Sedevacantists, like Orthodox, lack Apostolic Succession!

[Giuseppe58]

It's good to separate the sedevacantist position from sedevacantist bishops and priests. 

I hold the sedevacantist position, and at the same time agree with you that sedevacantist bishops are not apostolic successors. 

The apostolic successors are those bishops who have the lawful commision from the Church and possess jurisdiction.  This fact about apostolic succession is not an argument against the position of sedevacantism.  Sedevacantism is a response to the crisis by consistently applying theology to the facts, nothing more. 

[Quaremerepulisti]

I think the answer to both questions is to answer the question of who is innovating;

Which is just another circular argument in disguise.  How do you know which is the true Church?  By knowing which is innovating and which is not.  And how do you which is innovating and which is not?  By knowing which is the true Church.

Sure, you make a catalog of "innovations" you charge Catholicism with, but they in turn have their own catalog of "innovations" they charge Orthodoxy which.  Because nothing can stay absolutely the same, so it is necessary to distinguish the substantial (innovation) from the merely accidental (development).  But to do that, you need to a priori know where the authority is.

The rest of your points are quite sophomoric.  I can do likewise:

The Orthodox officially accept the essence-energies distinction in God (Palamism).  And this contradicts the First Council of Nicaea.  Voila.  Proof positive the Orthodox are wrong as they reject the Holy Tradition of an ecumenical council.  And, the cherry on top: it was rejected at first by some patriarchs (as contrary to Holy Tradition) then later accepted.  There ya have it: INNOVATION since Palamism must be either true or false.

And I WARN YOU FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL that you must see that I am right and reject the heresy of Palamas and join the Catholic Church.  (Insert quotes from Fathers).

[ermy_law]

The Seder meal, which was the Holy Thursday Meal, used unleavened bread. So Jesus used unleavened bread. So who changed what. In any case unleavened or leavened does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.

For what it's worth, you're arguing a disputed fact since the Orthodox use the Holy Week account from the Gospel of St. John, which explains that the Last Supper was not a seder meal.

[St.Justin]

The Seder meal, which was the Holy Thursday Meal, used unleavened bread. So Jesus used unleavened bread. So who changed what. In any case unleavened or leavened does not affect the validity of the Sacrament.

For what it's worth, you're arguing a disputed fact since the Orthodox use the Holy Week account from the Gospel of St. John, which explains that the Last Supper was not a seder meal.

You might want to read this http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id106.html

"1 Before *the festival day of the Pasch, Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end."

"John xiii.

Notes & Commentary:

Ver. 1. Before the festival day, or feast of the Pasch. See the note on this word Pasch, Matthew xxvi. ver. 2. Here when St. John says, before the festival day, he means in the evening, or latter evening after sunset, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, when the great feast of Azyms or unleavened bread was begun, (for the Jews began their feasts from sunset on the foregoing day) so that the hours from sunset, at least, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan (at which time the paschal lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread belonged to the first, and great day of Azyms, which lasted till sunset on the 15th day of the month [of] Nisan. St. John therefore says, the day before, meaning after sunset on the 14th day of the month; but yet it was part of the same great feast, which was kept on the 15th day. See also the note Matthew xxvi. ver. 17. (Witham)"

[ermy_law]

I am not arguing for the rightness of the Orthodox position. I am merely pointing out that you are assuming a fact that is in dispute, so the argument you're making does not work until you establish that fact. Since that fact has been disputed for several hundred years at this point, I doubt we'll resolve it here.

[Livenotonevil]

I think the answer to both questions is to answer the question of who is innovating;

Which is just another circular argument in disguise.  How do you know which is the true Church?  By knowing which is innovating and which is not.  And how do you which is innovating and which is not?  By knowing which is the true Church.

Sure, you make a catalog of "innovations" you charge Catholicism with, but they in turn have their own catalog of "innovations" they charge Orthodoxy which.  Because nothing can stay absolutely the same, so it is necessary to distinguish the substantial (innovation) from the merely accidental (development).  But to do that, you need to a priori know where the authority is.

