OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 30, 2014, 09:57:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Sacrament of Holy Orders Effects an Ontological Change  (Read 5419 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« on: January 10, 2011, 05:17:30 PM »

As a Catholic I subscribe to the following Orthodox understanding of the priesthood.  It is very Catholic in its description of Holy Orders. 

Also it seems to me that what most Orthodox speak of as defrocking is what the Catholic Church speaks of as laicization. 

However as the following description notes, Holy Orders establishes a relationship between the man and Christ that is ontological and I would imagine that those of this world cannot really touch that once it is done...so it seems to me from the article below.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/priesthood_symeon_thessalonica.htm

Quote

On the Priesthood

by St Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica

What a Priest Is.

A priest, he says, has been deemed worthy to be a “minister” (διάκονος) of Christ and a “liturgist” (Λειτουργός), a “guardian” (παραστάτης) and a “beholder” (θεωρός) of the Mysteries, who draws near and communicates in them, and also a “preacher” (κήρυξ) of the Gospel. There are no veils any more interfering in this way, says St. Symeon, because a priest can behold the divine Light directly without any obstacle. He is no longer in need of a Seraph in order to receive the Mysteries, because he takes them with the tongs (λαβίς). Indeed, he himself is now the Seraph, by virtue of his consecration to the priesthood. He is the one that calls others to draw near to God, because he now holds in his hands the divine Mysteries and addresses the faithful, admonishing them to be attentive and offers them to Christ, and is actually the way and the guide of others towards the Light. Indeed, a priest is both a "Cherub," because he can see fully through the Mysteries the One, who sees all things, and a fire bearing "Seraph," because he holds the living Coal. Furthermore, a priest is a "throne," because through the Liturgy and the Communion, he has the One, who is present everywhere resting on himself; and he is also an angel, as God's servant and liturgist.

A priest is all the above, says St. Symeon, not in an imaginary way, but really and truly, because he does not serve the divine Mysteries "in a merely iconic or merely typical (symbolic) way," but truly serves the very Master, who is escorted in the heavens above by the immaterial powers. "Indeed, a priest does on earth what the immaterial powers do in heaven, because this is what the Designer of all was pleased with and wanted to establish, namely, that one and the same Liturgy should be observed both above and below."

Clearly, this description has two basic characteristics, both of which are tied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The first one is strictly connected with Christ's person, inasmuch as a priest belongs entirely to Christ through receiving his priestly identity from him, being constantly connected with him and having his reference always to him. The second characteristic is that a priest's service has a direct link and reference to Christ's work, which was accomplished for all creation, the realities above and the realities below. This close link of the priesthood with Christ's person and work is spelled out in the next paragraph, which explains how the priest's service truly reveals who Christ is and what he has done for the entire, created world in general and mankind in particular.

Christ's Work Extended Through the Priesthood.

The priest's service, says St. Symeon, reveals what Christ himself did for us when he appeared to the world as a man like us. This work can be described as follows:

Having procured his union with us, i.e. having willingly put on matter, Christ, who alone is immaterial, united himself with human beings, who are endowed with material senses. It is crucial here that He, who is by nature uncreated and without beginning, in his desire to be united with creation, was not united with the immaterial and creaturely nature of the angels — for angels were created out of nothing, immaterial and immortal by grace and participants of his Glory according to the measure of grace that was allotted to each of them. Rather, Christ put on our creaturely body and was united personally (ύποστατικώς) with us, without being separated from the Godhead and without being confused with the human nature, to which he transmitted the glories and benefits of the Godhead — "for in him," he says, "dwells the entire fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

Now, all this is related to the Priesthood, because just as Christ originally appeared to the world, according to his good pleasure, so now, he reveals himself through the sacred Mysteries (Sacraments) to the priests and through them to the world! Christ's amazing, divine work, which escapes the grasp of human reason, has been entrusted to the priest, who serves the Liturgy and initiates others to it. What a priest does is to reveal Christ again, i.e. to present him truly and fully to the world of his time through the sacred Mysteries, which he handles according to the divine ordinance. In other words, a priest represents Christ's perpetual and saving grace granted to the world through the celebration of Christ's mysteries.

Herein lies, according to St. Symeon, the great dignity of the priesthood, which is greater than that given to the angels. The Mysteries, which priests handle, have to do with the fact that the Master, who contains all things and is himself incomprehensible, becomes for us localized. Though he cannot be touched, human hands uphold him. Though he is invisible, he submits to the senses and become visible. Though he is inconceivable by the human mind, he is received by human beings through our humble and fallen nature, by means of the priesthood, which has been instituted by him. This is the miracle of miracles, that Christ appears through the Mysteries; that he is given, carried, communicated; that he indwells in us and brings us peace, expiation and sustenance.

This is, says St. Symeon, the most novel of all happenings, the greatest gift to humanity, the highest power, authority and grace. By this, the priests, who are human beings, made of soil and clay and resembling worms of the earth, appear as heavenly Authorities and Powers (Angels). Indeed, the power of the priesthood makes human beings greater than these heavenly hosts. Priests are partakers of a mightier creation through the administration of holy Baptism and the other Mysteries. They become fathers of sons of God, or fathers of those, who become gods by grace. They act in a way that cancels out the effects of sin and, thus, deliver the souls, unlock the gates of paradise, dissolve eternal bonds. Priests are empowered to perform divine acts, as God's collaborators for the salvation of human beings.

This being the case, it is obvious that priests have been granted the greatest charismas and gifts and, as such, are the greatest debtors to God. And it could not be otherwise, for they are compared to the heavenly Powers. These many-eyed orders of Angels behold God's glory all the time. They tremble and shudder at this sight, and yet, they are in greater awe when they observe the manifold Wisdom of God, which they come to know through the Church, as St. Paul says. These angelic orders are in awe, because of their creaturely nature and immeasurable goodness of God, but they are also amazed and fearful at the awesome, divine Mysteries performed by the priesthood.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2011, 06:41:27 PM »

Quote
Priests are partakers of a mightier creation through the administration of holy Baptism and the other Mysteries.
Partakers, not possessers.

