Author Topic: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch  (Read 23487 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« on: April 23, 2010, 09:24:06 PM »
I came across this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLBGKwrt5o&feature=related, what exactly is going on here?  ???

I've always thought only one deacon, one priest, and one bishop can be ordained at one Litrugy, around one altar table, one antimens etc, and that if more than one was to be ordained (the canons say) that the ordinations are invalid, and the Hierarch who is doing them is automatically defrocked.

I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church? 

« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 09:32:05 PM by Chtets Ioann »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2010, 12:01:18 AM »
I came across this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLBGKwrt5o&feature=related, what exactly is going on here?  ???

Looks like episcopal consecration. Very nice, hadn't seen it before.

Quote
I've always thought only one deacon, one priest, and one bishop can be ordained at one Litrugy, around one altar table, one antimens etc, and that if more than one was to be ordained (the canons say) that the ordinations are invalid, and the Hierarch who is doing them is automatically defrocked.

Citations, please.

Quote
I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church? 
LOL.  Yes, since around 35 AD or so.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2010, 12:24:05 AM »
Christ is Risen!

Does anybody recall that when the Church of Jerusalem came to the rescue of the Antiochian clergy who had been wounded by the Ben Lomond eruption, Jerusalem treated them as laymen if they had been previously ordained in multiple ordinations and they were ordained to the Priesthood anew..

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2010, 12:34:33 AM »
I came across this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLBGKwrt5o&feature=related, what exactly is going on here?  ???

I've always thought only one deacon, one priest, and one bishop can be ordained at one Litrugy, around one altar table, one antimens etc, and that if more than one was to be ordained (the canons say) that the ordinations are invalid, and the Hierarch who is doing them is automatically defrocked.

I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church? 



I have several articles pertaining to cluster ordinations that are actually very interesting.  If you're interested PM me with your email or just feel free to email me! 

Offline 88Devin12

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,182
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Denver
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2010, 12:52:06 AM »
I would also like to note that the Church has something called "economia", which has many meanings when it comes to Orthodoxy, but as it relates to canons, economia is basically making an exception to the canons. The canons are not set in stone and are not an absolute yes/no, true/false, good/bad, black/white dividing line. Even if it is "wrong", I would say the Church has bigger problems to worry about than the possible breaking of such a canon.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2010, 01:25:51 AM »
I would also like to note that the Church has something called "economia", which has many meanings when it comes to Orthodoxy, but as it relates to canons, economia is basically making an exception to the canons. The canons are not set in stone and are not an absolute yes/no, true/false, good/bad, black/white dividing line. Even if it is "wrong", I would say the Church has bigger problems to worry about than the possible breaking of such a canon.
Christ is risen!

I'm just curious, as I've seen this topic brought up many a time, alluding to the authority of canons that I have never seen cited.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2010, 01:33:12 AM »
No, it doesn't look like an Orthodox Episcopal Consecration. That's why I bothered starting this thread. This http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Russian_Orthodox_Episcopal_Ordination.jpg looks like an Orthodox Episcopal Consecration. Note the open Gospel book over the candidates head, not the omophorion as is used in the ordinations of Deacons and Presbyteres. I should note that on the eve of this the candidate must make a full confession of faith. This includes the Nicene creed, and various other statements. In the videos linked to the one I posted on youtube, you can see the future Antiochean Bishops making the confession of faith... but in three parts.  

Quote
Citations, please.

It should not be overlooked that the Church does not treat uncritically ordinations performed within its bosom. There are any number of Orthodox ordinations which are declared to be invalid.

"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops. This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6], by a bishop from another diocese [AC 14:, 35] and on a strange cleric [E.C.I:16; Sard. 15, Carth. 91, and others].



Quote
I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church?  
LOL.  Yes, since around 35 AD or so.[/quote]

So were the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians until the fourth Ecumenical Council.


« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 01:34:44 AM by Chtets Ioann »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2010, 01:52:59 AM »
No, it doesn't look like an Orthodox Episcopal Consecration.
Must be your blinders.

Quote
That's why I bothered starting this thread.

Why don't you bring it up with your bishop instead, to bring canonical proceedings?

Quote
This http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Russian_Orthodox_Episcopal_Ordination.jpg looks like an Orthodox Episcopal Consecration.
That it does. If I am not mistaken, that is Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory, so recently your Patriarch.

Quote
Note the open Gospel book over the candidates head, not the omophorion as is used in the ordinations of Deacons and Presbyteres.

Doesn't seem to be the altar Gospel book, so I guess it doesn't count.

Quote
I should note that on the eve of this the candidate must make a full confession of faith. This includes the Nicene creed, and various other statements. In the videos linked to the one I posted on youtube, you can see the future Antiochean Bishops making the confession of faith... but in three parts.

Do you have doubts about the other 2/3?

Quote
Quote
Citations, please.

It should not be overlooked that the Church does not treat uncritically ordinations performed within its bosom. There are any number of Orthodox ordinations which are declared to be invalid.
That is true, but you have yet to prove the relevance to the question at hand.

Quote
"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops.

That was because he was usurping the rightful bishop, Pope Peter II acting out of his jurisdiction.

Quote
This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6],
The Video shows HB Patriarch Ignatius.

Quote
by a bishop from another diocese [AC 14:, 35]

The bishops are all in the Antiochian Patriarchate.

Quote
and on a strange cleric [E.C.I:16; Sard. 15, Carth. 91, and others].

No one strange there.

I must say, I find that odd coming from someone whose jurisdiction is, by definition, outside its canonical boundaries.  Btw, I meant relevant canons.

Quote
Quote
I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church? 
LOL.  Yes, since around 35 AD or so.

So were the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians until the fourth Ecumenical Council.[/quote][/quote]
And where were you in 2006?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2010, 02:52:00 AM »

Quote
Why don't you bring it up with your bishop instead, to bring canonical proceedings?

Why would I do that? It's called you people should be responsible and follow the canonical proceedings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That includes not having Subdeacons do litanies. That would also include having the soon to be deacon wear a stiharion at his ordination, after all he's a subdeacon, not doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy, and for sure not consecrating Hierarchs as shown in the video.

Quote
Doesn't seem to be the altar Gospel book, so I guess it doesn't count.

It's not for me to say if it counts or not, I'm just a lowly Reader now where in my what I am line on my profile did I put "8th Ecumenical Council" or something to that effect.

Quote
Do you have doubts about the other 2/3?

Nope, I should have been more clearer. The confession of faith is d i v i d e d amongst each of the candidates. Each candidate must make the full confession of faith by himself, otherwise in the future they may be challenged on if they are really Orthodox or not. Example, Bishop so and so "why, I saw you make your confession of faith, you skipped (lets say) the Nicean Creed part of it, so you don't believe in all that!" It's to make sure the candidate believes in everything correctly and is in all things Orthodox. If anything, this is for his own integrity.  

The relevance is that just because an ordination happens inside the Church, if it's done contrary to the canons it's invalid. That's the relevance.

Quote
"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops.