The rest of your points are quite sophomoric.  I can do likewise:

The Orthodox officially accept the essence-energies distinction in God (Palamism).  And this contradicts the First Council of Nicaea.  Voila.  Proof positive the Orthodox are wrong as they reject the Holy Tradition of an ecumenical council.  And, the cherry on top: it was rejected at first by some patriarchs (as contrary to Holy Tradition) then later accepted.  There ya have it: INNOVATION since Palamism must be either true or false.

And I WARN YOU FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL that you must see that I am right and reject the heresy of Palamas and join the Catholic Church.  (Insert quotes from Fathers).

Bold Point 1.

Considering that the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Church were one Church before the schism, we can easily look to the Fathers, to the Saints, and to historical events to see "who is innovating" theologically.

In the pre-schism Church, we see none of the Roman ideas in even an elementary form, other than the occasional quote-mining done by Catholics who will anticipate their own conclusion whenever they find any Church Father talking about Peter or Rome.

There is no idea of "Purgatorial Fire" in the pre-schism Church whatsoever (http://nftu.net/first-homily-of-st-mark-of-ephesus-on-prayer-for-the-dead-and-against-the-roman-catholic-purgatory/), there is no idea of "indulgences," there is no idea of "Papal Infallibility" (as I've demonstrated again and again on this forum, but see Saint Justinian's comment to Pope Vigilius about how they don't need his work), there is no idea of "Papal Supremacy" (at least until the 800s, where it really was in full bloom - the seeds were planted earlier though; http://www.roca.org/OA/126-127/126e.htm) (Saint Gregory the Great called the name of "universal bishop" "blasphemous" and "a forerunner to the Antichrist", there is no idea of the "no-death" Assumption into heaven (https://orthodoxnorthwest.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/tumblr_lstundwowv1qghk7bo1_1280.jpg) (from Santa Maria Maggiore), there is no idea of inherited guilt (except in Saint Augustine), and there is no idea of the Immaculate Conception, no idea of the indissolvibility of marriage (https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/), (https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2017/05/09/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-an-addendum/), etc.

May I ask where the Orthodox have innovated theologically?

You can argue in some of the Liturgical innovations - like the creation of the Iconostasis (which came from the Rood Screen), different colored vestments (came from the West), belled censers, and different chanting?

The only argument is Hesychasm and Palamism - which I've addressed below.

Compare that to the Nicene Creed and the Filioque, to the introduction of unleavened bread (an innovation, as demonstrated by the Roman Church bishop Peter Chrysologus, as well as several Catholic historians), to realist and corporeal imagery in the churches, the downplaying or removal of the Epiklesis, etc.

Bold Point 2.

The idea of the Energies-Essence distinction did not contradict Nicaea - if that were the case, then the Cappadocian Fathers - Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, or Saint Gregory the Theologian - wouldn't have written about them.

http://www.thevoiceoforthodoxy.com/knowledge-and-vision-of-god-in-cappadocian-fathers/

Even one of the articles one of the members of this forum sent me makes the audacious claim that all three of these Saints were heretics because of the energy-essence distinction they made, while Thomas Aquinas's works are basically infallible. PFFT.

Also, I find it daring that you would say that Saint Gregory of Palamas was a heretic - especially when the Byzantine Catholics venerate him as a Saint. Although, of course, both the Byzantine Catholics and the Roman Catholics share the same beliefs under the same leader, right?

And I find it funny that you are making fun of what the Orthodox firmly teaches - I've been called "schismatic" and "heretic" incessantly since I've joined this form. None of the name-calling is going to make me violate my conscience, however - and I just thought I would return the favor by simply restating what the Orthodox Church holds as dogmatic belief. Sorry if you don't like it.

[Livenotonevil]

I am not arguing for the rightness of the Orthodox position. I am merely pointing out that you are assuming a fact that is in dispute, so the argument you're making does not work until you establish that fact. Since that fact has been disputed for several hundred years at this point, I doubt we'll resolve it here.

I would argue the contrary, and I wonder how people could make this a disputed fact when Rome clearly used leavened bread up until the Holy Roman Empire decided to innovate?

[ermy_law]

I am not arguing for the rightness of the Orthodox position. I am merely pointing out that you are assuming a fact that is in dispute, so the argument you're making does not work until you establish that fact. Since that fact has been disputed for several hundred years at this point, I doubt we'll resolve it here.

I would argue the contrary, and I wonder how people could make this a disputed fact when Rome clearly used leavened bread up until the Holy Roman Empire decided to innovate?

