Is A Protostant "church" A Real Church

[Nihil Obstat]

I am more inclined to say simply that as a community, they are completely cut off from the Church. As individuals they share in a common baptism (at least usually), but their 'corporate affiliation' is less than worthless in terms of grace or salvation.

I see what you mean about baptism though. Clearly on the individual level there is a connection to the Church through their baptism. However I do think on the community level we should not say that a Protestant ecclesial community is part of the Church in any sense.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Why do you think it bad/improper (dangerous?) to acknowledge them as having any communal connection with the Church. I think what you are advocating is the same reason why I acknowledge them as heretical and schismatic. Are we expressing the same thought in two different ways?

[Apotheoun]

Although there are significant theological differences between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches on matters related to mysteriology and ecclesiology they do share a common viewpoint as far as the Protestant communities are concerned, because both hold that the communities that arose out of the Protestant Reformation are not churches. Where the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches disagree is in whether or not the holy mysteries (i.e., the sacraments) can exist outside of the true Churches of Christ. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Why do you think it bad/improper (dangerous?) to acknowledge them as having any communal connection with the Church. I think what you are advocating is the same reason why I acknowledge them as heretical and schismatic. Are we expressing the same thought in two different ways?

I think we are going from the same premises, but you are trying to be rather more generous with the nature of ecclesiology. :smile3: Personally I think it is a bit of a slippery slope to try to work Protestant communities into a formal understanding of the Church - I think it tends to move towards a sort of indifference or spiritual laziness.

 

Of course, one time I was accused of being a Feeneyist. That is false, by the way. The accuser was quite emotionally unstable. But there you go. :|

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Although there are significant theological differences between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches on matters related to mysteriology and ecclesiology they do share a common viewpoint as far as the Protestant communities are concerned, because both hold that the communities that arose out of the Protestant Reformation are not churches. Where the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches disagree is in whether or not the holy mysteries (i.e., the sacraments) can exist outside of the true Churches of Christ. 

Should I take that to mean that the Eastern Church would say that a Protestant community cannot validly administer baptism, even using the proper Trinitarian formula?

[Apotheoun]

Should I take that to mean that the Eastern Church would say that a Protestant community cannot validly administer baptism, even using the proper Trinitarian formula?

That is correct, for Eastern Orthodox the "sacraments" of Protestants are empty vessels. That said, a bishop does have the power - through the keys he has received in ordination - to economically (oeconomia) fill with grace the empty rite performed by Protestants upon the conversion of an individual to the Orthodox faith.

[Nihil Obstat]

That is correct, for Eastern Orthodox the "sacraments" of Protestants are empty vessels. That said, a bishop does have the power - through the keys he has received in ordination - to economically (oeconomia) fill with grace the empty rite performed by Protestants upon the conversion of an individual to the Orthodox faith.

That is interesting. I am not sure I have heard that before - or at least, I have not understood it before if I did hear it. It is as if the Protestant rite sets up a frame that is, as you said, empty. That makes me wonder, what is the exact nature of this empty vessel? What is the objective metaphysical event that occurs which establishes the vessel?

What sources might I want to read in order to come to a deeper understanding of the subject?

[Apotheoun]

I posted this article some years ago here at Phatmass, but it seems to me that it would be helpful in this thread. The article was written by a friend of mine (Irish Melkite) at the Byzantine Forum and it explains the two primary ways of approaching the sacraments and their validity or efficaciousness, and how these two different approaches 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. 

[Nihil Obstat]

That is really interesting. Thanks.

 

I am still confused about the nature of baptism though, from the perspective of the Cyprianic position. I am looking at this quote:

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.

So does this mean that a 'normal' baptism administered by a Protestant is objectively invalid, while a baptism in danger of death is not? Because that seems like a rather odd consequence to me, somewhat counter-intuitive.

[Apotheoun]

That is interesting. I am not sure I have heard that before - or at least, I have not understood it before if I did hear it. It is as if the Protestant rite sets up a frame that is, as you said, empty. That makes me wonder, what is the exact nature of this empty vessel? What is the objective metaphysical event that occurs which establishes the vessel?

What sources might I want to read in order to come to a deeper understanding of the subject?

The empty vessel is an attempt by unauthorized men to mimic the activity of the Church, but without the divine power to do so. In Orthodoxy the grace of God is attached to the Church, and not to the mysteriological rites per se. That said, as long as the rite authorized by Christ is celebrated within His body the Church it follows that it is filled with grace, but if that same exact rite is performed outside of the Church it is a mere shell, an empty vessel, confected by human authority alone. To put it another way, for the Orthodox the holy mysteries cannot exist outside of the Church.

[Nihil Obstat]

The empty vessel is an attempt by unauthorized men to mimic the activity of the Church, but without the divine power to do so. In Orthodoxy the grace of God is attached to the Church, and not to the mysteriological rites per se. That said, as long as the rite authorized by Christ is celebrated within His body the Church it follows that it is filled with grace, but if that same exact rite is performed outside of the Church it is a mere shell, an empty vessel, confected by human authority alone. To put it another way, for the Orthodox the holy mysteries cannot exist outside of the Church.

