Give Me A Reason Why Catholicism Is Preferable To Orthodoxy...

[Apotheoun]

A friend of mine (Irish Melkite) at the Byzantine Forum has written a post that explains the two primary theories related to the sacraments and their validity or efficaciousness, and how these theories influence Catholic and Orthodox thought on matters related to ecumenism and mutual recognition of orders:

 

 

 

The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in circles more august than this revered forum. 

 

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church). 

 

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

 

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

 

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

 

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although the latter have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

 

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most pejorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory. 

 

Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.

 

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

 

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments. As an example, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

 

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

 

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity or oekonomia on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy. We, as Catholics, can dislike the fact that all do not choose to do so, but it is not our place to impose upon others our theological precepts and require that they adopt them.

 

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church in some instances could likely find itself in the position of accepting the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of the so-called "independent movement") whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations. 

[theculturewarrior]

That is a natural response to being told that your Church is not grace filled.  I am sure Anglicans don't like it when Catholics say that Anglican sacraments are invalid.  I think the various Churches should be true to their own doctrinal heritage on the matter, and that people should not be so thin skinned.

 

My objection would be purely philosophical.  I have a really bad case of thick skin.  It's almost pathological.

 

From I have read, I have several reasons to remain Catholic. 

 

1.) Lumen Gentium.  The development of doctrine applied to a contemporary situation (the Church post-schism), allows me as a Catholic to see the whole Church.

 

2.)  The history of the Christian Tradition, that shows a clear philosophical and practical need for the development of doctrine.

 

3.)  Cassocks are awesome.  Keanu Reeves made sure of that forever.

Edited December 4, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

You posted a lot of info, and thank you for that.  It deserves a more thorough reading than what I can give at present.  I will revisit this when I can.  I have not dismissed your replies.  I do stand by Lumen Gentium as an answer to the original question, which does not seem to require an argument but rather a statement of preference.

[Maggyie]

I didn't realize that the Orthodox don't consider Catholic baptisms to be valid! My goodness this seems to be a very one-sided relationship! That doesn't make any sense to me at all, it's almost ... Donatist.

[Selah]

I didn't realize that the Orthodox don't consider Catholic baptisms to be valid! My goodness this seems to be a very one-sided relationship! That doesn't make any sense to me at all, it's almost ... Donatist.

 

It's neither one sided nor Donatist. Because Catholics and the Orthodox are not united, the baptism would not be valid because of the schism in 1054. In the view of the Orthodox, anything else would be heterodox.

[theculturewarrior]

If I am reading this correctly, the Orthodox have two different opinions on this.  Does that in itself not trouble them?  Define heterodoxy.  I don't think I understand.

[theculturewarrior]

Everything I have read just confirms me in my fath.  Sometimes we get caught up in Church history and rituals (as we should) but we forget the big picture, that God is merciful and that he wants all of us to know him and to love him.  That is what the sacraments are for.  The Cyprianic theory would have Catholics for the past 1000 years practicing empty rituals and worshiping a wafer thinking it is God.  Francis of Assissi worshiping a wafer.  Bl. Mother Theresa of Calcutta worshipping a wafer.  A empty ritual, not a grace-filled sacrament.  The position of the Orthodox Church does not offend me, but it is an interpretation that lacks mercy.  I reject that intellectually and as a Christian.

[Selah]

If I am reading this correctly, the Orthodox have two different opinions on this.  Does that in itself not trouble them?

 

The Orthodox Church does not recognize the baptism of Catholics and Protestants. Because Baptism is a holy mystery, (sacrament) and there are no sacraments outside the church, in their view, no other baptism would be valid. This is also why an Orthodox Christian would not receive communion in a Catholic mass

 

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

 

 

It is an interpretation that lacks mercy. 

 

I disagree. My journey into Orthodoxy has overwhelmed me with God's mercy. Of course, I could be misunderstanding you. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

 

 

 

 

I reject that intellectually

 

As any Orthodox Christian will tell you, intellect, logic, scholasticism, is not the way of Orthodoxy. 

Edited December 5, 2012 by Selah

[theculturewarrior]

The Orthodox Church does not recognize the baptism of Catholics and Protestants. Because Baptism is a holy mystery, (sacrament) and there are no sacraments outside the church, in their view, no other baptism would be valid. This is also why an Orthodox Christian would not receive communion in a Catholic mass

 

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rcsacs.htm

 

 

 

I disagree. My journey into Orthodoxy has overwhelmed me with God's mercy. Of course, I could be misunderstanding you. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

 

 

 

 

 

As any Orthodox Christian will tell you, intellect, logic, scholasticism, is not the way of Orthodoxy. 

 

We believe that sacraments do not exist outside the Church either, but we have a different idea of what the Church is.  I am imagining God looking down from Heaven at the Church that he promised not to orphan, watching billions of Catholics and protestants over the past 1K years performing baptisms with complete faith that they were joining themselves to the Church.  God knew better though.  Those were empty rituals, and he said nothing.

 

Then there is the Church according to Lumen Gentium, where all baptized are Christians, and both Catholics and Orthodox have valid sacraments.  This is one Church, wounded by division and schism but we are all Christians nonetheless. 

 

That is a more merciful interpretation of what the Church is in my opinion.  It make more sense to me as a Christian devoted to a merciful God.