The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Bienenhalde]

Honestly, I think it's a good thing on the long term.

Not when it comes to the Orthodox Church and how it structures itself.

In the past, autocephaly was something that a mother church would give to its offspring church (such as when Constantinople gave autocephaly to the Russian Church) of its own goodwill. If this schism is widely accepted it'll set a very bad precedent that could potentially destroy the unity of the Orthodox Church. After all, if backstabbing and bullying another Orthodox church gets you what you want, and people recognize that as valid, that's going to become a setup for anarchy and disunity.

Russia created anarchy and disunity by launching an armed invasion against their fellow Orthodox neighbors in Ukraine. Patriarch Kirill could have condemned Putin's decision but he did not, in fact, from what I have read, many regard him as acting like a puppet of Putin.

[The Archregimancy]

It's politics.

Ukrainian Nationalists want an autocephalous church of their own, so they split from the Russian Patriarchate (illegally, honestly).

To me it seems unfair that canon law would allow the Russian Patriarch to unilaterally block Ukraine from gaining autocephaly. Besides, now that it is formally recognized by Constantinople, I would say that the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine is at least partially legitimate.

The precise mechanism for granting autocephalyto the Orthodox Church or Ukraine was for the Ecumenical Patriarch to announce that it was withdrawing the 1686 ruling conditionally granting Moscow canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine. This had the impact of de jure transferring responsibility for Ukraine to Constantinople, which then immediately declared Ukraine autocephalous, while lifting the excommunication on the hierarchs of the other two schismatic churches that claimed to be the national Ukrainian church in order to allow the latter two bodies to merge with the newly established autocephalous church.

Technically, Constantinople was within its rights. However, whether it was sensible to do this unilaterally, and over the vociferous objections of Moscow is a separate issue. For all I think autocephaly for Ukraine was inevitable at some point, I think Patriarch Bartholomew's actions were impolitic, and have helped to stoke division within the Orthodox Church. I stand by my earlier position that the best outcome would have been negotiated autocephaly agreed to by Kiev, Constantinople, and Moscow, with full recognition of the new national church, but with individual parishes being able to choose whether to associate themselves with Kiev or Moscow. The Moscow parishes could have had stavropegic status under the day to day administration of a designated hierarch, or some similar status. Unfortunately, common sense hasn't prevailed.

But don't believe anyone who tries to oppose autocephaly for Ukraine on the basis of 'keeping politics out of religion'. Clearly the Moscow Patriarchate is functionally (alas) a branch of the Russian state, and was/is being used as a means of maintaining a Russian presence in Ukraine. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is lying. But equally, the Ukrainian authorities have likely misjudged the strength of feeling within some ethnic Russian communities, and any attempt to merge parishes that want to maintain links to Moscow into the new Ukrainian church is doomed to fail.

It makes sense that we don't have a precedent for it since modern nationalism didn't really start forming until like the...18th century?

While there are demonstrable cases of an awareness of national identity existing in Europe prior to the post-medieval period (see, inter alia, the Declaration of Arbroath, or John of Gaunt's soliloquy in Shakespeare's Richard II), modern ideologies of nationalism are largely an outgrowth of a combination of post-French revolution politics and the Romantic Period; so the 18th through mid-19th centuries.

Perhaps I can recommend my published papers on the subject, including my 2017 book?

[Tarsonis]

To me it seems unfair that canon law would allow the Russian Patriarch to unilaterally block Ukraine from gaining autocephaly. Besides, now that it is formally recognized by Constantinople, I would say that the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine is at least partially legitimate.

The precise mechanism for granting autocephalyto the Orthodox Church or Ukraine was for the Ecumenical Patriarch to announce that it was withdrawing the 1686 ruling conditionally granting Moscow canonical jurisdiction over Ukraine. This had the impact of de jure transferring responsibility for Ukraine to Constantinople, which then immediately declared Ukraine autocephalous, while lifting the excommunication on the hierarchs of the other two schismatic churches that claimed to be the national Ukrainian church in order to allow the latter two bodies to merge with the newly established autocephalous church.