That was because he was usurping the rightful bishop, Pope Peter II acting out of his jurisdiction.

... True. And now we are talking about a multiple ordination being done, something never before done in the Orthodox Church, and something contrary to our Canons and our Holy Tradition.

Quote
This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6],

So if the Canons declare that an ordination done by a visiting hierarch without permission of the local hierarch is invalid, then how much more this.

Quote
The Video shows HB Patriarch Ignatius.

So? It could show St. John Chrysostom for all I care. As we say in Greek, epi tou thematos- to the subject! No body gets an exception from the Holy Canons, not even Saints, much less Patriarchs.

[/quote]And where were you in 2006?[/quote]

We were in the Orthodox Church! The question is, where are you now?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 03:01:10 AM by Chtets Ioann »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2010, 03:02:13 AM »
Why don't you bring it up with your bishop instead, to bring canonical proceedings?

Why would I do that? It's called you people should be responsible and follow the canonical proceedings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That includes not having Subdeacons do litanies. That would also include having the soon to be deacon wear a stiharion at his ordination, after all he's a subdeacon, not doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy, and for sure not consecrating Hierarchs as shown in the video.

Quote
Doesn't seem to be the altar Gospel book, so I guess it doesn't count.

It's not for me to say if it counts or not, I'm just a lowly Reader now where in my what I am line on my profile did I put "8th Ecumenical Council" or something to that effect.

Quote
Do you have doubts about the other 2/3?

Nope, I should have been more clearer. The confession of faith is d i v i d e d amongst each of the candidates. Each candidate must make the full confession of faith by himself, otherwise in the future they may be challenged on if they are really Orthodox or not. Example, Bishop so and so "why, I saw you make your confession of faith, you skipped (lets say) the Nicean Creed part of it, so you don't believe in all that!" It's to make sure the candidate believes in everything correctly and is in all things Orthodox. If anything, this is for his own integrity.  

The relevance is that just because an ordination happens inside the Church, if it's done contrary to the canons it's invalid. That's the relevance.

Quote
"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops.


That was because he was usurping the rightful bishop, Pope Peter II acting out of his jurisdiction.

... True. And now we are talking about a multiple ordination being done, something never before done in the Orthodox Church, and something contrary to our Canons and our Holy Tradition. So if the Canons declare that an ordination done by a visiting hierarch without permission of the local hierarch is invalid, then how much more this.

Quote
This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6],

Quote
The Video shows HB Patriarch Ignatius.

So? It could show St. John Chrysostom for all I care. As we say in Greek, epi tou thematos- to the subject! No body gets an exception from the Holy Canons, not even Saints, much less Patriarchs.

And where were you in 2006?[/quote]

We were in the Orthodox Church! The question is, where are you now?
[/quote]
In the diptychs, where we were before 2006.

Lord willing, I'll return to this.  I don't have time to edit. But in the meantime, do get to the point and cite which canon you claim is being violated with the multiple ordination.

Btw, " multiple ordination being done, something never before done in the Orthodox Church."  Do read Acts 13.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 03:05:19 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,314
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2010, 06:54:49 AM »
I would also like to note that the Church has something called "economia", which has many meanings when it comes to Orthodoxy, but as it relates to canons, economia is basically making an exception to the canons. The canons are not set in stone and are not an absolute yes/no, true/false, good/bad, black/white dividing line. Even if it is "wrong", I would say the Church has bigger problems to worry about than the possible breaking of such a canon.

The exercise of economy is not making an exception to the canons.  The opposite term used is "Akrevia" which is "exactness," and Economy is "taking account" - that is, modifying the letter to suit the situation if the situation calls for it.  Economy can actually be more severe than exactness, although it is rarely used in that capacity.  However, it is usually not "disregarding" or "making an exception" to the canons.

E.g. If a canon states that those who lie to their parents should do 40 prostrations and be excluded from communion for 1 week, then "akrevia" would involve that specific epitimia (penance).  However, if a spiritual father directs that 80 prostrations and 2 week exclusion from communion (minor excommunication) be done, then that is Economy, just as it would also be Economy if he said to do 10 prostrations and not miss communion.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 06:57:35 AM by Fr. George »
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2010, 07:52:20 AM »
Christ is Risen!

Does anybody recall that when the Church of Jerusalem came to the rescue of the Antiochian clergy who had been wounded by the Ben Lomond eruption, Jerusalem treated them as laymen if they had been previously ordained in multiple ordinations and they were ordained to the Priesthood anew..

The antiochian archbishop of Australia also performed multiple ordinations in Philippines. As far as I know till now no one hierarch officially condemned them as invalid.But practicaly the clergy from EP side treat them as laymen de facto. Very sad.What kind of oikonomia it can be? Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR ordainded more than dozen priests and deacons in Indonesia.The situation was similar(non-orthodox hot-tropical less developed country ),but he performed ordinations in normal manner. Metropolitan Nektarios of Hongkong(EP)also ordained people in those countries without any irregularity or "oikonomia".Those antiochians live in the same planet as we do,why they cannot do the same things all other jurisdictions do. A good oikonomia build church,not to split.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,314
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2010, 09:28:51 AM »
^ What didn't make sense to me at the time when these ordinations were done was the reason why they were done in Damascus to begin with.  There were enough bishops here in the U.S., and (at the time) there was this idea that they were all being ordained as diocesan bishops - so why not ordain them in the states?  I think they did this big triple-ordination because they ordained them in Damascus and wanted to do it on one Sunday while the delegation was in town - not a great reason, IMO, but I'm not the judge.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2010, 12:31:17 PM »
The exercise of economy is not making an exception to the canons.  The opposite term used is "Akrevia" which is "exactness," and Economy is "taking account" - that is, modifying the letter to suit the situation if the situation calls for it.  Economy can actually be more severe than exactness, although it is rarely used in that capacity.  However, it is usually not "disregarding" or "making an exception" to the canons.

E.g. If a canon states that those who lie to their parents should do 40 prostrations and be excluded from communion for 1 week, then "akrevia" would involve that specific epitimia (penance).  However, if a spiritual father directs that 80 prostrations and 2 week exclusion from communion (minor excommunication) be done, then that is Economy, just as it would also be Economy if he said to do 10 prostrations and not miss communion.

Indeed. The canonical textbooks define oikonomia as "the appropriate way for a Christian to bend from ακρίβεια (exactness) without transforming the dogmatic terms for the salvation of people." [cf. Meletios Sakellaropoulos, Έκκλησιαστικον δίκαιον τής 'Ανατολικής 'Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας (Athens, 1898); H. Ahvizatos, Ή Οικονομία κατά το κανονικον δίκαιον τής 'Ορθοδόξου 'Εκκλησίας (Athens, 1949); or P. Bournes, Ή Εκκλησιαστική οικονομία κατά το κανονικον δίκαιον (Athens, 1971)].

In other words, there are two characteristics of oikonomia: (1) a "bending" of strictness without violation of dogma; and (2) a bending that is done for the salvation of the people involved.

