OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 11:32:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Does Holy Orthodoxy recognize Anglican Orders?  (Read 5466 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« on: July 18, 2007, 12:07:43 PM »

Does Holy Orthodoxy recognize Anglican Orders?  Huh

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/jerusalem.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/cyprus.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/greece.html

http://anglicanhistory.org/official/alexandria.html
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #1 on: July 18, 2007, 12:23:06 PM »

No.

None of those documents apply today. The Russian Patriarchate 100 years ago had suggested the possibility of recognizing the orders of clergy who were received into Orthodoxy, if they came as a Diocese or Church (which never happened.) In short, no - we don't recognize their Orders.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #2 on: July 18, 2007, 12:26:06 PM »

Does Holy Orthodoxy recognize Anglican Orders?  Huh 

It depends: is the person converting to Orthodoxy or not?  If the answer is no, then the answer to your question is no.

If the answer is yes, then it depends on which group of bishops you talk to.  Some synods (I mean current ruling synods, not past ones) say that they are not, and thus will need to Ordain someone who is converting from the Anglican church who wants to be an Orthodox priest.  Other synods say that through economy the grace of the Spirit through chrismation/conversion will complete the old ordination that was performed on them, thus not requiring a new Ordination.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2007, 12:35:55 PM »

Quote
Other synods say that through economy the grace of the Spirit through chrismation/conversion will complete the old ordination that was performed on them, thus not requiring a new Ordination.

Although in actual practice, this does not occur to my knowledge. If it does, I'd like to know of specific examples so I can have a complete picture.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2007, 12:41:22 PM »

Although in actual practice, this does not occur to my knowledge. If it does, I'd like to know of specific examples so I can have a complete picture. 

Oh, I haven't heard of anything specific lately.  But who knows what the future holds...
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2007, 12:58:11 PM »

It has never happened though, and the future is dim as the future would include an Orthodox judgment upon the services used at Ordination, their theology of the sacrament of Ordination, and else besides. Roman Catholic Orders are where the real questions come - there are examples of clergy received only by vesting (most recently), and many others who were baptized and ordained on up through every order.

So - the short term answer, no. The long term answer - so unlikely as to be improbable, requiring a large number of changes in Anglicanism in a direction that they are not already headed...
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2007, 01:21:27 PM »

Although not Anglican, I was under the impression that Fr. Lev Gillet was received into the Orthodox Church without either Chrisimation or ordination (at least that's what the preface to my copy of his book "The Jesus Prayer" says).
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 01:21:48 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2007, 02:33:52 PM »

It has never happened though,

I don't know if any of us know enough Church history to say this with any certainty.  It wouldn't surprise me if my above scenario would have come true in the 30's or 40's in this country, or even a few decades before that.  Since the relevant period has insufficient documentation (and what we have isn't all centralized), I for one will refrain from making the sweeping generalization that it has never happened.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2007, 02:39:09 PM »

Although not Anglican, I was under the impression that Fr. Lev Gillet was received into the Orthodox Church without either Chrisimation or ordination (at least that's what the preface to my copy of his book "The Jesus Prayer" says).

Right, which was standard Russian practice at the time (what was not standard was his notion that he was not converting from one to another but going to the clearer light).  I simply omitted mention of it since the case of reception of RC clergy is quite different in actual practice from the reception of Anglican clergy.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 02:39:29 PM by Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2007, 02:43:41 PM »

I know enough about Anglican history with regards to Orthodoxy to know it has never happened. Every Anglican clergyman who was received was ordained - from the 1700s onwards (for whatever rite.) The only ordination we do not have documentation on is that of John Wesley, and to the possible claim of his elevation to the episcopate by Bp Erasmus of Arcadia in Crete. (That is another issue.)

Could it have happened in the period you cite? Yes - in fact, the Holy Synod of Russia's commission for Anglican and Old Catholic affairs in 1907 as part of their directions for adapting the Book of Common Prayer for Orthodox worship left that question open as a possiblity in the case of dioceses or the whole communion entering Orthodoxy. I can cite many Roman Catholic clergy who have been brought into Orthodoxy (Lev Gillet, as ozgeorge noted, up til recent times when OCA received a RC priest without reordination, and a whole monastery in the Southeast the same way.) Anglican Orders, of course, are not the same as Catholic orders. The question of Old Catholic orders muddies the water some - I don't have enough information on Old Catholic conversions to Orthodoxy. I do know that Rome continues to also deny the validity of Anglican Orders (and it is still their official position, hence the need for the Indult to receive Anglican clergy), as they hold a similar view of ordination to us Orthodox. However - some Old Catholic bishops have taken part in consecrations of Anglican bishops since those documents came out. Tracking down who does and doesn't have Old Catholic orders in Anglicanism, though, can be a little difficult.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2007, 02:50:21 PM »