Technically, Constantinople was within its rights. However, whether it was sensible to do this unilaterally, and over the vociferous objections of Moscow is a separate issue. For all I think autocephaly for Ukraine was inevitable at some point, I think Patriarch Bartholomew's actions were impolitic, and have helped to stoke division within the Orthodox Church. I stand by my earlier position that the best outcome would have been negotiated autocephaly agreed to by Kiev, Constantinople, and Moscow, with full recognition of the new national church, but with individual parishes being able to choose whether to associate themselves with Kiev or Moscow. The Moscow parishes could have had stavropegic status under the day to day administration of a designated hierarch, or some similar status. Unfortunately, common sense hasn't prevailed.

But don't believe anyone who tries to oppose autocephaly for Ukraine on the basis of 'keeping politics out of religion'. Clearly the Moscow Patriarchate is functionally (alas) a branch of the Russian state, and was/is being used as a means of maintaining a Russian presence in Ukraine. Anyone who tries to pretend otherwise is lying. But equally, the Ukrainian authorities have likely misjudged the strength of feeling within some ethnic Russian communities, and any attempt to merge parishes that want to maintain links to Moscow into the new Ukrainian church is doomed to fail.

It makes sense that we don't have a precedent for it since modern nationalism didn't really start forming until like the...18th century?

While there are demonstrable cases of an awareness of national identity existing in Europe prior to the post-medieval period (see, inter alia, the Declaration of Arbroath, or John of Gaunt's soliloquy in Shakespeare's Richard II), modern ideologies of nationalism are largely an outgrowth of a combination of post-French revolution politics and the Romantic Period; so the 18th through mid-19th centuries.

Perhaps I can recommend my published papers on the subject, including my 2017 book?

I wouldn't mind taking a read

[Stonok]

All this talk of autocephaly made me wonder if there was an Orthodox Church of America or if it was all Russian/Greek churches. Apparently there is one which is recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church and several others, but not the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Anyone know what the reasons for that are?

[The Archregimancy]

All this talk of autocephaly made me wonder if there was an Orthodox Church of America or if it was all Russian/Greek churches. Apparently there is one which is recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church and several others, but not the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. Anyone know what the reasons for that are?

As with so many points relating to Orthodox jurisdictional issues, it's complex.

The Orthodox Church in America (OCA) used to be part of the Moscow Patriarchate, but was given its autocephaly in the 1970s, at the height of the Cold War. It's a combination of traditional Moscow parishes in former Russian America (ie, Alaska) and those Western Hemisphere Moscow parishes that didn't break with Moscow following the Revolution; the largest component of the latter are a group of former American Greek Catholic parishes that broke with Rome and reverted to Orthodoxy earlier in the 20th century (or perhaps late 19th? I can't quite remember the specific dates).

The Russian Orthodox Church was the first Orthodox jurisdiction to establish a formal diocesean structure in North America, via its presence in Alaska. Alaska (where there are still all-Aleut parishes) is still a relative stronghold of the OCA, which inherited the full Alaskan structure, including the historic church buildings.

However, in the later 19th century and early 20th centuries, increased immigration from traditionally Orthodox countries led to immigrant communities starting their own ethnic parishes, leading to the alphabet soup of ethnically based jurisdictions we have today in the United States and Canada (something replicated in Australia).

The OCA tries to place itself as the autocephalous church for the entire Western Hemisphere, but Moscow didn't consult the rest of the Church when granting autocephaly; and technically it acted outside of the provisions of the Council of Chalcedon, which hypothetically hands responsibility for granting autocephaly outside the bounds of the Pentarchy to Constantinople (points which give Moscow's current complaints over Ukraine just the mildest tinge of hypocrisy). Only six Orthodox jurisdictions recognise the OCA's autocephaly, of which Georgia is the only non-Slavic jurisdiction. Crucially, however, every Orthodox jurisdiction recognises the OCA's bishops as canonical; so non-recognition of autocephaly doesn't preclude recognising the validity of the OCA's holy orders.

The ambiguity of the OCA's status - fully canonical, but only partially autocephalous - is a classic Orthodox compromise of the sort that utterly baffles outsiders.