You're right, actually. It is within the realm of possibility that the modern Roman Church would go back to the original practice of using leavened bread.

[St.Justin]

I am not arguing for the rightness of the Orthodox position. I am merely pointing out that you are assuming a fact that is in dispute, so the argument you're making does not work until you establish that fact. Since that fact has been disputed for several hundred years at this point, I doubt we'll resolve it here.

I would argue the contrary, and I wonder how people could make this a disputed fact when Rome clearly used leavened bread up until the Holy Roman Empire decided to innovate?

You're right, actually. It is within the realm of possibility that the modern Roman Church would go back to the original practice of using leavened bread.

"Before the festival day, or feast of the Pasch. See the note on this word Pasch, Matthew xxvi. ver. 2. Here when St. John says, before the festival day, he means in the evening, or latter evening after sunset, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, when the great feast of Azyms or unleavened bread was begun, (for the Jews began their feasts from sunset on the foregoing day) so that the hours from sunset, at least, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan (at which time the paschal lamb was to be eaten with unleavened bread belonged to the first, and great day of Azym"

[Quaremerepulisti]

Considering that the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Church were one Church before the schism, we can easily look to the Fathers, to the Saints, and to historical events to see "who is innovating" theologically.

No, we can't, see.  Because I do not accept 1) your premise that what the Fathers and the Saints say is the touchstone of orthodoxy (meaning, the prime authority as to what is orthodox and what is not), and 2) your premise that anything (apparently) new necessarily constitutes a harmful "innovation".  Now this is of course what the Orthodox teach, but I'm not going to accept those premises if I don't first accept that Orthodoxy is the true Church.  So you're still arguing in a circle.  Unless you can prove, without first assuming the truth of Orthodoxy, these premises.  But you can't.

And how do you know the Fathers and Saints weren't themselves "innovating"?  I can make a very strong case that St. Augustine's doctrines on grace were "innovations" and they certainly contradicted what some of the Eastern Fathers were saying at the time.

In the pre-schism Church, we see none of the Roman ideas in even an elementary form...

How do you know that?  Do you have access to the thoughts of everyone who lived during the pre-schism Church, the vast majority of whom were illiterate?  And we do in fact see plenty of evidence of the germ of these ideas (e.g. the idea of Purgatory was certainly not unknown).  But, even if we didn't, so what? 

Because, you have another unproven assumption that 3) every single point of the deposit of faith given to the apostles will be stated somewhere in the writings of the Fathers or at least of theologians early on.  Since I don't accept this, it follows that there may be doctrines of faith only known to be such and defined as such later on, and so I am not troubled by that fact.  Against, you don't accept this only because the Orthodox Church teaches this is not the case.  But you can't prove that starting from first principles.

May I ask where the Orthodox have innovated theologically?

Well, what about your own modern "innovation" of the permission for artificial birth control?

The idea of the Energies-Essence distinction did not contradict Nicaea - if that were the case, then the Cappadocian Fathers - Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, or Saint Gregory the Theologian - wouldn't have written about them.

Why not?  They were wrong.  They thought it didn't contradict Nicaea but it actually did.  Again, I don't accept your assumption that Fathers are infallible in doctrine.

Also, I find it daring that you would say that Saint Gregory of Palamas was a heretic - especially when the Byzantine Catholics venerate him as a Saint. Although, of course, both the Byzantine Catholics and the Roman Catholics share the same beliefs under the same leader, right?

Perhaps if your Orthodox theology allowed you to make the distinction between "formal" heresy and "material" heresy (or its equivalent) you wouldn't find it so "daring" and would resist the temptation to take a sophomoric swipe in passing.

And I find it funny that you are making fun of what the Orthodox firmly teaches - I've been called "schismatic" and "heretic" incessantly since I've joined this form. None of the name-calling is going to make me violate my conscience, however - and I just thought I would return the favor by simply restating what the Orthodox Church holds as dogmatic belief. Sorry if you don't like it.

No, I'm not making fun of what the Orthodox teaches - I'm showing how sophomoric your arguments are by rephrasing similar types of arguments against the Orthodox.  If you find them risible (and you should), then you should realize your own arguments are likewise.