I know enough about Anglican history with regards to Orthodoxy to know it has never happened. Every Anglican clergyman who was received was ordained - from the 1700s onwards (for whatever rite.) The only ordination we do not have documentation on is that of John Wesley, and to the possible claim of his elevation to the episcopate by Bp Erasmus of Arcadia in Crete. (That is another issue.)

Could it have happened in the period you cite? Yes - in fact, the Holy Synod of Russia's commission for Anglican and Old Catholic affairs in 1907 as part of their directions for adapting the Book of Common Prayer for Orthodox worship left that question open as a possiblity in the case of dioceses or the whole communion entering Orthodoxy. I can cite many Roman Catholic clergy who have been brought into Orthodoxy (Lev Gillet, as ozgeorge noted, up til recent times when OCA received a RC priest without reordination, and a whole monastery in the Southeast the same way.) Anglican Orders, of course, are not the same as Catholic orders.

Interesting.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #11 on: July 18, 2007, 03:45:50 PM »

So the only 'official' statements by the Eastern Orthodox are these statements I've posted?

Has there been any issue taken up with their 39 Articles of Faith by past or present Bishops or Synods?

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests.
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Isn't this unacceptable doctrine with regards to Orthodox Teaching?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 03:55:22 PM by ignatius » Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #12 on: July 18, 2007, 04:00:07 PM »

So the only 'official' statements by the Eastern Orthodox are these statements I've posted?

Has there been any issue taken up with their 39 Articles of Faith by past or present Bishops or Synods?

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

XXII. Of Purgatory.

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests.
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.

Isn't this unacceptable doctrine with regards to Orthodox Teaching?

I can't speak to the first two, but my understanding of Article 32 is that it holds there is no theological reason for bishops to remain unmarried.  If I understand Orthodox teaching correctly, neither do we see a theological reason, but we do see a practical reason (or did at one point and simply don't have a good reason to revoke that now). 
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Cowboy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 97



« Reply #13 on: July 18, 2007, 04:17:52 PM »

I can't speak to the first two, but my understanding of Article 32 is that it holds there is no theological reason for bishops to remain unmarried.  If I understand Orthodox teaching correctly, neither do we see a theological reason, but we do see a practical reason (or did at one point and simply don't have a good reason to revoke that now). 

The best reason to revoke it now can be seen by taking a look at our current crop of "monastic" Bishops (i'm speaking primarily of the OCA). Quite a farce in most cases. The pool for new Bishops is so small as to be detrimental to the building up of Christ's Church.

Cowboy
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2007, 04:21:36 PM »

The best reason to revoke it now can be seen by taking a look at our current crop of "monastic" Bishops (i'm speaking primarily of the OCA). Quite a farce in most cases. The pool for new Bishops is so small as to be detrimental to the building up of Christ's Church.

Cowboy

Your sample's too small to make that argument.  To revoke a rule in place across all of Orthodoxy with that justification, you'd have to make the case that the pool for bishops in the entire Church is too small and thus providing bishops of poor quality.  The pool for OCA bishops might be too small, but that doesn't mean the pool for the Church at large is too small.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Cowboy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 97



« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2007, 04:26:08 PM »

Your sample's too small to make that argument.  To revoke a rule in place across all of Orthodoxy with that justification, you'd have to make the case that the pool for bishops in the entire Church is too small and thus providing bishops of poor quality.  The pool for OCA bishops might be too small, but that doesn't mean the pool for the Church at large is too small.

Point well taken. Sorry for showing my frustration with most OCA Bishops.

Cowboy
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2007, 04:32:28 PM »

Your sample's too small to make that argument.  To revoke a rule in place across all of Orthodoxy with that justification, you'd have to make the case that the pool for bishops in the entire Church is too small and thus providing bishops of poor quality.  The pool for OCA bishops might be too small, but that doesn't mean the pool for the Church at large is too small. 