Instead of using a theoretical example of oikonomia that is more "strict," you can just use an actual example from the Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (aka Quinisext), who exercised oikonomiain their 12th canon, which forbids clergymen from keeping their wives after ordination to the Episcopate, even though the exactness (akribeia) of the canonical and Scriptural tradition, as represented in the 5th Apostolic canon, 1 Tim 3:2, and Titus 1:5-7, forbids such an action. However, as the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical make clear in the 12th canon, "we speak in this way not in contempt or rejection of the apostolic legislation but so that the people may attain salvation and prosper in greater things, and to avoid any wrong that the sacerdotal state might suffer." And, as they say in their next canon: "We, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic exactness (akribeia) and order, declare that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives..." Thus, they preserve the dogma, and bend from the exactness (in this case appearing more strict) for the salvation of the faithful, who were scandalized at the thought of married Bishops.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2010, 02:22:09 PM »
The exercise of economy is not making an exception to the canons.  The opposite term used is "Akrevia" which is "exactness," and Economy is "taking account" - that is, modifying the letter to suit the situation if the situation calls for it.  Economy can actually be more severe than exactness, although it is rarely used in that capacity.  However, it is usually not "disregarding" or "making an exception" to the canons.

E.g. If a canon states that those who lie to their parents should do 40 prostrations and be excluded from communion for 1 week, then "akrevia" would involve that specific epitimia (penance).  However, if a spiritual father directs that 80 prostrations and 2 week exclusion from communion (minor excommunication) be done, then that is Economy, just as it would also be Economy if he said to do 10 prostrations and not miss communion.

Indeed. The canonical textbooks define oikonomia as "the appropriate way for a Christian to bend from ακρίβεια (exactness) without transforming the dogmatic terms for the salvation of people." [cf. Meletios Sakellaropoulos, Έκκλησιαστικον δίκαιον τής 'Ανατολικής 'Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας (Athens, 1898); H. Ahvizatos, Ή Οικονομία κατά το κανονικον δίκαιον τής 'Ορθοδόξου 'Εκκλησίας (Athens, 1949); or P. Bournes, Ή Εκκλησιαστική οικονομία κατά το κανονικον δίκαιον (Athens, 1971)].

In other words, there are two characteristics of oikonomia: (1) a "bending" of strictness without violation of dogma; and (2) a bending that is done for the salvation of the people involved.

Instead of using a theoretical example of oikonomia that is more "strict," you can just use an actual example from the Holy Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (aka Quinisext), who exercised oikonomiain their 12th canon, which forbids clergymen from keeping their wives after ordination to the Episcopate, even though the exactness (akribeia) of the canonical and Scriptural tradition, as represented in the 5th Apostolic canon, 1 Tim 3:2, and Titus 1:5-7, forbids such an action. However, as the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical make clear in the 12th canon, "we speak in this way not in contempt or rejection of the apostolic legislation but so that the people may attain salvation and prosper in greater things, and to avoid any wrong that the sacerdotal state might suffer." And, as they say in their next canon: "We, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic exactness (akribeia) and order, declare that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives..." Thus, they preserve the dogma, and bend from the exactness (in this case appearing more strict) for the salvation of the faithful, who were scandalized at the thought of married Bishops.
And how would they deal with I Timothy 4:3?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline arimethea

  • Getting too old for this
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,966
  • Does anyone really care what you think?
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2010, 02:51:14 PM »
Originally the consecrations were to take place over 3 days but Patriarch Ignatius decided that he was not up to serving 3 straight days of Episcopal Consecrations so he decided to do all 3 on the same day. 
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 02:51:42 PM by arimethea »
Joseph

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,314
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2010, 03:00:16 PM »
Originally the consecrations were to take place over 3 days but Patriarch Ignatius decided that he was not up to serving 3 straight days of Episcopal Consecrations so he decided to do all 3 on the same day. 

That makes sense.  Did you ever hear why they weren't done in the US by His Eminence and the other Bishops?
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,314
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2010, 03:02:44 PM »
And how would they deal with I Timothy 4:3?

Or St. Peter's vision of the animals...
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 03:03:29 PM by Fr. George »
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2010, 03:58:39 PM »
Quote
Why don't you bring it up with your bishop instead, to bring canonical proceedings?

Why would I do that?
Because it's a more responsible thing to do than to gossip about it on an Internet discussion board.  If you have a complaint about the uncanonical nature of a particular liturgical practice, I would suggest you take it up with someone who actually has the authority to do something about it (or can correct your misunderstanding of what happened).  Right now you're just gossiping.

It's called you people should be responsible and follow the canonical proceedings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That includes not having Subdeacons do litanies. That would also include having the soon to be deacon wear a stiharion at his ordination, after all he's a subdeacon, not doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy, and for sure not consecrating Hierarchs as shown in the video.

Quote
Doesn't seem to be the altar Gospel book, so I guess it doesn't count.

It's not for me to say if it counts or not, I'm just a lowly Reader now where in my what I am line on my profile did I put "8th Ecumenical Council" or something to that effect.

Quote
Do you have doubts about the other 2/3?

Nope, I should have been more clearer. The confession of faith is d i v i d e d amongst each of the candidates. Each candidate must make the full confession of faith by himself, otherwise in the future they may be challenged on if they are really Orthodox or not. Example, Bishop so and so "why, I saw you make your confession of faith, you skipped (lets say) the Nicean Creed part of it, so you don't believe in all that!" It's to make sure the candidate believes in everything correctly and is in all things Orthodox. If anything, this is for his own integrity.  

The relevance is that just because an ordination happens inside the Church, if it's done contrary to the canons it's invalid. That's the relevance.
But you haven't yet told us which specific canons have been violated.  How can we see the relevance in your general statement that the Church sees some ordinations as invalid if you won't tell us specifically upon what canonical grounds they are invalid?

Quote
"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops.


That was because he was usurping the rightful bishop, Pope Peter II acting out of his jurisdiction.

... True. And now we are talking about a multiple ordination being done, something never before done in the Orthodox Church, and something contrary to our Canons and our Holy Tradition.
WHAT canons?

Quote
This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6],

So if the Canons declare that an ordination done by a visiting hierarch without permission of the local hierarch is invalid, then how much more this.
WHAT canons?

Quote
The Video shows HB Patriarch Ignatius.

So? It could show St. John Chrysostom for all I care. As we say in Greek, epi tou thematos- to the subject! No body gets an exception from the Holy Canons, not even Saints, much less Patriarchs.
WHAT canons?

Yes, I am pressing this point, but I'm trying to make it painfully clear to you that for there to be a violation of the canons, there have to be specific canons you can cite to show the violation.  Your repeated general reference to "the Canons" without naming any one of them explicitly is not enough.

Quote
And where were you in 2006?

