Orthodox Church teaches is true, then I think you have to say that everyone who understands that the Orthodox Church teaches, e.g., that the Filioque is theologically heterodox is also guilty of the sin of knowingly, heretically accepting the Filioque.

​

I don't ask for more if, as you say, Anglican ordinations are truly invalid. However, I'm not convinced that they are.

You aren't convinced that they are because you aren't convinced that the bishops who were present for the schism weren't very familiar with the controversy of the previous generation of bishops. It was only one pope between the council declaring the filioque false until the next pope declared it true and enforced his side of things. The schism was not a small thing. It was a continent-spanning, friendship destroying occurrence. To say that bishops in the time of the Schism were ignorant of the issues would be like saying that the Pew Research Center is ignorant of the studies it publishes.

The Bishops knew that the council of their direct predecessors anathematized the filioque, for the same reason we know that the Healthcare Bill is a revolutionary change in our government, or the same reason we know that the events in Newtown were deplorable: Neither we nor they are complete ignoramuses. They knew exactly what was at stake. Many Bishops DID leave the Roman Church to stay with the East.

The fact is, they openly schismed themselves from the Orthodox Church. They also followed into heresy. Any who stands in their ordinal line is in the ordinal line of, at best, a schismatic, and at worse, a heretic.

The choice is between allowing the ordinal generations of schismatics and heretics to continue, or grafting branches into the tree of the Church's ordinal Succession. Which should we choose?

 

[MKJ]

Why do you keep speaking about Roman bishops though - bishops in the English church were English bishops.

I think your argument would be much more effective and convincing to Anglicans if you stopped talking about Roman bishops. Rome and the English Church have never had a really comfortable relationship for long, when they did it was before the schism, and the idea that English bishops were Roman is part of the reason. And since that is also part of the Orthodox argument against Rome, it seems an odd thing to say.

The English Church fought very hard to retain orthodoxy under very difficult circumstances. When your sacred authority is also a political authority, it makes it a hard go to reject it as heretical.

If you were just to say that the English bishops, being so long in a position where they had to accept Roman domination, and then without the important rudder of the Tradition and a unified Church, were perhaps not always able to maintain orthodoxy despite trying. And now it is impossible to accept whether or not they retain apostolic succession or not. Therefore, re-ordination is desirable to assure everyone involved that everything is in order.

Why would that not be enough - why try to insist on something unknowable. It can only create barriers as far as I can see, and who really knows if it is true anyway. It seems more like a way to assure oneself that no one else is really part of the Church.

 

[MKJ]

You aren't convinced that they are because you aren't convinced that the bishops who were present for the schism weren't very familiar with the controversy of the previous generation of bishops. It was only one pope between the council declaring the filioque false until the next pope declared it true and enforced his side of things. The schism was not a small thing. It was a continent-spanning, friendship destroying occurrence. To say that bishops in the time of the Schism were ignorant of the issues would be like saying that the Pew Research Center is ignorant of the studies it publishes.

The Bishops knew that the council of their direct predecessors anathematized the filioque, for the same reason we know that the Healthcare Bill is a revolutionary change in our government, or the same reason we know that the events in Newtown were deplorable: Neither we nor they are complete ignoramuses. They knew exactly what was at stake. Many Bishops DID leave the Roman Church to stay with the East.

The fact is, they openly schismed themselves from the Orthodox Church. They also followed into heresy. Any who stands in their ordinal line is in the ordinal line of, at best, a schismatic, and at worse, a heretic.

The choice is between allowing the ordinal generations of schismatics and heretics to continue, or grafting branches into the tree of the Church's ordinal Succession. Which should we choose?

It isnt really the case though that even bishops were free to change allegiance at will. Whether one followed Rome or Constantinople in the schism was mostly about geography and who had the power to send you to your execution.

 

[Cappadocious]

So a heretical line of 500 years is of no danger to the succession?

Where in the canons does it specify time limits to the voiding of episcopal succession?

Where in the canons does it say that the Grace of the Church fills up anything lacking in the orders of schismatics upon reunion, UNLESS their coupon is expired?

 

[sculleywr]

Where in the canons does it specify time limits to the voiding of episcopal succession?

Where in the canons does it say that the Grace of the Church fills up anything lacking in the orders of schismatics upon reunion, UNLESS their coupon is expired?

I never said any of that. I am simply staying a fact. If the purpose of the succession is lost, then the succession is lost. Can you say that the 500 years of heretical bishops preserved the Tradition of the apostles?

 

[sculleywr]

It isnt really the case though that even bishops were free to change allegiance at will. Whether one followed Rome or Constantinople in the schism was mostly about geography and who had the power to send you to your execution.

And bishops knew martyrdom for the purpose of true doctrine and teaching against heresy was a possibility from the beginning.

 

[MKJ]

And bishops knew martyrdom for the purpose of true doctrine and teaching against heresy was a possibility from the beginning.

That is just a totally unrealistic reading of history. People did not do that, and no, the issues were not that clear. In a feudal society where there was no clear division between temporal and spiritual power and authority, where there was no speedy transport and no speedy communications - this was not like some small, or even large, heretical group that was clearly defined as wrong by the Church.

Martyrdom wasn't the issue, it wasn't that people wanted to join the Eastern bishops (or vice versa) but were afraid to - it was just not the way people thought about society and authority.

Many things in history happen because of accidents of time, or accidents of geography, more than because individuals will them, and that is true in the history of Christianity as well. People can't make choices where they don't perceive there are choices to be made.

 

[Crandaddy]

I just have a lot of trouble with the idea that Apostolic Succession is as fragile as Sculley says it is. This is why I'm inclined toward the Augustinian camp contra Cyprian and the Donatists. Surely we must say that God can deliver the sacraments even through flawed and sinful ministers, and I believe that he in fact does.

Of course, we are always obligated to pursue the Truth to what extent we are able to see Him, and if we see the Truth shining most brightly in another church (or even in THE Church), then we surely are obligated to go to her. And I should say further that even though God might extend His grace (perhaps even through the sacraments) to those who through no fault of their own are less enlightened than we, I do believe that should we choose to remain where they are and receive those sacraments, despite our vision of the Truth, we sin against God.