And maybe the OCA needs a trim... There are a lot of parishes that shouldn't be around (way too small, overlapping parishioner bases, etc); maybe the diocesan structure can be trimmed as well?
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Cowboy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 97



« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2007, 04:36:21 PM »

And maybe the OCA needs a trim... There are a lot of parishes that shouldn't be around (way too small, overlapping parishioner bases, etc); maybe the diocesan structure can be trimmed as well?

From your mouth to God's ears. I'm thinking crew cut.

Cowboy
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2007, 04:40:22 PM »

From your mouth to God's ears. I'm thinking crew cut.

Cowboy

Why not just Bic it?  Cheesy
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2007, 04:41:30 PM »

And maybe the OCA needs a trim... There are a lot of parishes that shouldn't be around (way too small, overlapping parishioner bases, etc); maybe the diocesan structure can be trimmed as well?

I'm assuming that's up in the Rust Belt area?  I know in the Diocese of the Confederacy South we're fairly far-flung.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2007, 04:43:20 PM »

I'm assuming that's up in the Rust Belt area?  I know in the Diocese of the Confederacy South we're fairly far-flung. 

Oh, north of the Mason-Dixon you have a lot of diocese (Midwest, E PA, W PA, New England, Washington, New York) and a ton of parishes (PA has more Orthodox parishes than any other state.... why?).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,461


« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2007, 04:44:49 PM »

I'm assuming that's up in the Rust Belt area?  I know in the Diocese of the Confederacy South we're fairly far-flung.

Well, there is an AOA mission close by, run by a poster here, which probably shouldn't exist either.  Half the parishioners came from my parish as well - drawn away by the "ethnicity".  I think we've already beaten this to death though.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2007, 04:53:29 PM »

What proportion of Orthodox priests are celibate? Does it vary according to geographical/cultural area or church/jurisdiction?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 04:54:01 PM by lubeltri » Logged
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2007, 09:37:34 PM »

I appreciate everyone's replies but I'm still not sure 'why' Holy Orthodoxy 'ever' accepted Anglican Orders when their Doctrine and Theology is so 'alien' to what Holy Orthodoxy professes to be the Deposit of Faith? Why did the Bishops and Synod overlook such differences?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
MichaelArchangelos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 103



« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2007, 10:20:03 PM »

I don't think Holy Orthodoxy did accept Anglican orders. While some modernistic, ecumenistic bishops may have received Anglican "priests" without re-ordination, the teaching of the Orthodox Church is that there are no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. The Holy Mysteries do not, in fact, cannot exist outside of Holy Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn't even recognize Roman Catholic sacraments (for more info on this, see Against False Union by Alexander Kalomiros). Pope Leo XIII, in his bull Apostolicae Curae, declared Anglican orders to be invalid because they did not express the sacramental nature of the priesthood.

The bottom line is this: Roman Catholic orders are invalid -> Anglicanism came from Catholicism -> Anglican orders are therefore invalid
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2007, 11:13:54 PM »

I don't think Holy Orthodoxy did accept Anglican orders. While some modernistic, ecumenistic bishops may have received Anglican "priests" without re-ordination, the teaching of the Orthodox Church is that there are no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church. The Holy Mysteries do not, in fact, cannot exist outside of Holy Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn't even recognize Roman Catholic sacraments (for more info on this, see Against False Union by Alexander Kalomiros). Pope Leo XIII, in his bull Apostolicae Curae, declared Anglican orders to be invalid because they did not express the sacramental nature of the priesthood.

The bottom line is this: Roman Catholic orders are invalid -> Anglicanism came from Catholicism -> Anglican orders are therefore invalid
But is it possible that Anglican or Roman Catholic orders can bear enough of the proper ritual and sacramental understanding of ordination that the Orthodox Church can accept them upon chrismation, recognizing that chrismation supplies the grace that the empty but proper heterodox ritual could not provide per se?
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2007, 11:19:49 PM »

But is it possible that Anglican or Roman Catholic orders can bear enough of the proper ritual and sacramental understanding of ordination that the Orthodox Church can accept them upon chrismation, recognizing that chrismation supplies the grace that the empty but proper heterodox ritual could not provide per se?

Hmm...if we continue down that line of thought, however, that could also lead us to conclude that all those previous communion services have also been filled so that the Body and Blood were given back then.  Similarly, wouldn't that also suggest that marriages retroactively become Orthodox marriages (which then raises the question of why bless the marriages of converting couples)?
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2007, 11:33:15 PM »

Hmm...if we continue down that line of thought, however, that could also lead us to conclude that all those previous communion services have also been filled so that the Body and Blood were given back then.  Similarly, wouldn't that also suggest that marriages retroactively become Orthodox marriages (which then raises the question of why bless the marriages of converting couples)?