We were in the Orthodox Church! The question is, where are you now?
Until you can show specifically what canons have been violated and are willing to take this up with your bishop, I hardly think you have a case for arguing on an Internet discussion board that the Antiochian Orthodox Church may now be schismatic.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2010, 04:10:52 PM »
Quote
WHAT Canons

I can't find a specific Canon. The closest thing I could find was St. Nikodemos' commentary on a canon having to do with ordination, and St. Nikodemos says that multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy are not allowable, and that such thing is against the tradition of the Orthodox Church.

In 50 years from now the Antiocheans will ordain a woman to the priesthood. And then you'll come and you'll say WHAT Canon forbids that! There is no canon that forbids that. **** The Canons, or rules to be more literal were instituted by the Holy Fathers as issues came up in the Church. Had Arianism not come up, there would be no Canon pertaining to it. No one questioned that the Theotokos fell asleep and went bodily to Heaven, therefore there are no Canons concerning her Dormition.

How is this gossip? In my view, something very important has come up which could mean a huge group of people are outside the Orthodox Church. Should this not be addressed for their own salvation?

And is it not something the Antiocheans should be aware of so they can bring it up amongst themselves? When the schismatics in Ukraine made their own Church in 1918 they got a Hierarchy by having priests and lay people ordain a Bishop. Obviously that is unallowable, and the same goes for doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy.



Text of post modified to enforce compliance with the Moratorium on Discussing Homosexual Conduct  -PtA
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 04:17:24 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Online Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2010, 04:13:10 PM »
Until you can show specifically what canons have been violated and are willing to take this up with your bishop, I hardly think you have a case for arguing on an Internet discussion board that the Antiochian Orthodox Church may now be schismatic.

I would be more worried about their communion with the Syriac "Miaphysites" and of their public acceptance of their "mysteries" as valid. I would also be more worried about their refusal to accept those who want to convert from "Miaphysitism" to the Orthodox Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 04:14:24 PM by Alveus Lacuna »

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,012
  • It's raw!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2010, 04:16:24 PM »

Quote
WHAT Canons

I can't find a specific Canon. The closest thing I could find was St. Nikodemos' commentary on a canon having to do with ordination, and St. Nikodemos says that multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy are not allowable, and that such thing is against the tradition of the Orthodox Church.

In 50 years from now the Antiocheans will ordain a woman to the priesthood. And then you'll come and you'll say WHAT Canon forbids that! There is no canon that forbids that. There is also no Canon that forbids gay marriage, maybe the Antiocheans will start marrying gay people and you'll tell me, WHAT canon forbids that? The Canons, or rules to be more literal were instituted by the Holy Fathers as issues came up in the Church. Had Arianism not come up, there would be no Canon pertaining to it. No one questioned that the Theotokos fell asleep and went bodily to Heaven, therefore there are no Canons concerning her Dormition.

Now don't go moving the goalposts! :)

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,012
  • It's raw!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2010, 04:18:59 PM »
Until you can show specifically what canons have been violated and are willing to take this up with your bishop, I hardly think you have a case for arguing on an Internet discussion board that the Antiochian Orthodox Church may now be schismatic.

I would be more worried about their communion with the Syriac "Miaphysites" and of their public acceptance of their "mysteries" as valid. I would also be more worried about their refusal to accept those who want to convert from "Miaphysitism" to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

In the immortal words of Fred Savage in The Princess Bride, I'm not worried, I'm just concerned, and they're not the same thing :angel: (In other words, yes, it concerns me)

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2010, 04:32:06 PM »
Quote
WHAT Canons

I can't find a specific Canon. The closest thing I could find was St. Nikodemos' commentary on a canon having to do with ordination, and St. Nikodemos says that multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy are not allowable, and that such thing is against the tradition of the Orthodox Church.
Well, if you have this commentary of St. Nikodemos handy and can quote it here, please do!  Just remember that that's all it is--commentary--and that without the canon that is the object of the commentary, the commentary by itself doesn't mean a whole lot.

In 50 years from now the Antiocheans will ordain a woman to the priesthood.
It hasn't happened yet and may never happen, so why worry about it?

And then you'll come and you'll say WHAT Canon forbids that! There is no canon that forbids that.
Let's cross that bridge when we get there, if we ever do.  Unlike that one Tom Cruise movie from a few years ago, Minority Report, we're not into punishing people for crimes they're going to commit.

The Canons, or rules to be more literal were instituted by the Holy Fathers as issues came up in the Church. Had Arianism not come up, there would be no Canon pertaining to it. No one questioned that the Theotokos fell asleep and went bodily to Heaven, therefore there are no Canons concerning her Dormition.
I think you may be confusing canons with dogmas.  They are, in fact, two totally different things.

How is this gossip? In my view, something very important has come up which could mean a huge group of people are outside the Orthodox Church. Should this not be addressed for their own salvation?
If you feel this strongly about it, then address it.  All I'm saying is that you need to address it with those who actually have the authority to do something about it, rather than merely sound off about it on an Internet discussion board with the hope that others will join you in getting just as inflamed about it as you are.  There's a lot of background information that a youtube video just cannot capture, and without knowledge of that background information, any response we offer may be totally off target.  That's why you need to address this issue with those who have the authority to request a formal ecclesiastical investigation into this possible liturgical abuse.  You're judging what you see in the video without asking questions first, and you're trying to stir us up to join you in your judgment of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.  I'm telling you that I will do no such thing and that I will urge others here to do no such thing until we know this situation much better than we can from watching a mere youtube video.

And is it not something the Antiocheans should be aware of so they can bring it up amongst themselves?
What good will that do, pray tell?

When the schismatics in Ukraine made their own Church in 1918 they got a Hierarchy by having priests and lay people ordain a Bishop. Obviously that is unallowable, and the same goes for doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy.
Yet you still haven't shown us why this should be so obvious.  What specific canons have been violated?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 04:35:06 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2010, 04:49:12 PM »
In the Armenian Church, ordinations are done all the time where more than one person is being ordained.  It doesn't bother anyone.  

I'm really wondering if a canon banning the practice really exists, or if it is just a tradition that developed among the EO over time?  If a canon does exist, perhaps it was promulgated after Chalcedon?

Here are some examples from the Armenian Church:

Three bishops being ordained at Etchmiadzin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY7zpgVuz3o&feature=player_profilepage&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2FArmenianChurch%23p%2Fu%2F1%2FBY7zpgVuz3o


27 priests being ordained at Etchmiadzin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJuhSkFput0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU1vao19Nzk


5 deacons being ordained at Etchmiadzin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=997kmiC-dZo


2 priests being ordained at the Western Diocese in the US:

http://www.armenianchurchwd.com/ordination-and-consecration-of-two-priests-at-western-diocese/
« Last Edit: May 04, 2010, 12:57:32 AM by Salpy »

Offline Cymbyz

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 496
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2010, 04:59:38 PM »
I suspect the practice of doing individual ordinations in the Chalcedonian Churches arose out of a feeling that the orders of seniority would be better preserved that way.
The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2010, 06:07:56 PM »
Originally the consecrations were to take place over 3 days but Patriarch Ignatius decided that he was not up to serving 3 straight days of Episcopal Consecrations so he decided to do all 3 on the same day. 