[Camelone]

So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

[Tarsonis]

So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

From my understanding, post VII it’s not really cut and dry. It would depend on the sacrament and the conditions of each instance. First we must remember that sacraments are “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give sanctifying grace” and that under the precepts of Unitatis Redintegratio, the Anglican Church is considered a legitimate Christian entity, though not part of the Church Catholic.
With that in mind:

Baptism would be Sacramentally valid.
Confirmation would be ecclesially invalid (as it’s not confirmation into the Catholic Church) and they’d have to undergo RCIA if they converted, but sacramentally would be.
Confession would be a ecclesially invalid, but not necessarily sacramentlaly invalid.
Communion would be valid, so long as the priest performing the liturgy is sacramentally valid and the real presence is believed by both priest and laity (AFAIK)
Holy Orders, especially those granted to Women would not be considered ecclesially valid but Sacramentally would be valid so long as they conform to Catholic practices. The same way we would acknowledge Orthodox priesthood as Sacramentally Valid but not Ecclesially valid. (Women ordained are neither sacramentally or ecclesially valid)

Marriage, would be considered sacramentally valid, so long as they conform to Catholic Doctrine. I.e no same sex marriage, no prior divorce etc.

Last Rights I’d say again probably not ecclesially valid, but I’d say are probably sacramentally valid.

As for Apostolic Succession it’s debatable. Any Bishop in the Catholic Church possesses valid apostolic succession, and if any joined the anglicans it’s possible that they do.

[Diopolis]

So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

Here's a complicated topic.
So, Anglican holy orders were declared absolutely null and utterly void by pope Leo XIII. Whether that proclamation fell under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is a complex question to which the answer is "probably not, but it could be, and regardless it reflects the almost unanimous view of theologians and it's difficult to argue with from the POV of Catholic sacramental theology anyways". The reasoning is kind of complicated, but long story short, the dropping of references to sacrifice from the Anglican rite of ordination for a time renders the orders in use in the COE invalid.
But wait, there's more! A large number of Anglican holy orders don't descend directly from COE orders. Many come from liberal Catholic splinter groups- assuming there aren't any women in the line of apostolic succession or something like that, these tend to be mostly valid. Some don't have any sort of basis at all, and these are even less valid. And of course, your local lesbian bishop's orders are completely invalid.
So with that being said, whether sacraments requiring holy orders other than marriage are recognized in the Anglican church is a "generally no, but exceptions exist". Marriages in the Anglican church are recognized if it was the first marriage between both parties, they're not close relatives, and constitute a man and a woman. Baptism is always recognized.

[Salus Maior]

So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

Here's a complicated topic.
So, Anglican holy orders were declared absolutely null and utterly void by pope Leo XIII. Whether that proclamation fell under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is a complex question to which the answer is "probably not, but it could be, and regardless it reflects the almost unanimous view of theologians and it's difficult to argue with from the POV of Catholic sacramental theology anyways". The reasoning is kind of complicated, but long story short, the dropping of references to sacrifice from the Anglican rite of ordination for a time renders the orders in use in the COE invalid.
But wait, there's more! A large number of Anglican holy orders don't descend directly from COE orders. Many come from liberal Catholic splinter groups- assuming there aren't any women in the line of apostolic succession or something like that, these tend to be mostly valid. Some don't have any sort of basis at all, and these are even less valid. And of course, your local lesbian bishop's orders are completely invalid.
So with that being said, whether sacraments requiring holy orders other than marriage are recognized in the Anglican church is a "generally no, but exceptions exist". Marriages in the Anglican church are recognized if it was the first marriage between both parties, they're not close relatives, and constitute a man and a woman. Baptism is always recognized.

As an aside, I've been told that the Anglican Ordinariate (Anglicans that have converted to Catholicism for those who don't know) is pretty trad. I've been told that their masses are basically the traditional mass, but just in English.

[Tarsonis]

As our various responses have illuminated: it’s complicated.