They can partake only within the context of the Church. Outside that context, they have pulled the plug.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2011, 08:45:07 PM »

I think Irish Melkite wrote a post a few years ago that touched upon the different sacramental approaches of East (the Cyprianic theory) and West (the Augustinian theory):

Augustinian and Cyprianic Theories of Orders
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2011, 09:14:18 PM »

I think Irish Melkite wrote a post a few years ago that touched upon the different sacramental approaches of East (the Cyprianic theory) and West (the Augustinian theory):

Augustinian and Cyprianic Theories of Orders

/\  One of the Irish Melkite's great posts.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 09:16:00 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2011, 09:15:21 PM »

Here is the voice of the great Catholic Church Father Basil the Great.  He speaks of the teaching that departure from the Church removes episcopate and priesthood.

See message 35 at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25542.msg401044.html#msg401044


Epistle to Amphilochius (of which the "First Canon" of Saint Basil is a shorter
version)


"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and
through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those
who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing
nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy
Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded
those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the
Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church.

Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2011, 09:25:24 PM »

I think Irish Melkite wrote a post a few years ago that touched upon the different sacramental approaches of East (the Cyprianic theory) and West (the Augustinian theory):

Augustinian and Cyprianic Theories of Orders

/\  One of the Irish Melkite's great posts.

Agreed; it was a well-stated summary.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2011, 09:52:35 PM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.

Also, it's not as much of a problem as is presented. If a heretical church has enough faith to produce a valid Eucharist, more power to them. May they receive the Grace of God they need from it, and perhaps return to the Church.

An opinion could be formulated against the Cyprianic ordination theology that such an opinion is degrading to the mercy of God. That is, ecclesial separation that removes a person from the Graces in their Sacraments and are doomed completely unless they should change their mind. As may be said of Baptism, Confirmation, etc. "Sorry, God didn't recognize your Baptism, or your Confession."

It might be harder record keeping, but it's an opinion of divine mercy.

Thoughts?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2011, 10:49:06 PM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.

Also, it's not as much of a problem as is presented. If a heretical church has enough faith to produce a valid Eucharist, more power to them. May they receive the Grace of God they need from it, and perhaps return to the Church.

An opinion could be formulated against the Cyprianic ordination theology that such an opinion is degrading to the mercy of God. That is, ecclesial separation that removes a person from the Graces in their Sacraments and are doomed completely unless they should change their mind. As may be said of Baptism, Confirmation, etc. "Sorry, God didn't recognize your Baptism, or your Confession."

It might be harder record keeping, but it's an opinion of divine mercy.

Thoughts?
One can take the Eucharist to salvation or to damnation. St. Paul points that out in Corinthians.

An opinion could be formulated against the Augustinian ordination theology that such an opinion is degrading to the mercy of God. That is, ecclesial separation that provides a person the opportunity to commune unworthily in their Sacraments and are doomed completely unless they should change their mind. As may be said of Baptism, Confirmation, etc. "Sorry, God recognized your Baptism, and your Confession, and you profaned it with your heresy."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2011, 12:24:54 AM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2011, 12:27:53 AM »

An opinion could be formulated against the Cyprianic ordination theology that such an opinion is degrading to the mercy of God. That is, ecclesial separation that removes a person from the Graces in their Sacraments and are doomed completely unless they should change their mind. As may be said of Baptism, Confirmation, etc. "Sorry, God didn't recognize your Baptism, or your Confession."

It might be harder record keeping, but it's an opinion of divine mercy.

Thoughts?
I do not agree.  Of course both theories have their strong points and their weaknesses, but I would not say that the Cyprianic theory degrades the mercy of God; instead, it simply connects the grace of the Holy Mysteries more closely to the Church than does the Augustinian theory.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2011, 01:09:18 AM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2011, 09:50:16 AM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.

I'm not totally convinced, though I do enjoy the debate.

Donatists reflect the sinfulness, not the faith of the priest. And it's not full orthodoxy, but it does concern a certain matter of faith. If the priest does not believe in the real presence, the validity of apostolic succession, the grace in sacraments, etc. then it could be said he has rejected the grace in ordination. (I think of Pope Leo XIII's rejection of Anglican orders). This would be like someone going to confession, without belief in it's grace. If you don't believe God will forgive in confession, the he can't forgive.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2011, 10:13:09 AM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.

I'm not totally convinced, though I do enjoy the debate.

Donatists reflect the sinfulness, not the faith of the priest. And it's not full orthodoxy, but it does concern a certain matter of faith. If the priest does not believe in the real presence, the validity of apostolic succession, the grace in sacraments, etc. then it could be said he has rejected the grace in ordination. (I think of Pope Leo XIII's rejection of Anglican orders). This would be like someone going to confession, without belief in it's grace. If you don't believe God will forgive in confession, the he can't forgive.
Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid due to defect of form and intention (see Apostolicae Curae, nos. 12 and 20) surrounding the changes made to the ordination service in the Book of Common Prayer.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 10:15:15 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2011, 10:18:36 AM »

This would be like someone going to confession, without belief in it's grace. If you don't believe God will forgive in confession, the he can't forgive.
Again, according to the Western teaching, it is not the faith of the individual, but his intention in receiving (or in the case of the minister his intention in bestowing) that determines the validity of the sacrament.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 10:20:15 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2011, 11:05:43 AM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.
I have heard otherwise. For example, if a particular bishop departs from the Nicene Faith, such a person could no longer oradian priests.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2011, 11:07:43 AM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2011, 12:03:10 PM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.
I have heard otherwise. For example, if a particular bishop departs from the Nicene Faith, such a person could no longer oradian priests.
Irish Melkite has written about recent moves by the Catholic Church - at least in connection with sacred orders - toward a Cyrprianic stance that connects the sacrament more closely to the Church and her faith, but traditionally the orthodoxy of the minister (priest or bishop) does not impact the validity of a sacrament.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 12:04:56 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2011, 12:04:39 PM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.
I have heard otherwise. For example, if a particular bishop departs from the Nicene Faith, such a person could no longer oradian priests.
Irish Melkite has written about recent moves by the Catholic Church - at least in connection with sacred orders - toward a Cyrprianic stance that connects the sacrament more closely to the Church and her faith, but traditionally the orthodoxy of the minster (priest or bishop) does not impact the validity of a sacrament.
I'm gonna take a look at the Summa on this matter.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2011, 12:39:22 PM »

However, it's not quite as simple as laying on hands to pass the Sacrament.