That makes sense.  Did you ever hear why they weren't done in the US by His Eminence and the other Bishops?

The sense at the time was to put the action (creating Diocesan bishops in a Self Ruled Archdiocese) above question, being done by the highest authority.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,580
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2010, 06:21:49 PM »
If these are existing Bishops in the Patriarch of Antioch, why were they reconsecrated en masse unless they were first defrocked?

Looks fishy, sounds fishy....   >:(
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 06:24:10 PM by SolEX01 »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2010, 06:37:09 PM »
If these are existing Bishops in the Patriarch of Antioch, why were they reconsecrated en masse unless they were first defrocked?

Looks fishy, sounds fishy....   >:(
They weren't consecrated already. Two auxiliary bishops had been consecrated, were elevated to Diocesan bishop, and they can be seen here consecrating the three new diocesan bishops.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline arimethea

  • Getting too old for this
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,966
  • Does anyone really care what you think?
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2010, 06:46:43 PM »
Originally the consecrations were to take place over 3 days but Patriarch Ignatius decided that he was not up to serving 3 straight days of Episcopal Consecrations so he decided to do all 3 on the same day. 

That makes sense.  Did you ever hear why they weren't done in the US by His Eminence and the other Bishops?

A decision by the Synod of Antioch in the late 1990's made the preferred place of consecration for all bishops of the Patriarchate to be at the Patriarchal Cathedral or one of the Patriarchal monasteries (in code speak the Monastery of St. Elias in Lebanon).
Joseph

Offline arimethea

  • Getting too old for this
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,966
  • Does anyone really care what you think?
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2010, 06:54:58 PM »
And is it not something the Antiocheans should be aware of so they can bring it up amongst themselves? When the schismatics in Ukraine made their own Church in 1918 they got a Hierarchy by having priests and lay people ordain a Bishop. Obviously that is unallowable, and the same goes for doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy.

Was this the ideal, No! I think we all agree on that but, I don't see why you are getting so upset about this when your bishops don't seem to have any issue with it. One of the bishops you are being critical of is Bishop Mark of Toledo and he has a very good relationship with the ROCOR hierarchy. Bishop Mark served with the other ROCOR bishops at the funeral of your first hierarch a couple of years ago and, I know for a fact, that they knew of the circumstances under which he was consecrated and, they not only treated him as a bishop but gave him one of the high places of standing since he was from Antioch.
Joseph

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,580
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2010, 06:57:46 PM »
If these are existing Bishops in the Patriarch of Antioch, why were they reconsecrated en masse unless they were first defrocked?

Looks fishy, sounds fishy....   >:(
They weren't consecrated already. Two auxiliary bishops had been consecrated, were elevated to Diocesan bishop, and they can be seen here consecrating the three new diocesan bishops.

How can Bishops Thomas and Mark serve for years in their Dioceses (or as auxiliary Bishops or as whatever Hierarchs Met. Philip and Pat. Ignatius want to call them) without first being consecrated until July 2009?  Bishops Thomas and Mark are going into the altar as Priests to be consecrated, not as incumbent Bishops!!

I didn't realize that a Bishop elect could wear the vestments of a Bishop without being formally consecrated.  Maybe that was why Met. Philip had all this confusion because each Diocesan Bishop was just a Bishop-elect waiting to be consecrated formally at the Patriarchal Cathedral on non-US soil?   ???
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 07:00:23 PM by SolEX01 »

Offline arimethea

  • Getting too old for this
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,966
  • Does anyone really care what you think?
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2010, 07:24:44 PM »
If these are existing Bishops in the Patriarch of Antioch, why were they reconsecrated en masse unless they were first defrocked?

Looks fishy, sounds fishy....   >:(
They weren't consecrated already. Two auxiliary bishops had been consecrated, were elevated to Diocesan bishop, and they can be seen here consecrating the three new diocesan bishops.

How can Bishops Thomas and Mark serve for years in their Dioceses (or as auxiliary Bishops or as whatever Hierarchs Met. Philip and Pat. Ignatius want to call them) without first being consecrated until July 2009?  Bishops Thomas and Mark are going into the altar as Priests to be consecrated, not as incumbent Bishops!!

I didn't realize that a Bishop elect could wear the vestments of a Bishop without being formally consecrated.  Maybe that was why Met. Philip had all this confusion because each Diocesan Bishop was just a Bishop-elect waiting to be consecrated formally at the Patriarchal Cathedral on non-US soil?   ???
The video was posted in July of 2009 of the consecrations that took place in December of 2004. 
Joseph

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,580
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2010, 07:44:05 PM »
The video was posted in July of 2009 of the consecrations that took place in December of 2004.

I'm now a happy camper.  Thanks.   :)

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2010, 11:09:12 PM »
Quote
Text of post modified to enforce compliance with the Moratorium on Discussing Homosexual Conduct  -PtA

Antioch could learn a thing or two in keeping with rules and tradition, if only they were as zealous as the forum. Sorry for mentioning that, I'm new so I didn't know the H or G word was forbidden till Pentecost.

Again, being new I'm not so familiar with quoting and all that, but some people said something along the lines of Bishop so and so co celebrates with the ROCOR hierarchy, and your ROCOR, so whats your problem?

To clarify: I saw something that has never been done before in the Orthodox Church, to date. From what I gather, the Fathers of the Church are against this practice.

I'd like to quote the Moscow Synod of 1666 on this subject. Ie, cluster Ordinations. This is in refrence to such ordinations that took place in the western dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate at that time.
Quote
In the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo, and no such custom

St. Nikodemos is a leading authority on the Canons. He put together the Rudder for crying out loud. St. Nikodemos is commenting on Apostolic Canon 58, which forbids more than one ordination of the same person to the same office. He talks about not ordaining more than one deacon, presbyter, or Hierarch per Liturgy in addition to this. A case made for accepting St. Nikodemos as an authority on this is based on his status as a Father of the Church and codifier of the Pedalion (The Rudder).


Further more, St. Symeon of Thessaloniki says about singular ordinations "this is the custom we have seen."

Someone said that this is all gossip. If me asking about a practice that is obviously wrong is gossip, then Lord have mercy.

Someone else said something about the Armenian Church, the Syrian Church etc. From the point that they left the Orthodox Church, it doesn't matter how many ordinations they do or what they do liturgically at all, since they are graceless.

Someone else told me to "take it up with your Bishop." That's wonderful advice. So, I think we should shut the forum down, and go right to our Bishops for everything. The Roman Catholic - Filioque - Purgatory thread it's 30 something odd page. Honestly LOL.

Of course, when I see my Bishop I will ask him. I'd love to get his view on this.


Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2010, 11:12:39 PM »
And I forgot...

ialmisry said:

Quote
The sense at the time was to put the action (creating Diocesan bishops in a Self Ruled Archdiocese) above question, being done by the highest authority.