[abc123]

I would only try to point out a certain nuance here between Orthodox and Roman understandings of Apostolic Succession.

According to Rome we have material Apostolic succession given the fact that our bishops can trace their lineage back to the Apostles. In Roman understanding this means that any validly ordained bishop or priest can completely renounce his Christian faith yet still 'validly' confect the sacraments (except marriage and Confession) given his material apostolicity.

This isn't quite correct.  There are two powers necessary for priests and Bishops: the power of Orders (which is conferred at ordination) and the power of jurisdiction (which may be given at that time but maybe not, depending).  So, marriage and confession are not valid for a priest or bishop without faculties (there are exceptions in Canon Law) because these require the power of jurisdiction, while the other Sacraments do not.  So "material Apostolic succession" is the power of orders conferred upon Bishops.

For the Orthodox, we see both material AND formal Apostolic succession as necessary and interdependent. One must hold the Apostolic Faith and be united to the Church in order for there to be true Apostolic succession. This is why we believe there are no sacraments outside of the Church. Whatever grace may be found within the Roman church and its sacraments must be understood as a grace dependent on their relative nearness to Orthodoxy both in faith and practice.

And that is a non sequitur.  First, it is necessary to understand that if something doesn't exist formally, then it doesn't exist at all, even if the matter is present.  So of course Catholicism also agrees that true Apostolic succession requires being united to the Church; "material" Apostolic succession is not real Apostolic succession at all.  But it doesn't follow from that that there are no sacraments outside the Church.  You would need to show that valid sacraments entail Apostolic succession and you have not done so.

It is my understanding that Rome sees us as true Churches in some sense so that our sacraments are valid per se because of our Apostolic succession.

No, because of the presence of proper matter, form, and intention.

So the point for us isn't to note how many of our Sees were founded by Apostles but rather who has held onto the Faith which they professed. It is for this reason that the Orthodox Church does not believe that Apostolicity is found outside of Her visible structure.

Right.  And so you find yourself in the following vicious epistemological circle:

How do you find the true Church?  By finding the one which has the true Faith.
And how do you find the true Faith? By accepting the teaching of the true Church.

Which means, in reality, that even if you find the true Church by accident, you can't know that you've found it.

I wasn't trying to argue for or against the Catholic position but merely trying to explain the Orthodox one, which I addressed to another Orthodox Christian.  I'm not interested in what you believe regarding Sacraments outside of the Church, epistemological certainty, your appeal to papal authority, etc.  Your conception of the nature of the Church and how we know the True Church are so radically different than my own that there is little use engaging you. We speak very different theological languages.

[Livenotonevil]

No, we can't, see.  Because I do not accept 1) your premise that what the Fathers and the Saints say is the touchstone of orthodoxy (meaning, the prime authority as to what is orthodox and what is not), and 2) your premise that anything (apparently) new necessarily constitutes a harmful "innovation".  Now this is of course what the Orthodox teach, but I'm not going to accept those premises if I don't first accept that Orthodoxy is the true Church.  So you're still arguing in a circle.  Unless you can prove, without first assuming the truth of Orthodoxy, these premises.  But you can't.

And how do you know the Fathers and Saints weren't themselves "innovating"?  I can make a very strong case that St. Augustine's doctrines on grace were "innovations" and they certainly contradicted what some of the Eastern Fathers were saying at the time.

That's what Faith is for. How can we be certain there is a God?

Don't we believe that Christ's Gospel will be delivered unsullied unto the end of the ages?
That He established a Church which the gates of hell shall not prevail against?

And, with respect to Saint Augustine, some of his ideas were just wrong and were clearly innovations. Nobody in the Orthodox Church denies this; there isn't an infallible individual in the Orthodox Church. Saint John Chrysostom gets pretty close to it though, although he is not infallible.

Also, if you truly didn't believe that Tradition is the supreme authority over the entire Church, you shouldn't be using the Tridentine Mass and you ought to - out of doctrinal necessity -submit to the Pope.





By no means should you believe that Vatican II was a mistake or something, because it is the final authority of the Roman Church, "inspired" by the Holy Spirit.

You should venerate the infallible canonizations of John XXIII and John Paul II.