Heresy can and does, in the Latin tradition, separate someone from the Grace bestowed in ordination. This can be seen in the determination of whether a church has "valid Apostolic Succession". A schismatic or heretical church can "disbelieve themselves" from their Sacramental abilities.
The orthodoxy, or lack thereof, of a minister does not effect the validity of a sacrament according to Western teaching.  The minister must have a proper intention - virtual or actual - to do what the Church does with the sacrament in order for it to be valid, and he must also use the proper matter and form for validity, or depending upon the case, licitness; but he does not have to possess the orthodox faith according to the Augustinian theory, and in fact to claim that that is the case is to confuse St. Augustine's teaching with the teaching of the Donatists he was working against.
I have heard otherwise. For example, if a particular bishop departs from the Nicene Faith, such a person could no longer oradian priests.
Irish Melkite has written about recent moves by the Catholic Church - at least in connection with sacred orders - toward a Cyrprianic stance that connects the sacrament more closely to the Church and her faith, but traditionally the orthodoxy of the minster (priest or bishop) does not impact the validity of a sacrament.
I'm gonna take a look at the Summa on this matter.
You may also want to consult Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" and Halligan's "The Administration of the Sacraments" for a traditional Roman Catholic presentation of the issue of sacramental validity.

In connection with my comment about Irish Melkite there is a recent thread at the Byzantine Forum in which he posted and mentioned the movement of the Roman Church toward a more Cyprianic position (see the thread entitled:  "XXIII General Synod of the Polish National Catholic Church").
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 12:43:56 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2011, 01:07:00 PM »

This?

Quote from: Irish Melkite
Ned.

The validity of PNCC orders was unequivocally accepted by Rome in response to a request by the USCCB that it rule on same.

The PNCC is one of what Canon Law describes as "other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches" (i.e., not in communion with Rome, but possessed of Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments)

I can't remember just now when the ruling was made as to the validity of PNCC orders, but it definitely predated the 2000 episode cited above and the categorization of that event by the RCC as a "mistake and misunderstanding" reflects Rome's embarressment that it ever happened.

Rome has been more than aware of vagante ecclesia with technical bases on which to assert Apostolic Succession for well over a century. However, in the very recent past, it seems to have finally decided that stepping back from the Augustinian Theory might be a better route to take. That said, I doubt very much that reordination would be conferred on any presbyter from a mainstream, albeit non-canonical, Orthodox Church who was entering communion.

Many years,

Neil
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/357770/Re:%20XXIII%20General%20Synod%20of%20the#Post357770
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2011, 02:02:53 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2011, 02:02:53 PM »

This?

Quote from: Irish Melkite
Ned.

The validity of PNCC orders was unequivocally accepted by Rome in response to a request by the USCCB that it rule on same.

The PNCC is one of what Canon Law describes as "other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches" (i.e., not in communion with Rome, but possessed of Apostolic Succession and valid sacraments)

I can't remember just now when the ruling was made as to the validity of PNCC orders, but it definitely predated the 2000 episode cited above and the categorization of that event by the RCC as a "mistake and misunderstanding" reflects Rome's embarressment that it ever happened.

Rome has been more than aware of vagante ecclesia with technical bases on which to assert Apostolic Succession for well over a century. However, in the very recent past, it seems to have finally decided that stepping back from the Augustinian Theory might be a better route to take. That said, I doubt very much that reordination would be conferred on any presbyter from a mainstream, albeit non-canonical, Orthodox Church who was entering communion.

Many years,

Neil
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/357770/Re:%20XXIII%20General%20Synod%20of%20the#Post357770

What does any of this have to do with the question of whether or not there is an ontological change in the man when he validly receives the grace of Holy Orders?

Mary
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,253



« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2011, 02:10:38 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.
Besides, the rolls were probably leavened.  Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2011, 03:00:16 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.
Besides, the rolls were probably leavened.  Cheesy

In Christ,
Andrew

 Cheesy Well stated.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2011, 09:17:18 PM »


Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid due to defect of form and intention (see Apostolicae Curae, nos. 12 and 20) surrounding the changes made to the ordination service in the Book of Common Prayer.


Here is something from Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, one of Russia's eminent theologians prior to the Revolution, Metropolitan of Kiev, and later, the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

 "Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders"
 http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html

 The conclusion:

"Thus the adoption of one or the other mode of reception for those of
 other confessions who enter the Church (that is, heretics or
 schismatics) depends on ecclesiastical economy, on the judgment of the
 local bishops and the Councils, and on the existence of the outward
 form of the sacraments of baptism, chrismation and orders in the
 communities from which the applicants come."

"Therefore, in our opinion, Anglicans may be admitted by the third
 rite, especially in view of the sincere and humble aspiration of many
 of them to be united to our holy Church."

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2011, 09:20:11 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.

It's not absurd. Ask a canonist. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #26 on: January 11, 2011, 09:23:15 PM »


Leo XIII declared Anglican orders invalid due to defect of form and intention (see Apostolicae Curae, nos. 12 and 20) surrounding the changes made to the ordination service in the Book of Common Prayer.


Here is something from Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, one of Russia's eminent theologians prior to the Revolution, Metropolitan of Kiev, and later, the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

 "Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders"
 http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html

 The conclusion:

"Thus the adoption of one or the other mode of reception for those of
 other confessions who enter the Church (that is, heretics or
 schismatics) depends on ecclesiastical economy, on the judgment of the
 local bishops and the Councils, and on the existence of the outward
 form of the sacraments of baptism, chrismation and orders in the
 communities from which the applicants come."

"Therefore, in our opinion, Anglicans may be admitted by the third
 rite, especially in view of the sincere and humble aspiration of many
 of them to be united to our holy Church."