The highest authority in the Orthodox Church is the Lord Himself, the Gospels, Holy Tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy Canons. We don't make up our own rules as we see fit. That's what the Pope in Rome does.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,292
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2010, 11:14:06 PM »
As St. Basil said, both written and unwritten tradition have the same force for piety. It is a received tradition not to consecrate more than one bishop at a time. Canons are nice but there's plenty of Orthodox tradition that doesn't have a canon connected to it but which we still consider binding. I wouldn't say that the Antiochian abuse is the sort of thing one breaks communion over, but it certainly seems problematic to me.

Like Alveus, I think the arrangements with the non-Chalcedonians are a more troubling question.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 11:15:13 PM by Iconodule »
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2010, 11:28:47 PM »

Like Alveus, I think the arrangements with the non-Chalcedonians are a more troubling question.

Yeah, if you spend too much time around us, you may end up catching our Multiple Ordination Cooties, and find yourself with way too many bishops being ordained at one time.

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2010, 11:34:27 PM »
Someone else said something about the Armenian Church, the Syrian Church etc. From the point that they left the Orthodox Church, it doesn't matter how many ordinations they do or what they do liturgically at all, since they are graceless.


Nice.  

I mentioned the Armenian practice purely for the reason that it sometimes helps to compare our traditions.  Since, the OO's and EO's have been separated geographically and politically for several centuries, comparisons can be helpful in finding out how ancient a practice is.  Very often in matters like these our practices and beliefs will be very similar, and that attests to a very ancient, pre-fifth century origin.  

In this case, however, there is a difference in our traditions, which means one practice is ancient and the other isn't.  I'm not saying your practice is an innovation.  It could be that ours is.  I don't know.  I just would like to see the canon that forbids the practice in the EO Church.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 11:35:01 PM by Salpy »

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2010, 11:38:24 PM »
Quote
I mentioned the Armenian practice purely for the reason that it sometimes helps to compare our traditions.  Since, the OO's and EO's have been separated geographically and politically for several centuries, comparisons can be helpful in finding out how ancient a practice is. Very often in matters like these our practices and beliefs will be very similar, and that attests to a very ancient, pre-fifth century origin.  

In this case, however, there is a difference in our traditions, which means one practice is ancient and the other isn't.  I'm not saying your practice is an innovation.  It could be that ours is.  I don't know.  I just would like to see the canon that forbids the practice in the EO Church.

Read above what Iconodule said.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 11:38:52 PM by Chtets Ioann »

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2010, 11:40:55 PM »
Iconodule said a lot of things.  Specifically what are you referring to?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 11:41:19 PM by Salpy »

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,012
  • It's raw!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2010, 11:44:31 PM »
Yeah, if you spend too much time around us, you may end up catching our Multiple Ordination Cooties, and find yourself with way too many bishops being ordained at one time.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel that indirectly it sort of was, so I have to say, that's not fair, Salpy. I really enjoy the posts of Oriental Orthodox such as yourself, Mina, Ekhristosanesti, and in past times Mor Ephrem. But there is nonetheless issues to be worried about. For example, I was taught when I became Orthodox that I couldn't commune until I was officially received into the Church, because shared communion meant more than just "let's be friends," and even more than "we agree with each other," but it also said something about the status of both of us vis-a-vis Church membership. Orthodoxy was exclusivistic, and so even if I agreed with her intellectually and followed her practices as a catechumen, that wasn't yet enough to allow me to receive communion. I had to formally and officially unite myself to her. Now, please do not misunderstand, I am not saying that I expect Oriental Orthodox to convert like I did. What I am saying is that it is not quite so cut and dry and clear that we are the same Church yet. There are still problems to resolve, so far as I understand it. But perhaps I am wrong to be worried... would you argue that all the problems have been resolved? Not to turn this into an Oriental Orthodox discussion, and you're probably sick of certain of those topics, but if you could indulge me a moment...?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 11:45:38 PM by Asteriktos »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2010, 11:47:22 PM »
And I forgot...

ialmisry said:

Quote
The sense at the time was to put the action (creating Diocesan bishops in a Self Ruled Archdiocese) above question, being done by the highest authority.

The highest authority in the Orthodox Church is the Lord Himself

He was the One doing the consecrating, using HB's hands.


Quote
, the Gospels, Holy Tradition, the Holy Fathers, and the Holy Canons. We don't make up our own rules as we see fit. That's what the Pope in Rome does.

Well, evidently you do, because you said that HB Pat. Ignatius was acting uncanonically, and yet you cannot produce the canon to condemn him.

Btw, there are canons about accusing a bishop falsely.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 11:49:15 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2010, 11:50:56 PM »
Quote
Text of post modified to enforce compliance with the Moratorium on Discussing Homosexual Conduct  -PtA

Antioch could learn a thing or two in keeping with rules and tradition, if only they were as zealous as the forum. Sorry for mentioning that, I'm new so I didn't know the H or G word was forbidden till Pentecost.

Again, being new I'm not so familiar with quoting and all that, but some people said something along the lines of Bishop so and so co celebrates with the ROCOR hierarchy, and your ROCOR, so whats your problem?

To clarify: I saw something that has never been done before in the Orthodox Church, to date. From what I gather, the Fathers of the Church are against this practice.

I'd like to quote the Moscow Synod of 1666 on this subject. Ie, cluster Ordinations. This is in refrence to such ordinations that took place in the western dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate at that time.
Quote
In the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo, and no such custom
Can you give us specific information regarding how we can read for ourselves what this synod said about the matter?

St. Nikodemos is a leading authority on the Canons. He put together the Rudder for crying out loud. St. Nikodemos is commenting on Apostolic Canon 58, which forbids more than one ordination of the same person to the same office.
I just finished reading all 85 of the Apostolic Canons (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvii.iv.html) yet found nothing in them that even comes close to mandating what you say Apostolic Canon 58 does.  In fact, here's what Apostolic Canon 58 really says:

"If any bishop or presbyter neglects the clergy or the people, and does not instruct them in the way of godliness, let him be excommunicated, and if he persists in his negligence and idleness, let him be deposed."

Maybe I'm reading the wrong body of canons.  If so, would you kindly point me to the canons I should be reading?  Thank you.

He talks about not ordaining more than one deacon, presbyter, or Hierarch per Liturgy in addition to this. A case made for accepting St. Nikodemos as an authority on this is based on his status as a Father of the Church and codifier of the Pedalion (The Rudder).
And yet all you can do is give us a paraphrase of what St. Nikodemos supposedly said.  Can you give a verbatim quote and credit your source so we can see for ourselves that he really said what you attribute to him?

Further more, St. Symeon of Thessaloniki says about singular ordinations "this is the custom we have seen."
Again, we need a source so we can read this quote from St. Symeon for ourselves.

