Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[MKJ]

I think posts like this and people who say this and other Orthodox teachings are the reason that dialogue with certain parishes should be serious and both parties should be looking for the end goal of conciliar union.

i think, as I said above, this could happen to parishes, but I dont see any of the Anglican organizatons around right now making such a move as a group. I can inagine some parishes where I am doing it, but I am in an area highly influenced by the Oxford movement which is very compatible with an Orthodox approach. My parish might be a good candidate as it already has a lot of ties to Orthodox groups, but even then it would be a big decision.

I think there are some things that the Orthodox could do to facilitate such things, and a big one is just not saying things that will uselessly get peoples backs up. The issue of the Creed is one - no Anglican alive today had anything to do with the whole political aspect of it, but in general their theology on the filioque is within the bounds of orthodoxy. In some cases, as here in Canada, it is allowed in the rubrics to omit the filioque (although that has some controversy as being a unilateral decision as well,) but the point is that if it isnt made into a challenge many would not object to removing it.

The issue of liturgy is another - the English Church was required to conform to a standard Roman liturgical form after the Synod of Whitby, and in the view of many that was just the beginning of them imposing questionable control on parts of the Church. That is why there tends to be suspicion around those who want to say that the Western Rite should be abolished. I have seen the western Rite pointed out many times as an option for disaffected Anglicans on Anglican forums or in discussions, and someone inevitably points out that they are considered not really Orthodox and many would prefer not to recognize them. It just seems like it is another example of people setting themselves up to use their authority to make everyone conform in every detail. Too much like Rome.

I think it is understandable that people are hesitant to commit to something that will make them feel like they are marginally members, or on the fringes, especially when they have generally come out of years of being at variance with their diocese.

And the general idea that they are beggars with no worthwhile Christian tradition, which again, seems too much like what Rome has always done. Anglicans do have a liturgical tradition that is closely tied to their literary tradition, and a very robust musical tradition, and even a scholarly and monastic tradition, and these have been largely continuous since the church was founded, despite Roman attempts to snuff them out. I think that sometimes non-Anglicans do not recognizze these traditions because they dont have an eye to see them, just as someone totally new to the eastern Church might not at first easily pick out the differenced between the Greek or Russian Church.

Awareness of all these things can make for much more fruitful discussions that could lead to good things, IMO.

 

[Crandaddy]

I think you probably have to look at it collectively rather than individually - which should not be a surprise as Christianity is a collectivist religion in many ways.

The idea being, I think, that in Orthodoxy the heretical views of that individual are not going to be able to infect the whole of the Church in any meaningful way. If they are expressed, the OC deals with them, possibly to the point where the heretical individual or group becomes excluded from the institutional Church. Because they see that this has always worked for them in the past (over the long term anyway) they are confident in their own apostolic succession and access to sacraments as a Church.

(Of course if we could show this is historically not the case, this argument would be untenable.)

But MKJ, either your parish priest is a real priest, or he's not. And when he communes you, either what he gives you is really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ, or it's still the ordinary bread and wine that was originally offered. Whether or not your priest, as an individual person, has received a valid ordination makes all the difference between his having the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, absolve sins, etc. and his being an ordinary layman with no authority to do such things at all.

Yes, Christianity is a collectivist religion in some ways; in other ways, however, it is rather rigidly individualistic. Take baptism, for example. My baptism is my own individual baptism. It doesn't count as your baptism (or anyone else's, for that matter). You have to receive your own individual baptism. Also, an act of baptism must meet certain criteria if it's to be valid. A priest can't tap a person on the head three times with a Bible while reciting the baptismal formula and have that count as a valid baptism. No, he has to use water, and he has to use it in a washing capacity (he can't have you drink it, say). And further, neither he nor anyone else can re-baptize you. Baptism is an indelible sacrament, meaning that once the sacrament has been validly performed for an individual person, it cannot be repeated for that individual person. To intentionally repeat an indelible sacrament for the same person is sacrilege. This is why care must be taken to determine whether or not an individual has received a valid baptism, and that individual must not be baptized unless it can be determined with reasonable certainty that that he or she has not already been validly baptized.