Whereas this may have been true in his day, and certainly was in Pope Leo XIII's day, but sadly is not such any longer.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 11, 2011, 10:20:59 PM »

I found the article at the link below interesting:

Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity:
Some Theological and Canonical Considerations


Any thoughts?
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 11, 2011, 10:21:39 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.

 laugh laugh laugh
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #29 on: January 11, 2011, 11:43:33 PM »

I found the article at the link below interesting:

Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity:
Some Theological and Canonical Considerations


Any thoughts?
Quote
The Christological and the Pneumatological aspect of priesthood are present in a harmonious compound. They are inseparably blended together in a unique synthesis. The Christian priesthood involves the participation in Christ's own priestly mission. It is precisely the personal descent of the Holy Spirit upon the newly-ordained that which guaranties this participation. This means that the ordained person through the Holy Spirit is directly connected with the priesthood of Christ. The theandric principium of the priestly grace is pneumatologically present in the concrete ordained person. Through the epiclesis and the coming of the Holy Spirit in the ordination, the priesthood itself of Christ is offered to the newly ordained and remains alive and effectual within the ecclesial body. Thus the Holy Spirit, which was from the beginning with the Son, creating the cosmos, leading and inspiring the prophets, incarnating the eternal Logos of God in man, being always with Christ, raising Him from the dead and constituting the Apostolic Church,4 realizes Christ's own priesthood within the historic life of the Church. In other words, the Holy Spirit remains as the vital link between Christ's priesthood and the Christian priesthood. In considering priesthood in relation to Pneumatology, we are obliged to make special reference to the Pentecostal economy. It is well-known that for the Church, Pentecost is not simply a historic event, but rather a continuous and dynamic presence, an always going on vital and flowing life. The late Fr. George Florovsky makes the observation that "Pentecost becomes eternal in the Apostolic Succession, that is in the uninterruptibility of hierarchial ordinations in which every part of the Church is at every moment organically united with the primary source."5 Thus, through the ordained ministry, the entire ecclesial body is related to the divine economy. Priesthood becomes an instrument for the realization of the ecclesial communion, which is offered at every historic moment as a continuous pentecostal life. In this perspective, what we call "Apostolic Succession" does not represent a narrow canonical principle, nor an external continuation, but rather indicates and signifies the presence of the Holy Spirit, that unique gift which restrains the entire Church into the continuity of the charismatic life.

The Trinitarian foundation of priestly order reveals and emphasizes not only the divine origin of the Christian priesthood, but equally its communal character...

The priestly diakonia, as a sacramental consecration, is not an abstract and mysterious appointment, but a concrete ministry deeply bound to the very being of the ecclesial communion....The sixth canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon is absolutely clear: "No one should be ordained without a concrete appointment. Neither presbyter, nor deacon nor any other in the ecclesiastical rank. The ordained must be designated to serve in a concrete ecclesial community of a city or of a village or of a martyr's sanctuary or of a monastery. The Holy Council has ordered that an ordination without a concrete appointment should be void and the person ordained should not have the right to serve anywhere. This punishment should be understood also as a disapproval of the bishop who ordained him."

The same is true of the bishops. The assignment for. a particular episcopal ministry is the sine qua non condition for his ordination. Both bishop, priest and deacon should be related with a concrete diocese, or congregation. This spiritual relation is a kind of matrimonial connection. Thus, any one of the clerics is dedicated to serve the flock which was assigned specifically for him. In order to guarantee this unique communion between the ordained and his faithful the First Ecumenical Council in its fifteenth rule declared a direct prohibition for all clergy to move from one place to another. Neither a bishop, nor a priest nor a deacon has the right to leave his place and go elsewhere.

The canonical tradition of the Eastern Christendom and the patristic treatises are full of evidences and indications that all ordinations are inseparably connected with a given community, and through this concrete community with the catholic ecclesial body....

The same is applicable for the ordination of a priest. Through his ordination the new presbyter is again existentially related, in a unique and specific way, to the entire Body of the Church, thus becoming himself an instrument for the edification of the ecclesial unity. This means that the ordination of a presbyter is not an isolated sacramental action, in itself and for itself, but a sacramental and spiritual event related to the concrete community and through it to the life of the whole Church...

The implications of this perspective are of paramount importance for both a theology of priesthood and an understanding of its role for the ecclesial unity. The first point we have to firmly stress once more is that priesthood cannot exist as such apart from the community....

The doctrine of the "indelible mark" attained at ordination to the priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians thereafter. The teaching purports the grace of ordination as an indelible irrevocable mark upon the soul of the ordained individual that sets him apart for priestly service analogous to the Levite rank and the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is interesting to mention here that the sixth Ecumenical Council in its 33rd canon condemns the practice of Armenian Christians who had embraced the Old Testament custom concerning the Levitic rank and did not accept for the priesthood anyone who was not of this so called "priestly lineage". The reasoning for the adoption of the Old Testament typology in both cases seems to be that an identification mark is a constitutive element of priesthood. In the later case it is conceived as an inherited trait, while in the former which concerns us here, it is viewed as irrevocably and individually attained at the ordination rite.

The logical conclusion of the "indelible mark" is that the ordained individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood which can never be removed by anyone nor can it be surrendered in any circumstance. It is evident that such a doctrinal consideration absolutizes and isolates priesthood from the event itself of the ecclesial communion. Priesthood here is distortingly objectified and over-estimated assuming a totalitarian magnitude. It is imposed over the Church which is unable to deprive the ordained. individual of its characteristic mark, even if he is unworthy to maintain the ecclesial grace. In fact this doctrine concerning the indelible mark divorces the priesthood from its organic context of the ecclesial life. Thus the ordained person possess a self sufficient power which is higher than the Church itself And the Church is not able to take back the indelible mark from an individual even if he is defrocked and excommunicated....

It should be mentioned in this connection that as far as we know, no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood. The canonical tradition that in the case of his ministerial rehabilitation this person is not re-ordained does not imply a recognition that he was a priest during the period of his punishment.20 It simply means that the Church recognizes that which had been sacramentally performed and the grace of ecclesiastical ministry is restored upon his assignment to an ecclesial community with no other sacramental sign or rite.