Indeed. That's why I've never bought this very tenuous idea---and why methods of reception vary so much in Orthodoxy.

 
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2007, 11:33:43 PM »

Hmm...if we continue down that line of thought, however, that could also lead us to conclude that all those previous communion services have also been filled so that the Body and Blood were given back then.  Similarly, wouldn't that also suggest that marriages retroactively become Orthodox marriages (which then raises the question of why bless the marriages of converting couples)?
In my reasoning, I'm only talking about the sacramental mysteries of initiation: baptism, ordination, and marriage.  Communion doesn't count, so I don't believe in retroactive fulfillment of heterodox Communion.  The Orthodox Church does teach that chrismation can retroactively fulfill the empty form of a heterodox baptism, so one can wonder if this is true also for ordination and marriage.  I don't know that the Church has spoken one way or the other.

Something to think about if we follow you train of thought, though: If the Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of a heterodox marriage, does that mean that an Orthodox convert couple has been living in sin and will continue to live in sin until their marriage receives an Orthodox blessing?  Does it therefore follow that all their children born before their marriage blessing are illegitimate?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 11:35:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2007, 08:38:45 AM »

In my reasoning, I'm only talking about the sacramental mysteries of initiation: baptism, ordination, and marriage.  Communion doesn't count, so I don't believe in retroactive fulfillment of heterodox Communion.  The Orthodox Church does teach that chrismation can retroactively fulfill the empty form of a heterodox baptism, so one can wonder if this is true also for ordination and marriage.  I don't know that the Church has spoken one way or the other.

Something to think about if we follow you train of thought, though: If the Orthodox Church does not recognize the validity of a heterodox marriage, does that mean that an Orthodox convert couple has been living in sin and will continue to live in sin until their marriage receives an Orthodox blessing?  Does it therefore follow that all their children born before their marriage blessing are illegitimate?

I don't see how it follows that a couple without an Orthodox wedding but with children somehow have illegitimate children.  The Church would recognize that as being a valid civil marriage, thus requiring only the crowning service rather than the whole thing.  The sacramental validity of their marriage wouldn't have a bearing on the civil validity of that marriage, which is what would determine legitimacy.

Also, I'm not convinced that either marriage or ordination get lumped together with baptism and chrismation in terms of being retroactively fulfilled, and IMHO seems to be a rather arbitrary distinction.  Baptism and chrismation, at least, are directly tied to one another; baptism is preparation for chrismation, and chrismation is the reason for being baptized.  Granted, we speak of them as being two different sacraments, but is it incorrect to say that they are rather complementary portions of one sacrament of initiation?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2007, 08:39:06 AM by Veniamin » Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #30 on: July 19, 2007, 09:41:26 AM »

I don't see how it follows that a couple without an Orthodox wedding but with children somehow have illegitimate children.  The Church would recognize that as being a valid civil marriage, thus requiring only the crowning service rather than the whole thing.  The sacramental validity of their marriage wouldn't have a bearing on the civil validity of that marriage, which is what would determine legitimacy.

Never read or heard this recognition of 'valid civil' marriage nor 'crowning only'. Could be, but I don't know.
Quote
Also, I'm not convinced that either marriage or ordination get lumped together with baptism and chrismation in terms of being retroactively fulfilled, and IMHO seems to be a rather arbitrary distinction.  Baptism and chrismation, at least, are directly tied to one another; baptism is preparation for chrismation, and chrismation is the reason for being baptized.  Granted, we speak of them as being two different sacraments, but is it incorrect to say that they are rather complementary portions of one sacrament of initiation?

Agree here.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2007, 09:59:26 AM »

Never read or heard this recognition of 'valid civil' marriage nor 'crowning only'. Could be, but I don't know.

Merely speaking from observation on that one, as I've observed a number of couples that have converted undergo the service of crowning, but not the betrothal portion.  Of course, that could be a local practice that is outside the norm for Orthodoxy, as well.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2007, 10:00:45 AM »

When you say "civil" marriage, do you mean what we Catholics call "natural marriage"? Not sacramental, but valid under the natural law?
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2007, 10:10:55 AM »

When you say "civil" marriage, do you mean what we Catholics call "natural marriage"? Not sacramental, but valid under the natural law?