All of this also applies to holy orders. Holy orders are individualistic. An individual person is individually ordained, just as he is individually baptized. Also, in order for a person's orders to be valid, certain validating criteria must be met. In post #46 I provided a list of four criteria which both Romans and Anglicans accept, where the sufficient conditions for the first criterion are a simple repetition of those four for the performing minister (and so on, going all the way back to the Apostles). And further, just as with baptism, holy orders are indelible. It is not lawful to ordain a man (to unconditionally ordain him, at the very least) unless it can be determined with reasonable certainty that he has not already been ordained.

This is why it seems necessary to me that we have well-defined criteria for the validity of holy orders on the table for careful analysis and critical scrutiny if ecumenical dialogue is to move forward. We need to have such criteria in order to determine who, individually, is a deacon, presbyter, or bishop. Otherwise, I don't see how we could determine whether a given celebrant is celebrating a valid Eucharist, etc.

On the other hand, this has evidently not been the case in Anglicanism, and it is debatable whether we even say that it should be true theoretically. Heretical bishops have been allowed to infect Anglican doctrine. We now have people who think they can have a blessed sexual relationship that is not a marriage, that the laity can confect the Eucharist, that the Eucharist can be given to dogs, that apostolic succession is unimportant. These are acceptable views at Anglican theological colleges. When I look at the various traditional Anglican groups, one of my first thoughts is that there is really nothing preventing the same thing happening in them. When someone like Spong can be allowed not only to lead, but teach perfidious doctrine, how could we know that he is not so far away from Christian teaching that he can even function as a bishop.

But yet, the fact remains that there are orthodox Anglicans who will have no part in such abominations. Orthodox Anglicanism has not been entirely stamped out, and I can see no reason to think that it will ever be. Perhaps heresies and schisms will eventually come to plague the traditional groups, but has Orthodoxy been entirely free of having to deal with these?

That is the real issue with the way Westerners talk about validity - while holding a heretical view does not in itself invalidate an office, at some point it begins to impact things like intent. Can someone who believes that Christianity is a sort of metaphor have intent, for example. And Spong is not alone - I know of other bishops with similar views that are not well known. Do those bishops really connect us to the Church,. And what about the priests they ordain.

As far as intent goes, all the minister has to do is intend to do what the Church intends by the sacrament. That's it. He might be an atheist and think it's all a just bunch of hocus pocus nonsense, but as long as he intends to perform what the Church understands to be, e.g., an act of holy baptism, then he performs a valid baptism, provided he does it according to acceptable form (i.e. that he recites the proper baptismal formula) and matter (i.e. that he employs the proper use of water) of course.

Who knows, really. After a generation, maybe a declaration of belief would suffice to weed out those returning. After 10 generations, well, it is hard to say if apostolic secession is intact or not, especially for someone who is not actually a member of the group.

It seems to me that the Orthodox Church should have well-defined and rigorously-defensible criteria in place in order to settle such matters. Any good Anglican cleric who's told that he'll have to be unconditionally reordained is going to ask why, and he's going to require an acceptable and rigorously-defensible answer. This is not a matter of pride. It's a matter of unlawfully and sacrilegiously repeating an indelible sacrament.

 

[buzuxi02]

I'm not really sure why this thread has reached so many pages. There are numerous ancient canons which explain, teach, and serve as guidelines on what apostlic succession is and when its lost. Cannons on how heretical clergy are to be recieved, on what grounds a bishop can be defrocked, when a layman can canonically seperate from his bishop for teaching heresy etc etc.

As far as sinful clergy, unless it becomes public we dont now whats in his heart. Its not like clergy are required to take lie detector tests before a liturgy. But we know a priest whether he's sinful or simply doubts can still consecrate the Holy Eucharst .

The Eucharistic miracle of Lancia for instance where the bloodless sacrifice turned into actual flesh and blood because the consecrating priest lacked belief. Another famous case from the 8th century Egypt where a muslim prince wanted to kill the priest for performing a human sacrifice. The musim wanted to witness the 'superstitious' ritual of the christians, what he actually saw was a baby beingcarvedt up (when it was actually the bread being prepared for Communion). In the Russian Orthodox Trebnik (book of needs) the clergy is instructed that if the Eucharist takes on the form of actual flesh and blood it is to be put aside and not distributed. That the change is due to lack of faith in the real precense and shoud not be viewed as a joyous miracle.

As far as reception of heretical clergy, recieving clergy in their previous orders does not mean we acknowledge the existence of grace in those ordinations. The Novatian clergy were recieved in the same way in canon 8 of Nicea. It is clear though those clergy were not considered members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and upon reception they would have to take a back seat if neccesary:

'Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.....But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title.'


