Simony

[JM]

si·mo·ny

1. the buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges, for example pardons or benefices.

Does simony invalidate apostolic succession?

Thanks,

jm

 

[Sam91]

si·mo·ny

1. the buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges, for example pardons or benefices.

Does simony invalidate apostolic succession?

Thanks,

jm

I wonder if that word refers back to simon the sorceror in acts?

 

[tampasteve]

Simony is a sin, sinfulness does not invalidate the apostolic succession, if one believes in it as taught by Rome and the Orthodox Churches.

 

[dreadnought]

si·mo·ny

1. the buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges, for example pardons or benefices.

Does simony invalidate apostolic succession?

Thanks,

jm

Not being a Catholic, I've never had reason to ponder this before. After googling "apostolic succession" I would have to suggest the Lord doesn't concern himself with mistakes from the past.

 

[A_Thinker]

Not being a Catholic, I've never had reason to ponder this before. After googling "apostolic succession" I would have to suggest the Lord doesn't concern himself with mistakes from the past.

How about "sins of the present" (i.e. when one who had bought the Papacy was in power) ???

 

[tampasteve]

How about "sins of the present" (i.e. when one who had bought the Papacy was in power) ???

Sin does not invalidate AS, even in the present. Heresy would, but Simony isn't heresy.

 

[Tree of Life]

si·mo·ny

1. the buying or selling of ecclesiastical privileges, for example pardons or benefices.

Does simony invalidate apostolic succession?

Thanks,

jm

In the eyes of Rome, it does not. So long as a person is consecrated by Bishops, the consecration is legitimate - even if that person is not qualified and if the consecration should never have happened.

 

[dreadnought]

How about "sins of the present" (i.e. when one who had bought the Papacy was in power) ???

Is that what happened?

 

[Tree of Life]

Sin does not invalidate AS, even in the present. Heresy would, but Simony isn't heresy.

I believe that not even heresy would invalidate AS as such. It would take excommunication - an act of the church - to invalidate AS.

 

[A_Thinker]

Is that what happened?

Pope Gregory VI, in 1046: The same man who had bribed and replaced his godson ended up leaving the office himself only a year later, according to Poole's account. The trouble began when Benedict IX failed to secure the bride he'd resigned for, leading him to change his mind and return to the Vatican. Both popes remained in the city, both claiming to rule the Catholic church, for several months. That fall, the increasingly despondent clergy called on the German Emperor Henry III, of the Holy Roman Empire, to invade Rome and remove them both. When Henry III arrived, he treated Gregory VI as the rightful pope but urged him to stand before a council of fellow church leaders. The bishops urged Gregory VI to resign for bribing his way into office. Though the fresh new pope argued that he had done nothing wrong in buying the papacy, he stepped down anyway.

 

[dreadnought]

Is that what happened?

But I was thinking of sins that the church hierarchy might have committed long ago. I don't think they affect how the Lord views the church today.

 

[Rhamiel]

Interesting question

The Donatists said that a sacrament was only valid if the minister was of high moral character, this belief was condemned as a heresy

Also to use this to cast doubt on Apostolic Succession would seem like doubting Gods sovereignty

 

[Phil 1:21]

I wonder if that word refers back to simon the sorceror in acts?

It does.

 

[tz620q]

Pope Gregory VI, in 1046: The same man who had bribed and replaced his godson ended up leaving the office himself only a year later, according to Poole's account. The trouble began when Benedict IX failed to secure the bride he'd resigned for, leading him to change his mind and return to the Vatican. Both popes remained in the city, both claiming to rule the Catholic church, for several months. That fall, the increasingly despondent clergy called on the German Emperor Henry III, of the Holy Roman Empire, to invade Rome and remove them both. When Henry III arrived, he treated Gregory VI as the rightful pope but urged him to stand before a council of fellow church leaders. The bishops urged Gregory VI to resign for bribing his way into office. Though the fresh new pope argued that he had done nothing wrong in buying the papacy, he stepped down anyway.