So a couple follow-up questions then:

 

First, I refer back to my question about baptism by a Protestant minister under normal circumstances being objectively invalid, as opposed to a baptism in danger of death being presumably valid. It seems like a strange consequence to me, and I wonder if I am understanding correctly.

 

Second, I have read some Orthodox commentary which says that within Orthodoxy the simply say where the Church is, rather than attempting to define precisely where it is not. I do not know if this is a typical Orthodox perspective, or perhaps peculiar to the authors I have read, but if it is true would it imply that from the perspective of Orthodoxy, a Protestant could be considered as being a part of the Church only inasmuch as his ability to validly administer baptism is concerned, since baptism does not require orders?

[Apotheoun]

That is really interesting. Thanks.

 

I am still confused about the nature of baptism though, from the perspective of the Cyprianic position. I am looking at this quote:

So does this mean that a 'normal' baptism administered by a Protestant is objectively invalid, while a baptism in danger of death is not? Because that seems like a rather odd consequence to me, somewhat counter-intuitive.

One thing to remember about Irish Melkite, and I respect him greatly, is that he is not an Orthodox Christian, rather he is a Melkite Catholic and so his views may not necessarily coincide perfectly with the views of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. That said, I have been told by several of my Orthodox friends that baptism performed by a lay Orthodox Christian is acceptable when the danger of death is present, but if the baptized person should live after such a baptism he is required to go to the priest in order to have the other rites associated with baptism performed in order to regularize his emergency baptism. So, a lay Orthodox Christian can clearly baptize in an emergency, but - according to Orthodox tradition - a person who is not Orthodox has no power to baptize anyone, not even in cases where the danger of death is present, because a non-baptized person cannot give what he does not possess.

[Apotheoun]

Below is a link to a document on the holy mysteries written by an Orthodox priest named Peter Alban Heers. It should help to explain the position taken on the sacraments by the Orthodox Church:

 

The Mystery of Baptism and the Unity of the Church

Edited April 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Excellent, thanks. I would love to understand this better. I feel like it could potentially illuminate a typically western understanding of the sacraments and ecclesiology as well.

[Apotheoun]

First, I refer back to my question about baptism by a Protestant minister under normal circumstances being objectively invalid, as opposed to a baptism in danger of death being presumably valid. It seems like a strange consequence to me, and I wonder if I am understanding correctly.

No, such a "baptism" - even in danger of death - would be utterly devoid of grace.

Could that unauthorized and empty rite later - through oeconomia exercised by a bishop - become grace filled upon the conversion to Orthodoxy of the person who received it? Yes, but that would be up to the individual bishop to decide. As an Orthodox seminarian - who will be ordained to the presbyterate in July - told me on the phone recently: the parish he will be assisting at baptizes converts to Orthodoxy that come to the Church from both the Protestant sects and the Roman Catholic Church.

Edited April 2, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Second, I have read some Orthodox commentary which says that within Orthodoxy the simply say where the Church is, rather than attempting to define precisely where it is not. I do not know if this is a typical Orthodox perspective, or perhaps peculiar to the authors I have read, but if it is true would it imply that from the perspective of Orthodoxy, a Protestant could be considered as being a part of the Church only inasmuch as his ability to validly administer baptism is concerned, since baptism does not require orders?

Although that is a popular saying, as several Orthodox friends of mine have pointed out, it does not come from the Holy Fathers.

 

Nevertheless, it is common enough among Orthodox to really not give much thought to the "baptism" (or other "sacraments") of heretics, because if a heretic approaches the Church in order to become Orthodox it will be up to the bishop, and not the lay faithful, to determine if oeconomia will be applied or not.

As far as the last part of your question is concerned, I think it is safe to say that the Orthodox would never positively affirm that a Protestant is a member of the Church. How could the Orthodox do that? It is the same as saying that a heretic is a member of the Church, which - according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient canons - is not possible.

[Nihil Obstat]

Although that is a popular saying, as several Orthodox friends of mine have pointed out, it does not come from the Holy Fathers.

 

Nevertheless, it is common enough among Orthodox to really not give much thought to the "baptism" (or other "sacraments") of heretics, because if a heretic approaches the Church in order to become Orthodox it will be up to the bishop, and not the lay faithful, to determine if oeconomia will be applied or not.

As far as the last part of your question is concerned, I think it is safe to say that the Orthodox would never positively affirm that a Protestant is a member of the Church. How could the Orthodox do that? It is the same as saying that a heretic is a member of the Church, which - according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient canons - is not possible.

I certainly agree with the bolded part here.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

It is the same as saying that a heretic is a member of the Church, which - according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the ancient canons - is not possible.

Ok, this...I now see my error.

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Double post...

Edited April 2, 2013 by PadrePioOfPietrelcino

[Nihil Obstat]

Geez, it felt like the good old days for a minute there.