This is further laid out in the canon of St. Basil the Great:

As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities those, I mean, who form the party*of Cyprian and our own Firmilian to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. Inasmuch however, as it has seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or "economy") to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted.

As for the case of the Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime, since as though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appears to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism."


As we can see from the above, (re)baptism is not neccesary only because the form remains essentially the same but its still an empty shell. In the case of the Encratites they should be baptised, as they intentionally altered the form precisely so the Catholic Church cannot use eikonomia on their converts. Nevertheless even with Encratites, eikonomia can be used, just in case they begin to assume baptism is a minor sacrament that is repeatable.
​

 

[MKJ]

But MKJ, either your parish priest is a real priest, or he's not. And when he communes you, either what he gives you is really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ, or it's still the ordinary bread and wine that was originally offered. Whether or not your priest, as an individual person, has received a valid ordination makes all the difference between his having the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, absolve sins, etc. and his being an ordinary layman with no authority to do such things at all.

Yes, Christianity is a collectivist religion in some ways; in other ways, however, it is rather rigidly individualistic. Take baptism, for example. My baptism is my own individual baptism. It doesn't count as your baptism (or anyone else's, for that matter). You have to receive your own individual baptism. Also, an act of baptism must meet certain criteria if it's to be valid. A priest can't tap a person on the head three times with a Bible while reciting the baptismal formula and have that count as a valid baptism. No, he has to use water, and he has to use it in a washing capacity (he can't have you drink it, say). And further, neither he nor anyone else can re-baptize you. Baptism is an indelible sacrament, meaning that once the sacrament has been validly performed for an individual person, it cannot be repeated for that individual person. To intentionally repeat an indelible sacrament for the same person is sacrilege. This is why care must be taken to determine whether or not an individual has received a valid baptism, and that individual must not be baptized unless it can be determined with reasonable certainty that that he or she has not already been validly baptized.

All of this also applies to holy orders. Holy orders are individualistic. An individual person is individually ordained, just as he is individually baptized. Also, in order for a person's orders to be valid, certain validating criteria must be met. In post #46 I provided a list of four criteria which both Romans and Anglicans accept, where the sufficient conditions for the first criterion are a simple repetition of those four for the performing minister (and so on, going all the way back to the Apostles). And further, just as with baptism, holy orders are indelible. It is not lawful to ordain a man (to unconditionally ordain him, at the very least) unless it can be determined with reasonable certainty that he has not already been ordained.

This is why it seems necessary to me that we have well-defined criteria for the validity of holy orders on the table for careful analysis and critical scrutiny if ecumenical dialogue is to move forward. We need to have such criteria in order to determine who, individually, is a deacon, presbyter, or bishop. Otherwise, I don't see how we could determine whether a given celebrant is celebrating a valid Eucharist, etc.

But yet, the fact remains that there are orthodox Anglicans who will have no part in such abominations. Orthodox Anglicanism has not been entirely stamped out, and I can see no reason to think that it will ever be. Perhaps heresies and schisms will eventually come to plague the traditional groups, but has Orthodoxy been entirely free of having to deal with these?

As far as intent goes, all the minister has to do is intend to do what the Church intends by the sacrament. That's it. He might be an atheist and think it's all a just bunch of hocus pocus nonsense, but as long as he intends to perform what the Church understands to be, e.g., an act of holy baptism, then he performs a valid baptism, provided he does it according to acceptable form (i.e. that he recites the proper baptismal formula) and matter (i.e. that he employs the proper use of water) of course.

It seems to me that the Orthodox Church should have well-defined and rigorously-defensible criteria in place in order to settle such matters. Any good Anglican cleric who's told that he'll have to be unconditionally reordained is going to ask why, and he's going to require an acceptable and rigorously-defensible answer. This is not a matter of pride. It's a matter of unlawfully and sacrilegiously repeating an indelible sacrament.

The Catholics have the kind of rigidly defined criteria you speak of, and the problem is, it really doesn't work for them. Their sacramental theology is a mess, the approach to annulments being the best example. Or even look at their approach to Anglican orders.

To say that the minister of the sacrament has only to will to do what the church has always done is fine, so far as it goes - I don't think anyone wants to say that a dim intellectual apprehension of sacramental theology is fatal. But intent and understanding to begin to come together. If a priest thinks that a sacrament is a figment of peoples imagination, and that the church has not always thought that, what is his intent - to do what the church always really did, to change what the church thinks - who knows.