I was thinking valid in the eyes of the government, but that might be similar to what you're referencing.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2007, 10:22:51 AM »

I don't see how it follows that a couple without an Orthodox wedding but with children somehow have illegitimate children.  The Church would recognize that as being a valid civil marriage, thus requiring only the crowning service rather than the whole thing.  The sacramental validity of their marriage wouldn't have a bearing on the civil validity of that marriage, which is what would determine legitimacy.

I don't see any way that the betrothal would get totally knocked out of the way (thus making the service crowning only) - it's actually forbidden to separate the two parts of the service (the intent of the canon is to prevent people from going through the betrothal, and then waiting a period of time for the wedding, since if you go through the betrothal you must get divorced to separate, but the union isn't complete).  I know that in second marriages (and penitential marriages) each part is truncated... but to do only crowning, I don't know...

Also, I'm not convinced that either marriage or ordination get lumped together with baptism and chrismation in terms of being retroactively fulfilled, and IMHO seems to be a rather arbitrary distinction.  Baptism and chrismation, at least, are directly tied to one another; baptism is preparation for chrismation, and chrismation is the reason for being baptized.  Granted, we speak of them as being two different sacraments, but is it incorrect to say that they are rather complementary portions of one sacrament of initiation? 

If you want to reduce things into one sacrament, the only way I'd go is that they're all bound in the Eucharist (which is the real definition of who is in the Church, not baptism or chrismation)... but that is for another day.

I would say that retroactive completion of marriage is actually easier to swallow than retroactive baptism, for while theological positions on both can be quite different between Orthodoxy and others, I think generally marriage is more closely related.

Oh, and Chrismation and baptism are certainly separate sacraments representing distinct events... if you want to make the argument that they are one sacrament of initiation, then that's fine, but you have to combine them with Eucharist, for the Eucharist is necessarily tied to Chrismation, and both Baptism and Chrismation have the reception of the Eucharist (and, thus, entry into the Body of Christ, reception of the Lord, and attainment of the Kingdom) as their ultimate endgame.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2007, 10:23:59 AM »

Merely speaking from observation on that one, as I've observed a number of couples that have converted undergo the service of crowning, but not the betrothal portion.  Of course, that could be a local practice that is outside the norm for Orthodoxy, as well. 

Oh... then the bishop (who must approve weddings) is essentially saying that the chrismation of the couple into Orthodoxy completed the betrothal, and the crowning is all that is left.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2007, 10:30:08 AM »

If you want to reduce things into one sacrament, the only way I'd go is that they're all bound in the Eucharist (which is the real definition of who is in the Church, not baptism or chrismation)... but that is for another day.

I would say that retroactive completion of marriage is actually easier to swallow than retroactive baptism, for while theological positions on both can be quite different between Orthodoxy and others, I think generally marriage is more closely related.

Oh, and Chrismation and baptism are certainly separate sacraments representing distinct events... if you want to make the argument that they are one sacrament of initiation, then that's fine, but you have to combine them with Eucharist, for the Eucharist is necessarily tied to Chrismation, and both Baptism and Chrismation have the reception of the Eucharist (and, thus, entry into the Body of Christ, reception of the Lord, and attainment of the Kingdom) as their ultimate endgame.

I'll buy that one easily (and I think Fr. Schmemann made exactly that case in Of Water and the Spirit).  However, to bring this back to the original question, I still don't see a compelling case that Chrismation retroactively completes ordination.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,109


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2007, 11:32:02 AM »

I'll buy that one easily (and I think Fr. Schmemann made exactly that case in Of Water and the Spirit).  However, to bring this back to the original question, I still don't see a compelling case that Chrismation retroactively completes ordination. 

Eh, I know it's a stretch.... But it is one that our synods make on occasion with the Catholics.  There are three paths: 1. All must be Ordained in the Orthodox church (not re-Ordained - that implies that we accept the first one). 2. Their ordination had good form and intent, and the reception into Orthodoxy completes it with the presence of the Holy Spirit.  3. Their ordination was good, period.

We all reject path #3, for it asserts the absolute validity of sacraments outside the Church, which is contrary to our belief about the nature of the Church.  Whether you chose path #1 or #2 depends on your background (some say #2 is never right) and on where the ordain-ee is coming from...