That time frame between roughly 1000 - 1300 AD is fraught with stories like this. I have a book with a collection of letters from this period and this was one of the most controversial issues (look up investiture controversy). There was a real power struggle going on with local lords, kings, and the Holy Roman Emperor wanting to have the power to install their own candidates in as Bishops, sometimes taking lucrative bribes from the candidates. Through this method, they could control and tax their local churches. Usually, not always, the Popes opposed this vehemently and wanted this ability to select and ordain bishops reserved for the church, with no political interference. The back and forth of this controversy is interesting because at that time might made right. The church did not really have an army and was arguing with lords whose strongest claim to power was often having the mightiest forces in a region. It is revelatory that the church prevailed on this issue, usually by allying themselves with the strongest kingdom of an era. Real Politik cannot be avoided.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I wonder if that word refers back to simon the sorceror in acts?

That's precisely where the term simony comes from. From Simon Magus who attempted to purchase the gifts of God with money.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The "efficacy" of the Office is not dependent upon the moral character of the individual, but the Office itself. Even in Lutheranism we acknowledge that the pastor acts and speaks in persona Christi when exercising the Office of the Keys; and hence the Word and Sacraments are there by the grace and command of Christ, and not nullified by sinful man. Should even the most wicked of men preach the Gospel, it is still Gospel. For, indeed, the Gospel is itself efficacious and true, being the word of God which freely justifies us, giving us faith (Romans 10:17).

Donatism is a dangerous heresy that proclaims despair and shipwrecks faith by denying the efficacy of God's grace and gifts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[thecolorsblend]

I would have to suggest the Lord doesn't concern himself with mistakes from the past.

Then I guess He sent His Son to die on the cross for a whole lot of nothing, eh?

 

[hedrick]

It's complicated slightly by the Catholic treatment of Anglican Succession. That creates criteria which could be used to undermine the succession among Catholics as well. I think the only sane view is that succession doesn't depend upon everyone in history having done things right.

But it's an odd discussion for Protestants to have, since typically we don't accept the idea of succession at all, nor that kind of legalistic idea of "validity" of sacraments.

Here's a Presbyterian equivalent: was the communion conducted by Buzz Aldrin on the moon valid? We require communion to have at least a teaching elder and a ruling elder. But clearly there wasn't a teaching elder on the moon. Hence it was conducted at the same time as a service in his home church, and was viewed as part of that service. Was that valid? Fortunately we don't get involved in that kind of question, as we don't have quite the same concept of validity as the Catholic tradition.

 

[JM]

It's complicated slightly by the Catholic treatment of Anglican Succession. That creates criteria which could be used to undermine the succession among Catholics as well. I think the only sane view is that succession doesn't depend upon everyone in history having done things right.

But it's an odd discussion for Protestants to have, since typically we don't accept the idea of succession at all, nor that kind of legalistic idea of "validity" of sacraments.

Here's a Presbyterian equivalent: was the communion conducted by Buzz Aldrin on the moon valid? We require communion to have at least a teaching elder and a ruling elder. But clearly there wasn't a teaching elder on the moon. Hence it was conducted at the same time as a service in his home church, and was viewed as part of that service. Was that valid? Fortunately we don't get involved in that kind of question, as we don't have quite the same concept of validity as the Catholic tradition.

Thanks hedrick but I was asking the Traditionalists or those who believe succession validates a sacrament...

 

[thecolorsblend]

Since we seem to have settled the matter, not long after being welcomed into the Catholic Church, I wanted to give my priest a token of gratitude for teaching with me once a week for so many months. So I texted him, asking if buying him dinner at Outback would be considered simony under the circumstances. He replied that it would not be. So I bought him dinner.

I've done smarter things. Outback has REALLY gone downhill since the last time I'd eaten there. But I was hankering for some baked potato soup, what can I say? Father seemed to rather enjoy the meal though. So I guess there's that.

And at least it wasn't simony.