Someone said that this is all gossip. If me asking about a practice that is obviously wrong is gossip, then Lord have mercy.
I suppose I should clarify what I was thinking about your activity on this thread.  It's not so much gossip as it is you accusing an Orthodox church of being in schism without proof.  Others here have indeed validated your claim that a multiple ordination was performed.  What has not been proven is that this violates the canons, as you claim.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 12:05:59 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2010, 11:52:14 PM »
Yeah, if you spend too much time around us, you may end up catching our Multiple Ordination Cooties, and find yourself with way too many bishops being ordained at one time.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel that indirectly it sort of was, so I have to say, that's not fair, Salpy. I really enjoy the posts of Oriental Orthodox such as yourself, Mina, Ekhristosanesti, and in past times Mor Ephrem. But there is nonetheless issues to be worried about. For example, I was taught when I became Orthodox that I couldn't commune until I was officially received into the Church, because shared communion meant more than just "let's be friends," and even more than "we agree with each other," but it also said something about the status of both of us vis-a-vis Church membership. Orthodoxy was exclusivistic, and so even if I agreed with her intellectually and followed her practices as a catechumen, that wasn't yet enough to allow me to receive communion. I had to formally and officially unite myself to her. Now, please do not misunderstand, I am not saying that I expect Oriental Orthodox to convert like I did. What I am saying is that it is not quite so cut and dry and clear that we are the same Church yet. There are still problems to resolve, so far as I understand it. But perhaps I am wrong to be worried... would you argue that all the problems have been resolved? Not to turn this into an Oriental Orthodox discussion, and you're probably sick of certain of those topics, but if you could indulge me a moment...?

It's not the comment, but the spirit in which some of these comments can be made.  And don't worry, I didn't mean you.   :)

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2010, 11:52:31 PM »
As St. Basil said, both written and unwritten tradition have the same force for piety. It is a received tradition not to consecrate more than one bishop at a time.
Received in what church?  I've never heard of such a tradition.

Canons are nice but there's plenty of Orthodox tradition that doesn't have a canon connected to it but which we still consider binding.
No argument with that, but I think you may either be missing my point or trying to make a point not related to my inquiries on this thread.  Chtets Ioann said in the OP itself, "the canons say", thus citing the authority of the canons, not some unwritten tradition, to back up his belief that the cluster ordination of bishops may have been invalid.  If he's going to cite the authority of the canons by saying, "the canons say", he had better be able to quote the specific canons that say what he says they say.

I wouldn't say that the Antiochian abuse is the sort of thing one breaks communion over, but it certainly seems problematic to me.
Fair enough, just so long as you recognize that's not really the point of what I'm trying to get from Rdr. Ioann.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 12:03:36 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,732
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2010, 12:00:10 AM »
As St. Basil said, both written and unwritten tradition have the same force for piety. It is a received tradition not to consecrate more than one bishop at a time.
Received in what church?  I've never heard of such a tradition.
I've always assumed that is the universal rule to only have a single ordination of a kind at the same liturgy. So, at the same liturgy you can have a guy ordained bishop, another one priest and another one deacon.
This is the standard procedure and most Orthodox aware of it.
I've seen quite a few ordinations and they all went by this rule.
Our church-the national one- at least, closely follows the custom.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2010, 12:07:46 AM »
As St. Basil said, both written and unwritten tradition have the same force for piety. It is a received tradition not to consecrate more than one bishop at a time.
Received in what church?  I've never heard of such a tradition.

Received in:

1.  The Holy Church of Russia
2.  The Great Church of Constantinople
3.  The Mother Church of Jerusalem.

The Church of Russia will not ordain more than one clergy of any one rank at the same Liturgy.

From what Fr Elpidophoros wrote in message #11 this is also the tradition of the Church of Constantinople.

From the evidence of the holy Church of Jerusalem (re)ordaining the Antiochian clergy ordained in multiple ordinations, it is shown to be also the tradition of Jerusalem.

But maybe there are Churches which have not received this tradition or not heard of this tradition?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2010, 12:11:17 AM »
Quote
Text of post modified to enforce compliance with the Moratorium on Discussing Homosexual Conduct  -PtA

Antioch could learn a thing or two in keeping with rules and tradition, if only they were as zealous as the forum. Sorry for mentioning that, I'm new so I didn't know the H or G word was forbidden till Pentecost.

Again, being new I'm not so familiar with quoting and all that, but some people said something along the lines of Bishop so and so co celebrates with the ROCOR hierarchy, and your ROCOR, so whats your problem?

To clarify: I saw something that has never been done before in the Orthodox Church, to date. From what I gather, the Fathers of the Church are against this practice.

I'd like to quote the Moscow Synod of 1666

The one which caused the Old Ritualist schism? Not the Russian Church's finest hour. Nit-picking unto damnation.

Quote
on this subject. Ie, cluster Ordinations. This is in refrence to such ordinations that took place in the western dioceses of the Moscow Patriarchate at that time.
Quote
In the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo, and no such custom

St. Nikodemos is a leading authority on the Canons. He put together the Rudder for crying out loud. St. Nikodemos is commenting on Apostolic Canon 58, which forbids more than one ordination of the same person to the same office. He talks about not ordaining more than one deacon, presbyter, or Hierarch per Liturgy in addition to this. A case made for accepting St. Nikodemos as an authority on this is based on his status as a Father of the Church and codifier of the Pedalion (The Rudder).

That's nice, but AC 58 is on negligent clergy.
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgics/The_Rudder_or_Pedalion.pdf
WARNING! Reading can seriously damage your spiritual life.

Quote
Further more, St. Symeon of Thessaloniki says about singular ordinations "this is the custom we have seen."

Someone said that this is all gossip. If me asking about a practice that is obviously wrong is gossip, then Lord have mercy.

It is not gossip if you give citations. ::)


Quote
Someone else said something about the Armenian Church, the Syrian Church etc. From the point that they left the Orthodox Church, it doesn't matter how many ordinations they do or what they do liturgically at all, since they are graceless.

Someone else told me to "take it up with your Bishop." That's wonderful advice. So, I think we should shut the forum down, and go right to our Bishops for everything. The Roman Catholic - Filioque - Purgatory thread it's 30 something odd page. Honestly LOL.

Of course, when I see my Bishop I will ask him. I'd love to get his view on this.
Have him explain his concelebration with HG Mark.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2010, 12:15:15 AM »
As St. Basil said, both written and unwritten tradition have the same force for piety. It is a received tradition not to consecrate more than one bishop at a time.
Received in what church?  I've never heard of such a tradition.

Received in:

1.  The Holy Church of Russia
2.  The Great Church of Constantinople
3.  The Mother Church of Jerusalem.

The Church of Russia will not ordain more than one clergy of any one rank at the same Liturgy.

From what Fr Elpidophoros wrote in message #11 this is also the tradition of the Church of Constantinople.

From the evidence of the holy Church of Jerusalem (re)ordaining the Antiochian clergy ordained in multiple ordinations, it is shown to be also the tradition of Jerusalem.

But maybe there are Churches which have not received this tradition or not heard of this tradition?
4. Antioch. It is the usual practice.