9. In the light of what has been said thus far, we may conclude saying that priesthood in no way is a ministry introducing division or classification within the ecclesial body. Between a priest and a lay person there is no legal distinction but precisely what we may call charismatic distribution. As we read in I Corinthians (12:4-6): "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministry but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all". This means that through ordination a member of the Church is set apart in order to minister the sacrament of ecclesial unity. In the Patristic tradition, priesthood is never understood as an of five based on an objectified mark imprinted on the soul of the ordained person, but rather as an ecclesial gift, as a vocation aiming to edify the Body of Christ. It has been rightly said that an Orthodox understanding of priesthood is beyond any "ontological" or "functional" definition.21 Priesthood cannot be considered in itself and for itself, but rather as relational reality. In other words, the only way to have an adequate understanding of the priestly charisma is to see it in its anaphoral dimension and in connection to the ecclesial communion.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2011, 01:15:59 AM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.

It's not absurd. Ask a canonist. 

Father,

Protestants and Orthodox have been using this "example" for so long that I no longer need to "check" anything with anyone.  It is neither proper matter, nor proper intent.

So you'll have to sell that bridge to the unsuspecting.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2011, 01:15:59 AM »

I found the article at the link below interesting:

Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity:
Some Theological and Canonical Considerations


Any thoughts?

Yes.  The article you recommend here is a bit at odds with the Orthodox source that I cited at the beginning of this thread.

In the article that I cited the sacrament of Holy Orders has two points of sacramental contact for the ordinand.  The first and primary contact is with Jesus, with whom there is forged a particular relationship.  The second is of course, the Church.  The powers of the priesthood flow sacramentally through both sources...the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Body of Christ...the Church.

The second article is more in line with Catholic teaching than the one that you offered here.  That is not to say that the one you offered is wrong...but rather somewhat incomplete.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2011, 12:50:03 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.

It's not absurd. Ask a canonist.  

Father,

Protestants and Orthodox have been using this "example" for so long that I no longer need to "check" anything with anyone.  It is neither proper matter, nor proper intent.

So you'll have to sell that bridge to the unsuspecting.
I would add to this that if a priest leaves the Church and falls into a grave enough heresy, then he can't possibly have proper intent anymore and would not be able to consecrate the bread and wine.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 12:50:37 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2011, 01:16:01 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.

It's not absurd. Ask a canonist. 

Father,

Protestants and Orthodox have been using this "example" for so long that I no longer need to "check" anything with anyone.  It is neither proper matter, nor proper intent.
Well, there, rather dependent on the worthiness of the minister, aren't you?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2011, 01:23:11 PM »

I found the article at the link below interesting:

Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity:
Some Theological and Canonical Considerations


Any thoughts?

Yes.  The article you recommend here is a bit at odds with the Orthodox source that I cited at the beginning of this thread.

what bit are you talking about exactly?

Quote
In the article that I cited the sacrament of Holy Orders has two points of sacramental contact for the ordinand.  The first and primary contact is with Jesus, with whom there is forged a particular relationship.  The second is of course, the Church.  The powers of the priesthood flow sacramentally through both sources...the Second Person of the Trinity, and the Body of Christ...the Church.

Neither working without the other

Quote
The second article is more in line with Catholic teaching than the one that you offered here.  That is not to say that the one you offered is wrong...but rather somewhat incomplete.

Yeah, like Orthodox ecclesiology without the "supreme pontiff." LOL. Don't dilute our pure wine with your kool aid.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2011, 01:39:30 PM »



Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2011, 02:06:47 PM »

Oh, Nooo!^
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 02:07:21 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2011, 02:10:48 PM »

Oh, Nooo!^


HAHAHA
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 12, 2011, 07:28:33 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.

It's not absurd. Ask a canonist. 

Father,

Protestants and Orthodox have been using this "example" for so long that I no longer need to "check" anything with anyone.  It is neither proper matter, nor proper intent.
Well, there, rather dependent on the worthiness of the minister, aren't you?

No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.

Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 12, 2011, 09:05:00 PM »

No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.
The personal worthiness or faith of the minister - according to traditional Western teaching - does not impact the validity of the sacrament, nor is the minister required to have an intention that matches the specific intention of the Church, for as Dr. Ott explains:  "Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices.  The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite.  It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, page 344; see also Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 64, A. 9 and A. 10).
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 12, 2011, 09:10:03 PM »

I would add to this that if a priest leaves the Church and falls into a grave enough heresy, then he can't possibly have proper intent anymore and would not be able to consecrate the bread and wine.
I agree that some recent (i.e., within the past ten years or so) actions of the Roman Church show that it is moving in that direction (e.g., the CDF rejection of Mormon baptism), but this shift in a more Cyprianic direction is recent, and would probably have been rejected prior to Vatican II.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 09:12:34 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 12, 2011, 09:13:03 PM »

Faith =/= sinless. It's not personal worthiness, no miracles or sacraments are capable without faith.


(what if  Wink)
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 12, 2011, 09:16:10 PM »

Faith =/= sinless. It's not personal worthiness, no miracles or sacraments are capable without faith.


(what if  Wink)
The faith of the minister has no impact on sacramental validity in the traditional Scholastic approach, but that does not mean that faith - on the part of the Church - is absent.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 09:16:33 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2011, 09:25:08 PM »

Faith =/= sinless. It's not personal worthiness, no miracles or sacraments are capable without faith.


(what if  Wink)
The faith of the minister has no impact on sacramental validity in the traditional Scholastic approach, but that does not mean that faith - on the part of the Church - is absent.

Your throwing around Traditional Scholastic approach both without reference to the "scholasticism", as if it's the only thing that can support the understanding, and with enough sneer to confuse a snake or Harry Potter.


I am saying that faith of either the priest or the congregation is necessary for the Sacramental miracle, and without it, the given grace of ordination is invalidated like a baptized sinner.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 12, 2011, 09:27:38 PM »

Faith =/= sinless. It's not personal worthiness, no miracles or sacraments are capable without faith.