Edit Granted, it must be stated that path #2 is technically by economy and thus theoretically (a) case-by-case and (b) not able to set precedent.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2007, 11:33:20 AM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Aristibule
Your Weaker Brother
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 515


Xeno


« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2007, 10:27:48 AM »

I don't think Holy Orthodoxy did accept Anglican orders. While some modernistic, ecumenistic bishops may have received Anglican "priests" without re-ordination, ...The bottom line is this: Roman Catholic orders are invalid -> Anglicanism came from Catholicism -> Anglican orders are therefore invalid

No bishops have received Anglican priests without re-ordination. It has never happened. Roman Catholic Orders do not apply to Anglican orders. The issue is the Anglican Ordinal (the same issue Rome had with Anglican Orders.) Now, it is a fact that some Anglo-Catholics tried to make a case for Anglican Orders being valid in the early 20th c. However, their theory was never accepted by the Orthodox nor by Rome.
Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2007, 02:38:26 PM »

However, their theory was never accepted by the Orthodox nor by Rome.

That's not what came out of the last Endimousa Synod under His All-Holiness Patriarch Meletios of most blessed memory.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2007, 02:52:12 PM »

That's not what came out of the last Endimousa Synod under His All-Holiness Patriarch Meletios of most blessed memory.
Funny.  I was about to mention this same patriarch within the context of this thread.  You beat me to it.  DARN! Angry

Personally, I am very happy that the reforms of the Patriarch Meletios, a very controversial figure in the Orthodox Church worldwide, were not accepted by most of the Orthodox world outside of the jurisdiction he claimed as his own.  His recognition of Anglican Orders, despite your Constantinopapist ambitions, is merely a decision of a council local to Constantinople and, therefore, not binding on any bishop in any other Patriarchate or Metropolia.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2007, 03:08:02 PM »

Funny.  I was about to mention this same patriarch within the context of this thread.  You beat me to it.  DARN! Angry

Personally, I am very happy that the reforms of the Patriarch Meletios, a very controversial figure in the Orthodox Church worldwide, were not accepted by most of the Orthodox world outside of the jurisdiction he claimed as his own.  His recognition of Anglican Orders, despite your Constantinopapist ambitions, is merely a decision of a council local to Constantinople and, therefore, not binding on any bishop in any other Patriarchate or Metropolia.

Not quite, it was an Endimousa Synod, not the Patriarchal Synod, open to all Bishops and signed by various churches, it's at least as binding as any proclimation of the Church save those of the Oecumenical Synods.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2007, 04:05:50 PM »

Not quite, it was an Endimousa Synod, not the Patriarchal Synod, open to all Bishops and signed by various churches, it's at least as binding as any proclimation of the Church save those of the Oecumenical Synods.
I distinctly remember debating this issue of the Endimousa Synod with you before, so I don't particularly want to go down this rat hole again.  Suffice it to say that I think Ozgeorge's responses in our previous discussion of the Endimousa Synod quite on target.

Just for clarity, an Endimousa Synod is a Resident Synod. It is a Synod of Bishops in a particular Patriarchate whether they are Bishops of that Patriarchate or visiting it. Basically, it's a Pan-Orthodox Synod, not simply a Synod of the Bishops of one Patriarchate alone.

I'll grant that this definition is most likely true, but I don't see any canonical basis for this Synod to command the obedience of every Orthodox bishop throughout the world.  Fundamentally, the local bishop is still totally in charge of his diocese.

It doesn't! And this is the flaw in GiC's argument. An Endimousa Synod does not have the authority of an Oecumenical Synod, it still has only the authority of a local Synod. During the Arian contraversy, both Alexandria and Antioch held Endimousa Synods, but it took an Oecumenical Synod to resolve the issue. If GiC considers the decrees of Endimousa Synods binding on all Orthodox Christians, then I hope  he realises that the Great Synod of Moscow was an Endimousa Synod, and this Synod anathemised Icons of the Holy Trinity....by what yardstick you measure you shall be measured.... Wink
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,797


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2007, 08:47:58 PM »

Aristibule has essentially answered this: all the statements from Orthodox patriarchates on the matter are 'provisional': they'd receive the clergy in their orders IF the whole Anglican Communion unprotestantised and became Orthodox. (They did and do not recognise Anglican orders 'as is'.)

(Interestingly the founding first hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), believed this. Tsarist Russian Orthodox and Anglicans were friendly.

Because that has never happened and may never happen, ex-Anglican clergy who become Orthodox clergy are always reordained.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.142 seconds with 70 queries.