[Hakons]

So I was in a good natured argument with one of my good friends about Catholicism and Anglicanism and something got brought up about the validity of the Holy Orders, and by extension the Sacraments. He said that there is no Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion or their daughter churches so none of the Sacraments that require a priest are valid. Something about one of the Pope’s in the 1800’s declaring them invalid, I’m not sure and I’m not sure if I have already asked about this or not so I do apologize if my memory is in fact lacking. Even so if the situation he described did in fact historically happen was the Pope speaking infallibly or not? Rather curious about this and hope to get some answers from you all, I’ve looked it up online a bit but I have not found anything concrete about he infallibility of the ruling.

Here's a complicated topic.
So, Anglican holy orders were declared absolutely null and utterly void by pope Leo XIII. Whether that proclamation fell under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium is a complex question to which the answer is "probably not, but it could be, and regardless it reflects the almost unanimous view of theologians and it's difficult to argue with from the POV of Catholic sacramental theology anyways". The reasoning is kind of complicated, but long story short, the dropping of references to sacrifice from the Anglican rite of ordination for a time renders the orders in use in the COE invalid.
But wait, there's more! A large number of Anglican holy orders don't descend directly from COE orders. Many come from liberal Catholic splinter groups- assuming there aren't any women in the line of apostolic succession or something like that, these tend to be mostly valid. Some don't have any sort of basis at all, and these are even less valid. And of course, your local lesbian bishop's orders are completely invalid.
So with that being said, whether sacraments requiring holy orders other than marriage are recognized in the Anglican church is a "generally no, but exceptions exist". Marriages in the Anglican church are recognized if it was the first marriage between both parties, they're not close relatives, and constitute a man and a woman. Baptism is always recognized.

The "absolutely null and utterly void" phrase came to my mind as well. It's certainly a way to get your point across. Here is a wiki article on the bull the phrase came out of, for those that are interested.

[Camelone]

Thank you to everyone who took the time to inform me about the position of Anglican Orders from the point of view of the Catholic Church. Looks like, as has been mentioned, that things are rather complicated when it comes to this subject. So thank you once more.

[GnosticChristian]

Doesn’t the Catholic Church affirm a literal Adam, Eve and Fall, Tarsonis? Correct me if I am wrong.

All Romanists and many Prods believe that the FALL = Original Sin is a real Thing that happened in the Long Ago Time.

Most believe Genesis is a parable to express the FALL. Few believe it is an historical account.

Would you like to speculate as to why the Christians call it a fall when the Jews who own the myth call it our elevation, even as the Christians sing their Exultet hymn and call Adam's sin a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.

That is a hell of a contradiction that makes Christians look stupid and undecided in terms of our fall being good or evil.

Regards
DL

[GnosticChristian]

For clarity, I was simply characterising the actionable nature of GnosticChristian's posts, and stating that it wasn't typical for this thread. The ban is officially for flaming, but it could also be functionally characterised as trollspamming given his behaviour over the last few pages. I doubt either point is particularly controversial.

As per my usual policy regarding this thread, I took no action against GnosticChristian, wasn't involved in the decision to ban GnosticChristian, nor did I report GnosticChristian. However, it looks like I should expand that policy to also not even commenting on action taken by my colleagues given the potential for misunderstanding.

I believe Blaat was only gently teasing me; but given subsequent reaction, clearly I need to tread even more carefully.

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

[Tarsonis]

For clarity, I was simply characterising the actionable nature of GnosticChristian's posts, and stating that it wasn't typical for this thread. The ban is officially for flaming, but it could also be functionally characterised as trollspamming given his behaviour over the last few pages. I doubt either point is particularly controversial.

As per my usual policy regarding this thread, I took no action against GnosticChristian, wasn't involved in the decision to ban GnosticChristian, nor did I report GnosticChristian. However, it looks like I should expand that policy to also not even commenting on action taken by my colleagues given the potential for misunderstanding.

I believe Blaat was only gently teasing me; but given subsequent reaction, clearly I need to tread even more carefully.

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

You haven't been censored. You've merely refused to follow forum rules, and been held accountable. It really is pretty simple: don't flame/insult/attack other posters, and you won't be banned. Imagine that.