(what if  Wink)
The faith of the minister has no impact on sacramental validity in the traditional Scholastic approach, but that does not mean that faith - on the part of the Church - is absent.

Your throwing around Traditional Scholastic approach both without reference to the "scholasticism", as if it's the only thing that can support the understanding, and with enough sneer to confuse a snake or Harry Potter.


I am saying that faith of either the priest or the congregation is necessary for the Sacramental miracle, and without it, the given grace of ordination is invalidated like a baptized sinner.
I am not doubting that you believe that the faith of the minister and congregation are necessary for "the sacramental miracle" to occur; instead, I am simply pointing out that the West has not traditionally accepted that notion.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 12, 2011, 09:39:08 PM »

Faith =/= sinless. It's not personal worthiness, no miracles or sacraments are capable without faith.


(what if  Wink)
The faith of the minister has no impact on sacramental validity in the traditional Scholastic approach, but that does not mean that faith - on the part of the Church - is absent.
Your throwing around Traditional Scholastic approach both without reference to the "scholasticism", as if it's the only thing that can support the understanding, and with enough sneer to confuse a snake or Harry Potter.
I think it is important to try and understand why the Medieval Western theologians taught what they did about the sacraments.  By the way, I have nowhere claimed that this Western approach is the only possible approach; instead, I have simply tried to present the teaching accurately. 

As I see it, the whole point of the Medieval Western teaching - for good or ill - was to give those receiving the sacraments a degree of certainty in relation to sacramental validity, which in itself is a commendable thing.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2011, 09:39:34 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2011, 09:46:28 PM »

Time for an anecdote.........  Decades ago I received into Orthodoxy a very venerable man who was a Theosophist/Liberal Catholic priest.  By Rome's criteria he had valid priestly orders.  It was his custom to consecrate the bread rolls and carafes of wine in restaurants and leave them to be consumed by waiters and kitchen staff, or simply tossed in the rubbish bin.   Those of you who know Liberal Catholicism will know that their priests believe in spreading divine grace through the universe as much as possible.

I could laugh at his doings (it was just bread and wine to me) but Catholic priests were horrified since in their eyes a valid consecration had taken place and the Eucharist was being horribly degraded.

This highlights the perversity of the "magical" RC pipeline theory of apostolic succession.  It can end up in anyone's hands.  And it seems the Lord can be compelled, as if my magic, to respond to the summons of anyone no matter how outlandish and degrading the situation is for Him.
I doubt even the stictest Scholastic would see those consecrations as valid. When a priest minsters the sacraments, he must intend to do what the Church does, otherwise it is not a true sacrament. His consecration of bread rolls at a restaurant would not be seen as the Eucharist by the Catholic Church.

That's right.  The anecdote is an absurdity by definition.

It's not absurd. Ask a canonist. 

Father,

Protestants and Orthodox have been using this "example" for so long that I no longer need to "check" anything with anyone.  It is neither proper matter, nor proper intent.
Well, there, rather dependent on the worthiness of the minister, aren't you?

No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.

Ah, splitting those hairs.....the Church doesn't intend a schismatic or heretical priest to perpetuate schism and heresy, but that doesn't matter to your theory. And outside the Church, it can only be his personal unworthiness, as he doesn't have the Church's worthiness to fall back on and heal what is weak and complete what is lacking: he is on his own.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,819



« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2011, 11:54:31 PM »

...Holy Orders establishes a relationship between the man and Christ that is ontological and I would imagine that those of this world cannot really touch that once it is done...so it seems to me from the article below.

Dear Elijah Maria--I hope you had a great holiday season and I pray that you will enjoy a safe, healthy and blessed 2011.

I appreciate what you are trying to say but I am not comfortable with your conclusion, which seems to go beyond its premise. Let's approach it from a more familiar perspective, that of lay members of the Body (as neither you or I presumably ordained).  Would you not say that humans in general are different from His other creations because we are made in His image and likeness? But, since we have a propensity to fall short (way short), He has tried over and over again to help us become what He meant us to be when He created us. Let's agree on that one critical premise here: among the characteristics that He gave us, our free will has been the most problematic for Him. And, we do experience ontological changes in baptism, Chrismation, and Holy Communion. Yet, our ontological changes depend on us to ultimately uphold and maintain them, even though we fall short in many ways: "voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, known and unknown" for all have sinned and have come short. This condition applies to laity and clergy alike--no one is worthy. And yet, as long as we persevere, we will end up getting closer and closer to the Lord's intended destination for us and the ontological changes will eventually become permanent.

So, the question is not whether an ontological change has occurred or will eventually prove to be permanent; the question is whether that change is permanent from the get go. To the Orthodox, it is certainly possible and desirable but no Mystery, including ordination, may be permanent regardless of how the recipient of Grace acts. If we did not believe in the free will of man, we might as well be Southern Baptists, with their  Once saved, always saved doctrine. OTH, it seems to me that there are Roman Catholics (past and present) who have argued for permanency in the case of the Holy Orders, just as there are now Roman Catholics who do not emphasize such permanency.

Neither side can escape the past and I am not advocating that we should reject the past. The problem, however, is our stubborn and prideful adherence to past positions and arguments. I will give you an example that is not between us and the Roman Church: it appears that both the OO and the EO essentially agree that we now have the same Christology and yet we cannot throw off the politics and definitional/cultural misunderstandings of this centuries old dispute simply because...well, to me it seems that pride is the principal reason.  In any case, the same situation may be applicable here as well. However, there is yet another problem that separates the East from the West. While the East may tend to be less definitive than the West, the West may have the additional burden of having convinced itself that human reasoning and scientific explanations are not only desirable but an absolute necessity. It is as if Westerners have a black and white, all or nothing approach to everything. I am convinced that this attitude has actually increased human knowledge and civilization greatly. I am similarly convinced that this attitude is a hindrance to a balanced approach all things spiritual, theological and ecclesiastical.

What I am sincerely trying to convey is this: We are not that far apart but we either choose to accentuate our small differences or our epistemiology (or our degree of humanistic impulses) forces us to highlight these differences.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 12:02:25 AM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2011, 12:03:24 AM »


No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.