There is just no way for us to have that kind of intimate knowledge of each individual. And we don't have that kind of intimate knowledge of what creates right intent either.

The Orthodox can be sure that within their own group, their priests are real priests who are really dispensing the Eucharist.

We Anglicans are not in the same boat. Yes, there are some orthodox Anglicans - my parish is such a parish. But I don't feel that I can just walk into any Anglican parish and feel confident in what I will find there. Who ordained that priest - was it a man or a woman bishop - did the priest receiving the ordination consent in any real way - or what.

As far as needing to rigorously decide a criteria why - it is a lost cause. Are they going to go through the pedigree of each priest, looking at each bishop and whether everything is in order. Its an impossible task. Historically the OC has sometimes required ordination of schismatics and sometimes not, and as far as I can see the difference is a matter of how possible it is to be fairly confident. I think after 1000 years of separation it is not too far out to decide in favour of going whole hog and ordaining people again.

If some Anglicans will not accept that then obviously that is their decision. But I wonder what they are really saying. How does it hurt them to say that from an Orthodox perspective, their status is impossible to evaluate. If their previous ordinations were ok, then how are they harmed - the new ordination will give confidence and peace of mind to those they will serve in their new situation. If it wasn't, well, then it is a good thing to have done it again.

I cannot see why this is the sort of thing that should be a hang-up for anyone. There are plenty of more substantial issues to consider rather than something that could not possibly harm anyone.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not really sure why this thread has reached so many pages. There are numerous ancient canons which explain, teach, and serve as guidelines on what apostlic succession is and when its lost. Cannons on how heretical clergy are to be recieved, on what grounds a bishop can be defrocked, when a layman can canonically seperate from his bishop for teaching heresy etc etc.

Reading things like that is never really the same as discussing them and seeing how they might apply to a situation we see before us.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Realistically if we see Anglicans coming into some sort of official relationship with the OC, I think it will be at the level of the parish rather than diocese or larger groups. And it will be a slow thing that happens over time, because as we probably all know, a parish making any big decision takes forever..

Can definately understand that - although many would still prefer the diocese over others since it gives more universal treatment.

The thing about the archbishop becoming a druid is not actually true though,

CUrious as to the references you have available for others to investigate

and the Anglican Communion already has its new archbishop of Canterbury - not Sentamu as it happen

Bummer - as Sentamu would've been an excellent choice. But I think many saw it coming..

 

[sculleywr]

But MKJ, either your parish priest is a real priest, or he's not. And when he communes you, either what he gives you is really and truly the Body and Blood of Christ, or it's still the ordinary bread and wine that was originally offered. Whether or not your priest, as an individual person, has received a valid ordination makes all the difference between his having the authority to celebrate the Eucharist, absolve sins, etc. and his being an ordinary layman with no authority to do such things at all.

Yes, Christianity is a collectivist religion in some ways; in other ways, however, it is rather rigidly individualistic. Take baptism, for example. My baptism is my own individual baptism. It doesn't count as your baptism (or anyone else's, for that matter). You have to receive your own individual baptism. Also, an act of baptism must meet certain criteria if it's to be valid. A priest can't tap a person on the head three times with a Bible while reciting the baptismal formula and have that count as a valid baptism. No, he has to use water, and he has to use it in a washing capacity (he can't have you drink it, say). And further, neither he nor anyone else can re-baptize you. Baptism is an indelible sacrament, meaning that once the sacrament has been validly performed for an individual person, it cannot be repeated for that individual person. To intentionally repeat an indelible sacrament for the same person is sacrilege. This is why care must be taken to determine whether or not an individual has received a valid baptism, and that individual must not be baptized unless it can be determined with reasonable certainty that that he or she has not already been validly baptized.

All of this also applies to holy orders. Holy orders are individualistic. An individual person is individually ordained, just as he is individually baptized. Also, in order for a person's orders to be valid, certain validating criteria must be met. In post #46 I provided a list of four criteria which both Romans and Anglicans accept, where the sufficient conditions for the first criterion are a simple repetition of those four for the performing minister (and so on, going all the way back to the Apostles). And further, just as with baptism, holy orders are indelible. It is not lawful to ordain a man (to unconditionally ordain him, at the very least) unless it can be determined with reasonable certainty that he has not already been ordained.

