The Eastern Orthodox

[voiciblanche]

We've talked about the Catholic Faith versus other faiths and how we all share in the Truth in my theology class, and the teacher said only three churches believe in the Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament - the Episcopalian, the Eastern Orthodox, and, of course, the Roman Catholic. He said that the Episcopals practice their services believing that they have the Presence of our Lord, but they don't. He then said that even though the Eastern Orthodox isn't the Roman Catholic, they still practice and hold the Presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Is this even true, and if it is, why?

[voiciblanche]

Bump.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Yes it is true, except it depends on what Episcopilian you ask whether or not they believe in the Real Presence. The Episcopilians don't have a valid priesthood, and therefore, their ministers cannot confect the Eucharist, no matter what they believe. The Eastern Orthodox, however, do have valid Holy Orders and Apostolic Succession, allowing their priests to confect the Eucharist. In fact, all of the Orthodox's sacraments are valid.

Edited May 30, 2004 by thedude

[voiciblanche]

Thanks, thedude. Now, the next part of my question is, if they broke off of the Roman Catholic Church, why do they still hold Apostolic Succession?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Apostolic Succession just means that each priest can trace his ordination back to the Apostles. You can have Holy Orders and not be Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox Church used to be Catholic and their original leaders were validly ordained in the Church (before the split). In turn, those whom they ordained were valid priests, and the line has contiued to today.

Edited May 30, 2004 by thedude

[voiciblanche]

Okay. Why do they have valid sacraments, then, if they are not part of the Roman Catholic Church? In breaking away, don't their sacraments become invalid?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

No, there sacraments aren't invalid because there priests are validly ordained. Any true priest with Holy Orders can administer the Sacraments, even if they are schismatic. There are many groups of schismatic but valid priests, whose sacraments are considered valid. We, as Catholics, are only to recieve sacraments in schismatic Churches when it's the only place we can go.

[Oik]

I think this is a question more for the Q and A section.

[MorphRC]

Pax Iesus

I dont understand that, the apostles wrote LUke 10:16 - If they refuse you[apostles], they refuse me[Jesus] and the whom sent me[The Father]. The NJBC, says this is a direct quote from Jesus saying that, if anyone rejects the Apostles and their teachings, they reject Christ and the Father, consequencly breaking yourself from the Body of Christ.

Also It seems like this teaching contradicts the Early Church:

The Sacraments, which some people keep and use outside the unity of Christ, can preserve the appearance of piety; but the invisible and spiritual virtue of true piety cannot abide there any more than feeling can remain in an amputated part of your body. [b]Pope Leo XIII[/b]

Consequently, heretics and schismatics, separated from the unity of this Body, are able to receive the same Sacrament, [b]but with no benefit to themselves[/b] ; indeed, more to their own harm, in that they are judged the more severely rather than being liberated. [b]St. Augustine[/b]

What a crime that is! Men whose defilements are unwashed by the laver of the Church, their sins not made known, touch the Body and Blood of the Lord by a communion rashly granted, even though it is written: "whosoever shall eat the Bread or drink the Chalice of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord!" (I Corinthians 11:27). [b]St Firmilian[/b]

The Church alone possesses [...] the beneficial use of the Sacraments, the efficacious instruments of divine grace. [b]Catechism of Trent[/b]

Suppose a man should look for life outside the Church? He loses the divine gifts, he spoils the out-pouring of grace, he cheats himself out of the benefits of charity. Life is had only in the Church. [b]St. Peter Chrysologus[/b]

:angry:

Pax Iesus
Paul.

[voiciblanche]

Eh. That's what I thought, MorphRC. It doesn't really make any sense. And, Oik, I would have posted this in the Q&A thread, but only a few people are allowed to answer those topics. Because of this, several topics don't get answers - none of the questions I've posted ever have. And I really wanted an answer to this one, so I posted it here.

[p0lar_bear]

voiciblanche,

The Orthodox sacraments are valid even though they are separate from the Roman Catholic Church. The same principles apply to schismatic groups such as "Old Catholics" and the SSPX and SSPV.

Why?

Well, it has to do with the nature of the sacraments. A sacrament can be illicit(unlawful) and still valid (has effect). In order to be valid, a sacrament needs the correct matter and form. In the case of the Eucharist, that includes wheat bread, grape wine, and the words of consecration said by a validly ordained priest. In the case of holy orders, it involves the laying on of hands and the words of ordination spoken by a validly ordained bishop.

Now, in the case of the Orthodox Churches, the Great Schism broke the Church into the Eastern Churches and the Western Church. It wasn't a small schism involving a handful of priests and bishops such as we have seen after the last two councils, but involved a huge number of members of the Church (bishops and priests included). All of those bishops were validly ordained as bishops and, as such, had the power to ordain priests [i]and[/i] bishops. The Apostolic Succession survived as they ordained successors to the episcopate using valid form (i.e. the proper words and laying on of hands). While these ordinations are, technically speaking, illicit (i.e. outside of the permission of the Church), they are still valid because they have valid form, matter, and ministers.

Although some parts of the Anglican/Episcopal Church maintains that they have the Real Presence, they do not. Originally, the ordinations of the Anglican Church were very similar to those of the Catholic Church, and were valid. However, the ordination rite in the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer of 1552 was very different from the original rite. The differences of word and intent invalidated the rite. All those ordained according to this rite were not validly ordained. Because this rite lasted long enough that there were no longer any bishops not 'ordained' according to this later rite, the Anglican Church lost Apostolic Succession.

[Aloysius]

i agree wtih that, but just to add an odd little thing here:

there's a priest in my diocese who's been told he's excommunicated himself. the question came up to my priest whether or not this priest would still have valid sacraments. i was all like, i know this one! his sacraments will be valid but illicit! but my priest said that his sacraments would not be valid! why?

because he says every time he performs mass he's representing the bishop. if you're out of union with the bishop, you no longer have the ability to say mass.

then i was like, well what about the Orthodox Churches?

and he said, well that's a different story because they retained BISHOPS, who are successors to the Apostles.

so i guess as long as the bishops remain validly dating back to the apostles in their ordination, the sacraments can still be valid because although they're being disobedient Apostles, they're still Apostles.

so, is that correct? is it as long as they have a valid bishop?

[p0lar_bear]

Al,

Actually, the priest is wrong. If he was validly ordained then he is "a priest forever according to the order of Melchezidek."

It is horribly and gravely wrong for him to say Mass, but it would still be valid. He does have the ability to confect the Eucharist, but not permission to do it.

The Apostolic Succession is important in retaining valid sacraments because only a bishop can ordain a priest, and a validly ordained priest is necessary for all the sacraments except marriage and baptism.

I'll look for cites for this if I get a chance.

[PedroX]

Polar, you are correct, but I'm tired and don't want to pull out the references.

One question, in emergency any lay man can hear confession, yes? I may be confused on that but its jangling around in my head.

peace...

[voiciblanche]

Okay, thanks, polarbear. That explains it perfectly. And PedroX, you're right about the hearing of Confession by a lay man - but it has to be a VERY serious emergency. I'm trying to find a reference to this in the CCC, but I don't see one. I'll post anything I find later.