Ah, splitting those hairs.....the Church doesn't intend a schismatic or heretical priest to perpetuate schism and heresy, but that doesn't matter to your theory. And outside the Church, it can only be his personal unworthiness, as he doesn't have the Church's worthiness to fall back on and heal what is weak and complete what is lacking: he is on his own.

Nonsense...

Any priest at any time may or may not administer a sacrament not intending what the Church intends by the sacrament.  At that point there is no sacrament. 

It is that clear-cut and that simple. 

Till he would be laicized or removed from service, he is still a priest and still capable of changing his mind and doing as the Church intends...and then there is a sacrament.

The Church NEVER intends a frivolous consecration outside or inside the liturgy of the Eucharist.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2011, 12:03:24 AM »

No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.
The personal worthiness or faith of the minister - according to traditional Western teaching - does not impact the validity of the sacrament, nor is the minister required to have an intention that matches the specific intention of the Church, for as Dr. Ott explains:  "Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices.  The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite.  It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, page 344; see also Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 64, A. 9 and A. 10).

Read carefully this section does not say quite what you have it saying...As you can see from the sentence that I have highlighted in red, there must be a conformation of intention at a specific point in the act of consecration.  IF the priest consecrates outside of the liturgy, as in the example given by Father Ambrose, then the priest has failed on BOTH counts, and there is NO sacrament:

Quote
Aquinas:

I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.

Reply to Objection 1. The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.

Reply to Objection 2. The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.

Reply to Objection 3. A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2011, 12:30:05 AM »


Any priest at any time may or may not administer a sacrament not intending what the Church intends by the sacrament.  At that point there is no sacrament. 

It is that clear-cut and that simple. 

I am not sure if the Orthodox would take that stance.  If we move back a few years into Soviet times, we have many instances of faux priests and faux bishops who had no intention of consecrating bread and wine into body and blood but we believe that in fact that is what the faithful received at their hands.  We believe that these same unbelieving priests had no intention to baptize but all the same baptism took place.  In his all sovereign way the Holy Spirit overrode the lack of belief and lack of intention in the hearts of these false priests and bishops and a sacrament came into being.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #51 on: January 13, 2011, 12:45:07 AM »

No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.
The personal worthiness or faith of the minister - according to traditional Western teaching - does not impact the validity of the sacrament, nor is the minister required to have an intention that matches the specific intention of the Church, for as Dr. Ott explains:  "Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices.  The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite.  It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, page 344; see also Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 64, A. 9 and A. 10).

Read carefully this section does not say quite what you have it saying...As you can see from the sentence that I have highlighted in red, there must be a conformation of intention at a specific point in the act of consecration.  IF the priest consecrates outside of the liturgy, as in the example given by Father Ambrose, then the priest has failed on BOTH counts, and there is NO sacrament:

Quote
Aquinas:

I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.

Reply to Objection 1. The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.

Reply to Objection 2. The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.

Reply to Objection 3. A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.
The highlighted sentence does not alter anything that I have said in my previous posts, because I have focused solely upon the issue of sacramental validity, and not whether the sacrament is efficacious either for the recipient or the minister.  That said, the reply to Objection 2 is the better response to the dilemma posed by Fr. Ambrose, and not any kind of focus on whether the minister's intention is conformed to that of the Church in relation to any merit or demerit that might accrue to the him personally.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 12:51:16 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #52 on: January 13, 2011, 01:08:08 AM »

Basically there are two approaches to the sacrament of orders being discussed in this thread:

(1) the sacrament of orders produces an ontological change in the person receiving it, which remains within him even if he breaks communion with the Church; or (2) the sacrament of orders establishes a new relationship between the minister and the faithful (i.e., a taxonomic change), which remains effective as long as he maintains communion with the Church.

In the first case the grace of orders is connected primarily to the recipient, who cannot lose this grace even if he separates himself from the Church; while in the second case the grace of orders is connected primarily to the Church herself, which means that maintaining communion with her is necessary for the priesthood of the ordained minister to be valid and endure.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2011, 01:21:57 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #53 on: January 13, 2011, 02:14:10 AM »


Any priest at any time may or may not administer a sacrament not intending what the Church intends by the sacrament.  At that point there is no sacrament. 

It is that clear-cut and that simple. 

I am not sure if the Orthodox would take that stance.  If we move back a few years into Soviet times, we have many instances of faux priests and faux bishops who had no intention of consecrating bread and wine into body and blood but we believe that in fact that is what the faithful received at their hands.  We believe that these same unbelieving priests had no intention to baptize but all the same baptism took place.  In his all sovereign way the Holy Spirit overrode the lack of belief and lack of intention in the hearts of these false priests and bishops and a sacrament came into being.
Because withinn the Church the divine grace divine grace always heals that which is infirm and completes that which is lacking.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #54 on: January 13, 2011, 09:59:22 AM »

No Professor....

Intending what the Church intends is not at all the same as depending upon the personal worthiness of the priest.
The personal worthiness or faith of the minister - according to traditional Western teaching - does not impact the validity of the sacrament, nor is the minister required to have an intention that matches the specific intention of the Church, for as Dr. Ott explains:  "Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices.  The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite.  It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, page 344; see also Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q. 64, A. 9 and A. 10).

Read carefully this section does not say quite what you have it saying...As you can see from the sentence that I have highlighted in red, there must be a conformation of intention at a specific point in the act of consecration.  IF the priest consecrates outside of the liturgy, as in the example given by Father Ambrose, then the priest has failed on BOTH counts, and there is NO sacrament:

Quote
Aquinas:

I answer that, The minister's intention may be perverted in two ways. First in regard to the sacrament: for instance, when a man does not intend to confer a sacrament, but to make a mockery of it. Such a perverse intention takes away the truth of the sacrament, especially if it be manifested outwardly.

Secondly, the minister's intention may be perverted as to something that follows the sacrament: for instance, a priest may intend to baptize a woman so as to be able to abuse her; or to consecrate the Body of Christ, so as to use it for sorcery. And because that which comes first does not depend on that which follows, consequently such a perverse intention does not annul the sacrament; but the minister himself sins grievously in having such an intention.