This is why it seems necessary to me that we have well-defined criteria for the validity of holy orders on the table for careful analysis and critical scrutiny if ecumenical dialogue is to move forward. We need to have such criteria in order to determine who, individually, is a deacon, presbyter, or bishop. Otherwise, I don't see how we could determine whether a given celebrant is celebrating a valid Eucharist, etc.

But yet, the fact remains that there are orthodox Anglicans who will have no part in such abominations. Orthodox Anglicanism has not been entirely stamped out, and I can see no reason to think that it will ever be. Perhaps heresies and schisms will eventually come to plague the traditional groups, but has Orthodoxy been entirely free of having to deal with these?

As far as intent goes, all the minister has to do is intend to do what the Church intends by the sacrament. That's it. He might be an atheist and think it's all a just bunch of hocus pocus nonsense, but as long as he intends to perform what the Church understands to be, e.g., an act of holy baptism, then he performs a valid baptism, provided he does it according to acceptable form (i.e. that he recites the proper baptismal formula) and matter (i.e. that he employs the proper use of water) of course.

It seems to me that the Orthodox Church should have well-defined and rigorously-defensible criteria in place in order to settle such matters. Any good Anglican cleric who's told that he'll have to be unconditionally reordained is going to ask why, and he's going to require an acceptable and rigorously-defensible answer. This is not a matter of pride. It's a matter of unlawfully and sacrilegiously repeating an indelible sacrament.

Well, the "well-defined and rigorously defensible criteria" would be that all people outside of the Orthodox Church ought to spend 3 years as Catechumens, then to be Baptized and anointed with the Chrism, then to wait for a few years before they become a Reader, then Deacon, Priest, and finally Bishop, a total of 20 years minimum.

Would you prefer the well-defined canonical laws or no?

 

[sculleywr]

Reading things like that is never really the same as discussing them and seeing how they might apply to a situation we see before us.

Yes. You are right. But we have those who want the well-defined response. That would be the canons, which I stated the combined rule for all outside the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes. You are right. But we have those who want the well-defined response. That would be the canons, which I stated the combined rule for all outside the Church.

and the bishops would have to know the Psalter by heart, and I would say prolly the priests as well, since bishops functioned as priests back then before Christianity spread. that is if we wanna do it "by the book."

 

[MKJ]

and the bishops would have to know the Psalter by heart, and I would say prolly the priests as well, since bishops functioned as priests back then before Christianity spread. that is if we wanna do it "by the book."

What would be the problem with knowing the psalter by heart?

 

[sculleywr]

What would be the problem with knowing the psalter by heart?

He is stating what a bishop would have to be able to do: Memorize all 151 psalms. There is some foreboding memorizing to do there

 

[Crandaddy]

The Catholics have the kind of rigidly defined criteria you speak of, and the problem is, it really doesn't work for them. Their sacramental theology is a mess, the approach to annulments being the best example. Or even look at their approach to Anglican orders.

Well, I said well-defined, not rigidly-defined. Our criteria need to be well-defined so that we're clear on their terms. But to a certain extent they do need to be rigidly-defined, as well. A baptism that doesn't make use of water (where water can be had), for example, is not a valid baptism. This criterion is pretty rigid and non-negotiable.

The trouble with Catholic sacramental theology isn't rigidity per se so much as it's the rigidity of the tamperings, modifications, and additions resultant from their doctrinal development and papal infallibility. Apostolicae Curae is a pretty bad piece of scholarship, but the Catholics are stuck with it because their pope put his stamp of approval on it.

To say that the minister of the sacrament has only to will to do what the church has always done is fine, so far as it goes - I don't think anyone wants to say that a dim intellectual apprehension of sacramental theology is fatal. But intent and understanding to begin to come together. If a priest thinks that a sacrament is a figment of peoples imagination, and that the church has not always thought that, what is his intent - to do what the church always really did, to change what the church thinks - who knows.

There is just no way for us to have that kind of intimate knowledge of each individual. And we don't have that kind of intimate knowledge of what creates right intent either.

There's no way to be absolutely 100% certain that proper intent is present. I suppose it's possible to concoct crazy, wildly-implausible (but not strictly logically impossible) scenarios where proper intent is not present, although it appears to be. The standard we seek is not absolute certainty, but rather certainty beyond reasonable doubt. The remaining uncertainty we have faith that God will take care of.