[GnosticChristian]

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Regards
DL

You haven't been censored. You've merely refused to follow forum rules, and been held accountable. It really is pretty simple: don't flame/insult/attack other posters, and you won't be banned. Imagine that.

Jordan Peterson
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive

I sometimes wish I had my bully side under better control, but in order to be able to try to get non-thinkers to think, you have to risk being offensive and I do not mind taking the heat for being in a religionist's face, especially given the damage religions do with their homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

[Tarsonis]

You haven't been censored. You've merely refused to follow forum rules, and been held accountable. It really is pretty simple: don't flame/insult/attack other posters, and you won't be banned. Imagine that.

Jordan Peterson
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive

I sometimes wish I had my bully side under better control, but in order to be able to try to get non-thinkers to think, you have to risk being offensive and I do not mind taking the heat for being in a religionist's face, especially given the damage religions do with their homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

Give yourself whatever delusion of grander you want, and quote which ever person you wish, it doesn't matter. There are rules of decorum on this forum. If you won’t abide by them, you will be held accountable, as we all have been. We’re all guilty of crossing the line from time to time, it happens to the best of us. But the rules are there for a reason.

If you don’t like it, feel free to leave.

[Salus Maior]

You haven't been censored. You've merely refused to follow forum rules, and been held accountable. It really is pretty simple: don't flame/insult/attack other posters, and you won't be banned. Imagine that.

Jordan Peterson
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive

I sometimes wish I had my bully side under better control, but in order to be able to try to get non-thinkers to think, you have to risk being offensive and I do not mind taking the heat for being in a religionist's face, especially given the damage religions do with their homophobia and misogyny.

Peterson didn't say that to give you an excuse to insult and belittle people and you've hardly gotten anyone to think with your arguments. Hell, watch any one of his debates, he never calls his opponents "stupid" or "low IQ" for arguing against him like you are.

Honestly, it's really pathetic that you'd use that as a justification for yourself. But then again, I guess you already appropriated "gnosticism" to justify your personal views so I suppose that's precedent.

[Dogmeat]

You haven't been censored. You've merely refused to follow forum rules, and been held accountable. It really is pretty simple: don't flame/insult/attack other posters, and you won't be banned. Imagine that.

Jordan Peterson
In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive

I sometimes wish I had my bully side under better control, but in order to be able to try to get non-thinkers to think, you have to risk being offensive and I do not mind taking the heat for being in a religionist's face, especially given the damage religions do with their homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

This sort of self-congratulatory haughtiness is tiresome and not particularly constructive. It's easily possible to critique Christianity without it. No one is impressed with it, or persuaded by it.

[Camelone]

GnosticChristian are you an actual Gnostic or just an anti-Christian, maybe anti-religious not entirely sure yet, who has adopted the title of Gnosticism? If you are a Gnostic are you a Martinist, Rosicrucian, Freemason, Hermetic, or some variant of the Western Christian-centered 'mystery religions'? Either way you have a gigantic chip on your shoulder and your sense of superiority is ill earned just from reading how you have conducted yourself in this forum in particular.

[Xmara]

GnosticChristian are you an actual Gnostic or just an anti-Christian, maybe anti-religious not entirely sure yet, who has adopted the title of Gnosticism? If you are a Gnostic are you a Martinist, Rosicrucian, Freemason, Hermetic, or some variant of the Western Christian-centered 'mystery religions'? Either way you have a gigantic chip on your shoulder and your sense of superiority is ill earned just from reading how you have conducted yourself in this forum in particular.

Apparently he’s never heard that pride goeth before the fall.

[Tarsonis]

Last I checked, dogpiling is against the rules too.

[Stonok]

I've only ever truly listened to two Gnostics in my life; and only one of them I knew personally, but I'm pretty sure pride is not a virtue, even to Gnostics.

I recommend ceasing to feed the troll.

[Tarsonis]

I love my students but being tapped on a charter bus with them for 10 hours and i’m Liable to kill them. Ironic since we’re on the way to the March for Life

[Hakons]

I love my students but being tapped on a charter bus with them for 10 hours and i’m Liable to kill them. Ironic since we’re on the way to the March for Life

That's cool! What kind of stuff do you guys do there?