Reply to Objection 1. The Church has a good intention both as to the validity of the sacrament and as to the use thereof: but it is the former intention that perfects the sacrament, while the latter conduces to the meritorious effect. Consequently, the minister who conforms his intention to the Church as to the former rectitude, but not as to the latter, perfects the sacrament indeed, but gains no merit for himself.

Reply to Objection 2. The intention of mimicry or fun excludes the first kind of right intention, necessary for the validity of a sacrament. Consequently, there is no comparison.

Reply to Objection 3. A perverse intention perverts the action of the one who has such an intention, not the action of another. Consequently, the perverse intention of the minister perverts the sacrament in so far as it is his action: not in so far as it is the action of Christ, Whose minister he is. It is just as if the servant [minister] of some man were to carry alms to the poor with a wicked intention, whereas his master had commanded him with a good intention to do so.
The highlighted sentence does not alter anything that I have said in my previous posts, because I have focused solely upon the issue of sacramental validity, and not whether the sacrament is efficacious either for the recipient or the minister.  That said, the reply to Objection 2 is the better response to the dilemma posed by Fr. Ambrose, and not any kind of focus on whether the minister's intention is conformed to that of the Church in relation to any merit or demerit that might accrue to the him personally.

I highlighted the wrong section.  The section just before it is the one that indicates that without the intention of the Church in the first instance there is no sacrament.

In Father Ambrose's scene, there was not intent in the first instance because the consecration occurred outside of the liturgy.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 13, 2011, 09:59:22 AM »

Basically there are two approaches to the sacrament of orders being discussed in this thread:

(1) the sacrament of orders produces an ontological change in the person receiving it, which remains within him even if he breaks communion with the Church; or (2) the sacrament of orders establishes a new relationship between the minister and the faithful (i.e., a taxonomic change), which remains effective as long as he maintains communion with the Church.

Point of fact:  In the Catholic Church both of these things happen which is why I like the Orthodox source that I presented in the beginning.  It indicates that both things happen: a unique personal relationship with Jesus Christ that is never terminal, to the priest's salvation or reprobation depending on how he treats that relationship,  and a unique relationship with the Church that can be severed in time.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 13, 2011, 09:59:23 AM »


Any priest at any time may or may not administer a sacrament not intending what the Church intends by the sacrament.  At that point there is no sacrament. 

It is that clear-cut and that simple. 

I am not sure if the Orthodox would take that stance.  If we move back a few years into Soviet times, we have many instances of faux priests and faux bishops who had no intention of consecrating bread and wine into body and blood but we believe that in fact that is what the faithful received at their hands.  We believe that these same unbelieving priests had no intention to baptize but all the same baptism took place.  In his all sovereign way the Holy Spirit overrode the lack of belief and lack of intention in the hearts of these false priests and bishops and a sacrament came into being.

Now we are back to examples that actually fit what Todd was saying yesterday.  These priests and bishops did DO what the Church intends to DO ...in the CONTEXT in which such things are DONE.

So that would fall within my Church's Catholic understanding of valid sacraments, not because of anyone's faith but because the Church and the Holy Spirit make up what is lacking as Isa has said.
Logged

Dave in McKinney
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic but loving Byzantine Catholicism
Posts: 85



« Reply #57 on: January 18, 2011, 09:59:45 AM »


Any priest at any time may or may not administer a sacrament not intending what the Church intends by the sacrament.  At that point there is no sacrament.  

It is that clear-cut and that simple.  

I am not sure if the Orthodox would take that stance.  If we move back a few years into Soviet times, we have many instances of faux priests and faux bishops who had no intention of consecrating bread and wine into body and blood but we believe that in fact that is what the faithful received at their hands.  We believe that these same unbelieving priests had no intention to baptize but all the same baptism took place.  In his all sovereign way the Holy Spirit overrode the lack of belief and lack of intention in the hearts of these false priests and bishops and a sacrament came into being.
Because withinn the Church the divine grace divine grace always heals that which is infirm and completes that which is lacking.

Excuse my ignorance...
1)  Could a church, not in communion with the orthodox church, receive consencrated bread & wine if the believers' believed that's what they were receiving -- say something along the more conservative Anglicans?
2)  How many of the orthodox autocephalous churches need to accept another church for it to be in communion with orthodox?
3)  Do Eastern Catholic churches follow the Eastern churches or Rome's understanding?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2011, 10:00:46 AM by Dave in McKinney » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,813



« Reply #58 on: January 18, 2011, 10:30:28 AM »


Any priest at any time may or may not administer a sacrament not intending what the Church intends by the sacrament.  At that point there is no sacrament.  

It is that clear-cut and that simple.  

I am not sure if the Orthodox would take that stance.  If we move back a few years into Soviet times, we have many instances of faux priests and faux bishops who had no intention of consecrating bread and wine into body and blood but we believe that in fact that is what the faithful received at their hands.  We believe that these same unbelieving priests had no intention to baptize but all the same baptism took place.  In his all sovereign way the Holy Spirit overrode the lack of belief and lack of intention in the hearts of these false priests and bishops and a sacrament came into being.
Because withinn the Church the divine grace divine grace always heals that which is infirm and completes that which is lacking.

Excuse my ignorance...
1)  Could a church, not in communion with the orthodox church, receive consencrated bread & wine if the believers' believed that's what they were receiving -- say something along the more conservative Anglicans?

We cannot make a dogmatic statement on anything Anglicans or others do until they come to be received into Orthodox communion as by definition until then they are outside the Church. Any mystical, invisible union is just that, and thus, not being revealed, not a basis on which to make a dogmatic statement.

My opinion is maybe. But that's just my opinion.

Quote
2)  How many of the orthodox autocephalous churches need to accept another church for it to be in communion with orthodox?
One, but if it confesses the Orhtodox Faith, it would be in communion with all the Orthodox of all ages.[/quote]

Quote
3)  Do Eastern Catholic churches follow the Eastern churches or Rome's understanding?
I'll let others comment for now on that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.236 seconds with 86 queries.