The Orthodox can be sure that within their own group, their priests are real priests who are really dispensing the Eucharist.

I don't doubt that they can.

We Anglicans are not in the same boat. Yes, there are some orthodox Anglicans - my parish is such a parish. But I don't feel that I can just walk into any Anglican parish and feel confident in what I will find there. Who ordained that priest - was it a man or a woman bishop - did the priest receiving the ordination consent in any real way - or what.

Nor do I feel that way. But I do feel confident in my own church. I feel confident that my priest is really a priest, that my bishop is really a bishop, and that when my priest or bishop communes me that what he gives me is the real Body and Blood of Christ. Did I not confide in these, then I should have no business belonging to my church.

As far as needing to rigorously decide a criteria why - it is a lost cause. Are they going to go through the pedigree of each priest, looking at each bishop and whether everything is in order. Its an impossible task. Historically the OC has sometimes required ordination of schismatics and sometimes not, and as far as I can see the difference is a matter of how possible it is to be fairly confident. I think after 1000 years of separation it is not too far out to decide in favour of going whole hog and ordaining people again.

I don't know if it would be impossible. I don't doubt that it might be difficult and time-consuming, but since when has Christianity been about taking easy shortcuts? But even if, for whatever reason, scrutinizing the ordination of each individual cleric isn't possible or feasible, I still think it's possible to get a pretty good idea of whether or not a valid ordination has taken place by examining the doctrine of the church and the rubric of its ordination rites.

And furthermore, I don't see why conditional (rather than un-conditional) ordination might not be acceptable (if the Orthodox Church knows such a practice, that is). If a cleric is entering the Catholic Church and she is uncertain whether or not he's been validly ordained, she might conditionally ordain him, just to be absolutely certain that he has a valid ordination. She would not un-conditionally ordain him because un-conditional ordination is not to be done without reasonable certainty that the ordinand has not already been validly ordained. (I've heard of this being done with a few Anglicans since the introduction of the so-called “Dutch touch” to Anglican ordinal lines, by the way.)

If some Anglicans will not accept that then obviously that is their decision. But I wonder what they are really saying. How does it hurt them to say that from an Orthodox perspective, their status is impossible to evaluate. If their previous ordinations were ok, then how are they harmed - the new ordination will give confidence and peace of mind to those they will serve in their new situation. If it wasn't, well, then it is a good thing to have done it again.

I cannot see why this is the sort of thing that should be a hang-up for anyone. There are plenty of more substantial issues to consider rather than something that could not possibly harm anyone.

Maybe... if their ordinal status is really impossible to evaluate from the Orthodox perspective. I don't quite see why it should be, though.

 

[Crandaddy]

I'm not really sure why this thread has reached so many pages. There are numerous ancient canons which explain, teach, and serve as guidelines on what apostlic succession is and when its lost. Cannons on how heretical clergy are to be recieved, on what grounds a bishop can be defrocked, when a layman can canonically seperate from his bishop for teaching heresy etc etc.

As far as sinful clergy, unless it becomes public we dont now whats in his heart. Its not like clergy are required to take lie detector tests before a liturgy. But we know a priest whether he's sinful or simply doubts can still consecrate the Holy Eucharst .

The Eucharistic miracle of Lancia for instance where the bloodless sacrifice turned into actual flesh and blood because the consecrating priest lacked belief. Another famous case from the 8th century Egypt where a muslim prince wanted to kill the priest for performing a human sacrifice. The musim wanted to witness the 'superstitious' ritual of the christians, what he actually saw was a baby beingcarvedt up (when it was actually the bread being prepared for Communion). In the Russian Orthodox Trebnik (book of needs) the clergy is instructed that if the Eucharist takes on the form of actual flesh and blood it is to be put aside and not distributed. That the change is due to lack of faith in the real precense and shoud not be viewed as a joyous miracle.

As far as reception of heretical clergy, recieving clergy in their previous orders does not mean we acknowledge the existence of grace in those ordinations. The Novatian clergy were recieved in the same way in canon 8 of Nicea. It is clear though those clergy were not considered members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and upon reception they would have to take a back seat if neccesary:

'Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.....But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title.'


This is further laid out in the canon of St. Basil the Great:

As for the Cathari, they too are to be classed as schismatics. Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities those, I mean, who form the party*of Cyprian and our own Firmilian to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism, but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. Inasmuch however, as it has seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or "economy") to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted.

