| Author | Post |
|---|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2007 10:04 am |
|
Hello. I need help.
Did you ever get one of those questions you thought you could answer and then end up stumbling around and giving an answer than you knew was unsatisfactory? That's me.
Yesterday, an RCIA Candidate asked me why the CC considered the Orthodox Priesthood and their sacraments valid but not other groups that were still separated, such as most Anglicans. When I began explaining to my young friend about Henry VIII's machinations, I was asked, "But didn't the Patriarch of Constantinople do basically the same thing - take it upon himself to split?"
I am well aquainted with 16th century British history since before my conversion I had to work through many misconceptions I had been taught. I am less familiar with the East-West split in 1054.
Question: Why do we (the CC) recognize the various Orthodox groups as having valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession when their Patriarchs appoint Bishops without Papal involvement? Is it only because the Orthodox still celebrate seven Sacraments?
Thanks in advance!
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2007 11:22 am |
|
JasPax wrote: Question: Why do we (the CC) recognize the various Orthodox groups as having valid Sacraments and Apostolic Succession when their Patriarchs appoint Bishops without Papal involvement? Is it only because the Orthodox still celebrate seven Sacraments?
Apostolic succession comes from the Patriarch, not the pope. The pope just happens to be the patriarch of the west.
Orthodox Churches never broke from their patriarch. Others, like the Anglicans, did.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ken Follis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | San Antonio, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Ken | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Charismatic Episcopal Church; Roman Catholic Church (1999) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2007 04:24 pm |
|
The reason the Anglican bishops are not successors to the Apostle's is because they ceased to espouse they needed to be and ordained bishops over the years without any succession. They also forsook the needed elements to make something a valid sacrament: historically accurate intent and form.
Take a look at this thread:
http://chnetwork.org/forums/forum44/2421.html
Last edited on Mon Nov 12th, 2007 04:26 pm by Ken Follis
____________________
Jer. 6:16 "Stand, Look, Ask and Walk!"
|
|
|
JasPax
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | North Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 208 |
| First Name: | James | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2007 05:01 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: Apostolic succession comes from the Patriarch, not the pope. The pope just happens to be the patriarch of the west.
Thanks Rick.
How would I answer this? If we both (East & West Churches) believe that St. Peter and his succesors were to be the Head of the Church, how do the Orthodox view the fact that Peter set up shop (so to speak) in Rome?
Thanks Ken, but I understand why Anglican ordinations are not valid. My question is about the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
God's Blessings,
____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2007 05:27 pm |
|
JasPax wrote: How would I answer this? If we both (East & West Churches) believe that St. Peter and his succesors were to be the Head of the Church, how do the Orthodox view the fact that Peter set up shop (so to speak) in Rome?
The Orthodox consider the bishop of Rome as having primacy over the entire Church, as Peter had primacy over the apostles, but they consider it a primacy of honor rather than jurisdiction. They consider him more like a "chairman of the board" than a "CEO".
They do not accept him as having absolute authority over the universal Church and the individual Churches. They believe that authority is vested in the patriarchs and bishops collegially (when acting together). Reunification will take a reinterpretation of the role of the pope in a manner acceptable to both Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, and that is something both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have indicated their willingness to accept.
Or so I understand it. I am not Orthodox and I hate to speak for them, but I do know that the role of primacy of honor is filled by the patriarch of Constantinople until such time as reunification takes place.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Ken Follis
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | San Antonio, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Ken | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Charismatic Episcopal Church; Roman Catholic Church (1999) |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 12th, 2007 05:37 pm |
|
I see, JasPax, since you were Episcopal you crossed that hurdle while becoming Catholic. 
I explored this on other Catholic forums.
http://forum.ancient-future.net/index.php?showtopic=255&st=0&#last
http://z6.invisionfree.com/On_Our_Way_Home/index.php?showforum=6
I am not sure I understand it either.
____________________
Jer. 6:16 "Stand, Look, Ask and Walk!"
|
|
|
ASimpleSinner
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 4th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
| First Name: | Simple | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Byzantine Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 10th, 2007 09:00 pm |
|
It is the nature of the beast in seperated Eastern Churches that their autocephalous polyarchy leaves the "first among equals" terminology to be rather open-ended. An office without teeth.
It should not be thought that the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoys authority over any other Patriarch, although certain perogatives that were once widely considered to be reserved to that see in settling some disputes were at times useful. In the modern era, however, when the PoC and the Patriarch of Moscow are in a dispute, the disputes can linger for decades, and the PoC's "FAE" status seems to avail little.
Authority working strictly on the consent of the governed, is no authority at all.
|
|
|
Current time is 10:48 am | |
|
|
