Why are Anglicans any different than Orthodox?

[Gabriela]

(...or Lutherans, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Baptists, etc.)

Maybe this seems like a dumb question, but if we accept the Orthodox as totally legit even though they don't recognize the authority of the Pope, why don't we accept these Protestant denominations who broke off from the Church because they didn't accept the authority of the Pope?

Is it solely because they differ in some matters of theology? If so, then again, what about Anglicans, who (if I'm not mistaken) differ pretty much only in the authority of the Pope...?

[Little Flower]

What do you mean by "accept the Orthodox as totally legit"? If you are referring to that we accept their sacraments as valid, it is my understanding that this is because the Orthodox have maintained apostolic succession and thus have valid bishops with the ability to confer holy orders. While they are separated from the Church, their sacraments are actually in fact valid. 

The other protestant denominations including even Anglicans have lost apostolic succession and the priesthood, and thus do not validly have the sacraments whose minister must be a priest or bishop. Protestant denominations who baptize in the Trinitarian formula have a valid baptism; and since in a marriage the ministers are actually the bride and groom, they have valid marriages.

[Nihil Obstat]

Worth noting, just kind of tangentially, the phenomenon of (some) Anglicans being nearly Catholic is rather a modern development. It has only been the case since the Oxford Movement. Before that Anglicanism was far more likely to be very evangelical, both theologically and liturgically. Thank Cranmer for that.

[Gabriela]

Yes, I mean their having valid sacraments. Sorry!

So how did the Orthodox maintain apostolic succession but the Protestants not? I'm obviously not terribly familiar with the history here, so I'm wondering what happened to make the difference in our acceptance of them. I can't understand how we can say that the Orthodox have legitimate apostolic succession (and so valid sacraments) when they don't accept the Pope's authority, just like Protestants.

And so, while we're at it, if anyone could explain the difference between the status of the Orthodox, the Anglicans (or whoever), and the SSPX, that'd be just swell. Cuz as far as I can tell, all three of their troubles (when it comes to full communion with Rome) start with apostolic succession stuff. And yet we see the three very differently. 

@Nihil Obstat: What do you mean "very evangelical, both theologically and liturgically"? I mean, the Catholic Church is evangelical. Are you using "evangelical" to mean "liberal" or something?

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

@Nihil Obstat: What do you mean "very evangelical, both theologically and liturgically"? I mean, the Catholic Church is evangelical. Are you using "evangelical" to mean "liberal" or something?

I mean evangelical in the sense of Protestant evangelicalism.

[Gabriela]

13 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I mean evangelical in the sense of Protestant evangelicalism.

Like, eager to convert people and kinda' charismatic-ish and fundamentalistic?

[Maggyie]

With Anglicans, read about the 39 articles. They have a Protestant theology and only believe in 2 sacraments; they don't view the priesthood in a sacramental sense. The Orthodox have all 7. 

[Nihil Obstat]

51 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Like, eager to convert people and kinda' charismatic-ish and fundamentalistic?

No... I am surprised that you have not encountered this term before.

[Amppax]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

Yes, I mean their having valid sacraments. Sorry!

So how did the Orthodox maintain apostolic succession but the Protestants not? I'm obviously not terribly familiar with the history here, so I'm wondering what happened to make the difference in our acceptance of them. I can't understand how we can say that the Orthodox have legitimate apostolic succession (and so valid sacraments) when they don't accept the Pope's authority, just like Protestants.

So I had a whole response, which got eaten by my wonky internet. Hmph. 

Anyway, the problem with the Anglicans specifically is that their ordinations have a deficiency of intention and form. This was stated authoritatively in Leo XIII's bull Apostolicae curae. I'd highly suggest this article: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm, as it covers the history quite well. 

The Orthodox have valid ordinations because 1) Apostolic Succession and 2) proper form and intention. It's not a matter of whether or not they accept the Pope's authority. 

Quote

And so, while we're at it, if anyone could explain the difference between the status of the Orthodox, the Anglicans (or whoever), and the SSPX, that'd be just swell. Cuz as far as I can tell, all three of their troubles (when it comes to full communion with Rome) start with apostolic succession stuff. And yet we see the three very differently. 

This is a tricky one. Not the Anglican's, because we addressed that above, but Orthodox vs. SSPX. For one thing, the Orthodox hold some heretical positions, while the SSPX do not. What makes the distinction between Orthodox and SSPX difficult (at least for me) is the theology of certain Eastern Catholic Churches, which is basically that of the Orthodox. If the Orthodox hold heretical views, and these Eastern Catholics hold the same theology, wouldn't that mean that they too hold heretical views? It can be a bit confusing at times. 

[Gabriela]

59 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

No... I am surprised that you have not encountered this term before.

I've heard it. I guess I thought it referred to something more cultural than theological. I didn't realize it was that specific, because there's such a huge range of "evangelical Christians".

[Little Flower]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

This is a tricky one. Not the Anglican's, because we addressed that above, but Orthodox vs. SSPX. For one thing, the Orthodox hold some heretical positions, while the SSPX do not. What makes the distinction between Orthodox and SSPX difficult (at least for me) is the theology of certain Eastern Catholic Churches, which is basically that of the Orthodox. If the Orthodox hold heretical views, and these Eastern Catholics hold the same theology, wouldn't that mean that they too hold heretical views? It can be a bit confusing at times. 

The situation with the SSPX is complicated. They are not like the Orthodox and in formal schism. At one point in time, the bishops and priests in the sect were excommunicated, but I believe that excommunication has since been lifted. There was never any excommunication on the faithful who attended (to my knowledge). Their Masses are completely valid; however, since faculties are required for confessions, their confessions are not. That being said, for the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis granted faculties for confession to the SSPX priests so that their confessions would be valid. I am not really clear on their exact status, but they are not in formal schism and are not formally separated from the Church.

[truthfinder]

9 minutes ago, Little Flower said:

The situation with the SSPX is complicated. They are not like the Orthodox and in formal schism. At one point in time, the bishops and priests in the sect were excommunicated, but I believe that excommunication has since been lifted. There was never any excommunication on the faithful who attended (to my knowledge). Their Masses are completely valid; however, since faculties are required for confessions, their confessions are not. That being said, for the Year of Mercy, Pope Francis granted faculties for confession to the SSPX priests so that their confessions would be valid. I am not really clear on their exact status, but they are not in formal schism and are not formally separated from the Church.

The priests weren't excommunicated - just the bishops. And their marriages are also invalid due to lack of faculties. 

They are "canonically irregular".

[Little Flower]

Thanks for the clarification @truthfinder

[Nihil Obstat]

Keep in mind that the SSPX themselves have a very specific, technical canonical argument as to why their confessions and marriages are not invalid. I am not saying the argument is right or wrong (obviously that is not my call to make) or that I agree or disagree with it, but I am somewhat familiar with it and it is not something to be dismissed out of hand.

[Jack4]

13 hours ago, Little Flower said:

... since faculties are required for confessions, their confessions are not. 

I think Ecclesia supplet ("the Church supplies", cf CIC 144) comes into play here, if the penitent is unaware of the situation. IOW the Church "supplies" the juridical power to absolve.  

Disclaimer1. Never "count on" ES. 

Disclaimer2. I'm assuming that there is no problem in form, matter and intent. ES does not do anything there. Ecclesia non supplet quod Ecclesia non habet; the Church cannot supply what the Church does not have. (and the Church has no power over what the Lord Himself has instituted)