As for the case of the Encratites, however, it behooves us to look upon it as a crime, since as though to make themselves unacceptable to the Church they have attempted to anticipate the situation by advocating a baptism of their own; hence they themselves have run counter to their own custom. I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appears to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism."


As we can see from the above, (re)baptism is not neccesary only because the form remains essentially the same but its still an empty shell. In the case of the Encratites they should be baptised, as they intentionally altered the form precisely so the Catholic Church cannot use eikonomia on their converts. Nevertheless even with Encratites, eikonomia can be used, just in case they begin to assume baptism is a minor sacrament that is repeatable.
​

Alright, thank you, buzuxi02.


Of course, Catholics and Anglicans say something rather different. Accordingly, those who have broken or impaired communion with the Church can still have valid sacraments, provided that these are performed by proper ministers acting with proper intent according to proper form and matter. So I do wonder why there's a difference.


A couple of questions:


(1) Is it your claim, then, that severance of communion with the Church is sufficient to effect invalidation of holy orders and sacraments?


(2) What are the sufficient conditions to be met for severance of communion with the Church?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What would be the problem with knowing the psalter by heart?

oh nothing, I was just pointing out something that must be done, if we are to do things always by the book.

 

[sculleywr]

Well, I said well-defined, not rigidly-defined. Our criteria need to be well-defined so that we're clear on their terms. But to a certain extent they do need to be rigidly-defined, as well. A baptism that doesn't make use of water (where water can be had), for example, is not a valid baptism. This criterion is pretty rigid and non-negotiable.

The trouble with Catholic sacramental theology isn't rigidity per se so much as it's the rigidity of the tamperings, modifications, and additions resultant from their doctrinal development and papal infallibility. Apostolicae Curae is a pretty bad piece of scholarship, but the Catholics are stuck with it because their pope put his stamp of approval on it.

There's no way to be absolutely 100% certain that proper intent is present. I suppose it's possible to concoct crazy, wildly-implausible (but not strictly logically impossible) scenarios where proper intent is not present, although it appears to be. The standard we seek is not absolute certainty, but rather certainty beyond reasonable doubt. The remaining uncertainty we have faith that God will take care of.

I don't doubt that they can.

Nor do I feel that way. But I do feel confident in my own church. I feel confident that my priest is really a priest, that my bishop is really a bishop, and that when my priest or bishop communes me that what he gives me is the real Body and Blood of Christ. Did I not confide in these, then I should have no business belonging to my church.

I don't know if it would be impossible. I don't doubt that it might be difficult and time-consuming, but since when has Christianity been about taking easy shortcuts? But even if, for whatever reason, scrutinizing the ordination of each individual cleric isn't possible or feasible, I still think it's possible to get a pretty good idea of whether or not a valid ordination has taken place by examining the doctrine of the church and the rubric of its ordination rites.

And furthermore, I don't see why conditional (rather than un-conditional) ordination might not be acceptable (if the Orthodox Church knows such a practice, that is). If a cleric is entering the Catholic Church and she is uncertain whether or not he's been validly ordained, she might conditionally ordain him, just to be absolutely certain that he has a valid ordination. She would not un-conditionally ordain him because un-conditional ordination is not to be done without reasonable certainty that the ordinand has not already been validly ordained. (I've heard of this being done with a few Anglicans since the introduction of the so-called “Dutch touch” to Anglican ordinal lines, by the way.)

Maybe... if their ordinal status is really impossible to evaluate from the Orthodox perspective. I don't quite see why it should be, though.

Unfortunately, since you don't see the Succession of the clergy in the same way as the early Church or the Orthodox Church, you wouldn't see why it should be impossible for us to evaluate the ordinal status. You ONLY see the intent as necessary, while we see proper Succession as necessary. When we look at the Succession of the Anglicans everywhere, we see 500 years of open teaching of the filioque heresy, then another 400-500 years of schism.

If a limb breaks off of a tree, then a branch breaks off of the branch, does the branch have life simply from the breaking from the broken limb? Or must it be grafted into the tree to have life?

As the Orthodox see it, the Roman Church is that limb, and Anglicans are that branch.

 

[sculleywr]

Alright, thank you, buzuxi02.


Of course, Catholics and Anglicans say something rather different. Accordingly, those who have broken or impaired communion with the Church can still have valid sacraments, provided that these are performed by proper ministers acting with proper intent according to proper form and matter. So I do wonder why there's a difference.