How do you know that?  Do you have access to the thoughts of everyone who lived during the pre-schism Church, the vast majority of whom were illiterate?  And we do in fact see plenty of evidence of the germ of these ideas (e.g. the idea of Purgatory was certainly not unknown).  But, even if we didn't, so what? 

Because, you have another unproven assumption that 3) every single point of the deposit of faith given to the apostles will be stated somewhere in the writings of the Fathers or at least of theologians early on.  Since I don't accept this, it follows that there may be doctrines of faith only known to be such and defined as such later on, and so I am not troubled by that fact.  Against, you don't accept this only because the Orthodox Church teaches this is not the case.  But you can't prove that starting from first principles.

But even if you accept the idea of "doctrinal development," in that there can be "more revelation" later on about the Gospel (which the Bible doesn't recognize, and from memory, even the Roman Catholic catechism condemns), there are no "germs" of the idea, which is what I'm pointing out, which makes them clear innovations. The idea of Purgatory, for example, Saint Mark of Ephesus pointed out by explaining the Roman misconceptions of the Church Fathers.

It's a Tradition that the Virgin Mary was sinless....but I don't see how this is a "germ" of an idea that her fundamental human nature was changed, making the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ pointless.

Same with Papal Supremacy / Infallibility. I see in the early Church a powerful bishop who was usually more Orthodox than the East (except during the 5th Ecumenical Council, the 6th Ecumenical Council, and the Photian Schism); does that equivocate to him being divinely chosen to be a fountain of knowledge that you must submit to at all costs?

Well, what about your own modern "innovation" of the permission for artificial birth control?

It's not moral, unless the priest permits it. Period. This includes "NFP," which from Pius XII onwards you guys allow for no reason whatsoever, even though the purpose of it is to have sex without getting pregnant - which is what "artificial conception" achieves. It's the same moral intention whether you like it or not.

Why not?  They were wrong.  They thought it didn't contradict Nicaea but it actually did.  Again, I don't accept your assumption that Fathers are infallible in doctrine.

So you have three Saints which are honored for their Orthodoxy throughout Christendom, and then one guy from the 13th century writes a huge theological work greatly exaggerating the work of another guy (Saint Augustine) which contradicts their ideas, and therefore, these three Saints are heretics.

Also, you seem to subjectively choose when the Pope is infallible or not, so those who are in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

Perhaps if your Orthodox theology allowed you to make the distinction between "formal" heresy and "material" heresy (or its equivalent) you wouldn't find it so "daring" and would resist the temptation to take a sophomoric swipe in passing.

May I ask how I'm being sophomoric? You said I'm in heresy because I follow Palamas, and then I pointed out that you are condemning many of your Byzantine Catholic friends you do likewise. Even if you are unnecessarily legalistic in your theological terminology, you still are contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not making fun of what the Orthodox teaches - I'm showing how sophomoric your arguments are by rephrasing similar types of arguments against the Orthodox.  If you find them risible (and you should), then you should realize your own arguments are likewise.

Your argument falls flat on its face because it's not a sound argument.


I encourage you to ask God for help, for your soul and for mine.

[abc123]

It is my understanding that Rome sees us as true Churches in some sense so that our sacraments are valid per se because of our Apostolic succession. I believe this view to be what Rome holds to today. If you notice, most of Xavier's sources are from 1907. Suffice to say that Rome has changed quite a bit since that time.

For more on this topic, the following book is an interesting discussion of this change:

The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome's Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church by Protopresbyter Peter Heers

I have read and do recommend this book. Thank you for mentioning it.

[Vetus Ordo]

a Church with link by link Apostolic Succession from Saint Mark (Alexandria)

Historically true but St. Mark, properly speaking, wasn't an apostle.

a Church with link by link Apostolic Succession from Saint Andrew (Constantinople)

There's some historical doubt concerning this claim. Not that it's very important, to be fair.

[Livenotonevil]

Historically true but St. Mark, properly speaking, wasn't an apostle.

Which is why it's through Saint Peter, according to Saint Gregory the Great.

There's some historical doubt concerning this claim. Not that it's very important, to be fair.

It's as historically doubtful as Peter founding Rome, as Saint Andrew founded the Church at Byzantium and was martyred near by. His relics remained at Constantinople, until - if memory recalls, I could be wrong - his relics were taken away by Crusaders.