A couple of questions:


(1) Is it your claim, then, that severance of communion with the Church is sufficient to effect invalidation of holy orders and sacraments?


(2) What are the sufficient conditions to be met for severance of communion with the Church?

Excommunication, whether stated by the Church or enacted by the clergy themselves, is all that is necessary to invalidate all 7 of the Sacraments performed by the excommunicated clergy.

Many years ago, a believer who had become discouraged from the weight of great sorrow and adversity in his life, gradually quit attending church, withdrew to himself and even avoided visits from concerned friends and family members. He began becoming defensive when anyone suggested he should come back into fellowship, responding that the last thing he needed was people judging him. He began to feel like Job, with suffering he felt was undeserved, and rebuffed efforts by his Pastor and members of his congregation to talk about the problems.

One day, his Pastor paid a visit, and because he respected him, the man reluctantly let him in, though warning him he would not be very good company. During the visit, the Pastor said very little, mainly keeping him company, as they sat before the man's fireplace, letting him know he was loved, was being prayed for, and that a lot of people were there for him. The Pastor knew that he had to avoid sounding "preachy," yet desperately desired to see his friend realize how far he was slipping away from the Lord--and the inevitable consequences that could bring. Finally, the Lord spoke to the Pastor, and told him what to do.

As the two men sat in silence before the crackling fire, the Pastor slowly reached out, and picked up the tongs next to the fireplace. He reached into the embers, and took out a single glowing coal, setting it on the stone floor. Puzzled, but remaining silent, the man sat staring at the coal. Gradually, the coal began to lose its color, finally growing dark and cold until it died.


The Church in England is that coal. It is not in the fire, and has lost the heat which gives the color.

 

[MKJ]

He is stating what a bishop would have to be able to do: Memorize all 151 psalms. There is some foreboding memorizing to do there

I think its doable though - the priest i had when I was a student knew them all by heart. He used to recite them in the car when he was driving.

That is a good project though. In the Anglican offices you go through the lot of them once a month which would be a good start I think - I used to do the offices pretty regularly and it is a habit I should get back into. It is a lot easier without kids though.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

If you were to faithfully keep the Hours every day, you would read through the Psalter once a week, and twice a week during Lent. So it may not be that uncommon among monastics to have the Psalter memorized.

Mary

 

[sculleywr]

If you were to faithfully keep the Hours every day, you would read through the Psalter once a week, and twice a week during Lent. So it may not be that uncommon among monastics to have the Psalter memorized.

Mary

Which is why monks become bishops so often.

 

[sculleywr]

I think its doable though - the priest i had when I was a student knew them all by heart. He used to recite them in the car when he was driving.

That is a good project though. In the Anglican offices you go through the lot of them once a month which would be a good start I think - I used to do the offices pretty regularly and it is a habit I should get back into. It is a lot easier without kids though.

It is doable, but should it be a requirement for being entered into the clergy of the Church?

You must examine the reason that this requirement was made. In the time of the Great Councils, there were many places where there were no scrolls or written scriptures. Sometimes the only "Bible" the Church had was the Priest or Bishop. As the Psalms were and are an integral part of the Orthodox services, knowledge of the Psalms was necessary to the office of the Bishop and Priest.

In today's world, a person can print the entire service onto paper for less than a candy bar. As you can tell, there is not as much need to devote time to memorization of the psalter as there is to, for instance, outreach and intercultural studies. Time that used to be devoted to repetitiously reciting the psalms can be devoted to learning how to best reach the community to which you are being sent. We can devote that time to developing methods to reach new groups of people, like the OCF's new outreach to the Deaf Community at Gallaudet University. We can have our bishops and priests in training obtain practical hands-on training by arranging missions trips.

Instead of learning what to shepherd our flock into, our clergy can learn HOW to shepherd the flock properly, and how to seek the lost sheep.

The Church never changes, but her methods, her actions toward the outside world, those change. Every day, we slowly work toward being better at reaching our community. We, as the people (not the Church), become better at reflecting the peace God gives.

The Church must be stable, unmoving, and strong in doctrine. But it is also called to be dynamic, adaptive, and proactive in outreach. It is truly a Church of and by God, but FOR the people. It is a hospital, a safehouse, a bank, and many other things as the needs of the people change in the ages. But it is timeless in its services.