There are exceptions to the canons. For instance, the first Apostolic canon, IIRC, requires 3 bishops for consecration.  But the Most Holy Governing Synod of Russia commanding the bishop of Irkutsk, due to distance, to consecrate the bishop of Kodiak by himself, and St. Raphael was consecrated by only two bishops.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2010, 12:15:59 AM »
As St. Basil said, both written and unwritten tradition have the same force for piety. It is a received tradition not to consecrate more than one bishop at a time.
Received in what church?  I've never heard of such a tradition.

Received in:

1.  The Holy Church of Russia
2.  The Great Church of Constantinople
3.  The Mother Church of Jerusalem.

The Church of Russia will not ordain more than one clergy of any one rank at the same Liturgy.

From what Fr Elpidophoros wrote in message #11 this is also the tradition of the Church of Constantinople.

From the evidence of the holy Church of Jerusalem (re)ordaining the Antiochian clergy ordained in multiple ordinations, it is shown to be also the tradition of Jerusalem.

But maybe there are Churches which have not received this tradition or not heard of this tradition?
Okay.  Thanks for letting me know that this tradition of ordaining no more than one bishop, no more than one priest, and no more than one deacon during one ordination liturgy is such a widespread tradition received in so many Orthodox jurisdictions.  I really wasn't aware of that.

However (posting the following for the benefit of Chtets Ioann and not for you), that still doesn't satisfy my request for citations of those specific canons that, according to Chtets Ioann, possibly invalidate the cluster consecration of bishops performed in Damascus a few years ago.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 12:17:33 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2010, 12:21:31 AM »

I wouldn't say that the Antiochian abuse is the sort of thing one breaks communion over, but it certainly seems problematic to me.

The decision of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to judge the ordinations of Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) as invalid and to (re)ordain those ordained by him is getting dangerously close to a break in communion.  Obviously neither Greek clergy nor Jerusalem clergy would have been allowed to concelebrate with these Antiochian clergy prior to their (re)ordination since they were simply laymen.   Father Elpidophoros has written that their laymen's status was also the de facto position of the Church of Constantinople.

Does this bring into question the efficacy of the episcopal consecrations conducted en masse?  Or do Jerusalem and Constantinople accept that there were acceptable circumstances which warranted going against the Church's tradition?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #52 on: April 25, 2010, 12:29:57 AM »

However (posting the following for the benefit of Chtets Ioann and not for you), that still doesn't satisfy my request for citations of those specific canons that, according to Chtets Ioann, possibly invalidate the cluster consecration of bishops performed in Damascus a few years ago.

Praxis is also a good guide.   The mere fact that the Jerusalem Patriarchate in America went ahead and ordained priests previously ordained by Metropolitan Philip speaks volumes as to the tradition.   I am sure that no Church would dare to ordain a man a second time if they were not convinced his first ordination was meaningless and invalid.  Another thing to consider is the complete lack of response or protest (to my knowledge) by Metropolitan Philip.  This seems to show that he knew he had erred and his multiple ordinations were invalid.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 12:37:57 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #53 on: April 25, 2010, 12:52:36 AM »

However (posting the following for the benefit of Chtets Ioann and not for you), that still doesn't satisfy my request for citations of those specific canons that, according to Chtets Ioann, possibly invalidate the cluster consecration of bishops performed in Damascus a few years ago.

Praxis is also a good guide.   The mere fact that the Jerusalem Patriarchate in America went ahead and ordained priests previously ordained by Metropolitan Philip speaks volumes as to the tradition.   I am sure that no Church would dare to ordain a man a second time if they were not convinced his first ordination was meaningless and invalid.  Another thing to consider is the complete lack of response or protest (to my knowledge) by Metropolitan Philip.  This seems to show that he knew he had erred and his multiple ordinations were invalid.

As I recall at the time, the first issue that was raised by the JP had to do with the fact that their Baptisms were not conducted in the Orthodox Church, therefore they first had to be rebaptised (depending on how you look at it), which then made all other Sacraments after Baptism invalid as well.

Don't think that just because we didn't here anything that no protests were lodged (I have no special knowledge, just an observation that such a conclusion cannot be made just because a press release wasn't issued).  We are in the Orthodox Church, which is, above all else, Byzantine!  ;)
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #54 on: April 25, 2010, 12:54:57 AM »

However (posting the following for the benefit of Chtets Ioann and not for you), that still doesn't satisfy my request for citations of those specific canons that, according to Chtets Ioann, possibly invalidate the cluster consecration of bishops performed in Damascus a few years ago.

Praxis is also a good guide.   The mere fact that the Jerusalem Patriarchate in America went ahead and ordained priests previously ordained by Metropolitan Philip speaks volumes as to the tradition.   I am sure that no Church would dare to ordain a man a second time if they were not convinced his first ordination was meaningless and invalid.  Another thing to consider is the complete lack of response or protest (to my knowledge) by Metropolitan Philip.  This seems to show that he knew he had erred and his multiple ordinations were invalid.

As I recall at the time, the first issue that was raised by the JP had to do with the fact that their Baptisms were not conducted in the Orthodox Church, therefore they first had to be rebaptised (depending on how you look at it), which then made all other Sacraments after Baptism invalid as well.

Don't think that just because we didn't here anything that no protests were lodged (I have no special knowledge, just an observation that such a conclusion cannot be made just because a press release wasn't issued).  We are in the Orthodox Church, which is, above all else, Byzantine!  ;)

The protest was basically shaking the dust off the feet.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #55 on: April 25, 2010, 01:30:00 AM »

However (posting the following for the benefit of Chtets Ioann and not for you), that still doesn't satisfy my request for citations of those specific canons that, according to Chtets Ioann, possibly invalidate the cluster consecration of bishops performed in Damascus a few years ago.

Praxis is also a good guide.   The mere fact that the Jerusalem Patriarchate in America went ahead and ordained priests previously ordained by Metropolitan Philip speaks volumes as to the tradition.   I am sure that no Church would dare to ordain a man a second time if they were not convinced his first ordination was meaningless and invalid.  Another thing to consider is the complete lack of response or protest (to my knowledge) by Metropolitan Philip.  This seems to show that he knew he had erred and his multiple ordinations were invalid.
But wouldn't you admit that there is a difference between, on the one hand, pointing out the historical reality that bishops of other jurisdictions almost broke communion with Antioch over their cluster ordinations in the reception of Fr. Gilquist's group, and, on the other, Rdr. Ioann's point-blank insinuation that the Antiochians may be in schism over the issue of the consecration of multiple bishops shown in the video he posted in the OP?  Unlike you, who merely pointed out how other bishops responded to such conduct, Chtets Ioann offered us his own judgment of Antioch.  This he needs to qualify.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #56 on: April 25, 2010, 01:45:59 AM »
I asked a question. I did not "insinuate" anything as you say. There is nothing to clarify.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #57 on: April 25, 2010, 03:43:09 AM »
I asked a question. I did not "insinuate" anything as you say. There is nothing to clarify.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insinuate
in·sin·u·ate   (in-sin-yoo-eyt)  -at·ed, -at·ing.

–verb (used with object)
1.   to suggest or hint slyly: He insinuated that they were lying.


Based on the above definition, you insinuated that, for consecrating multiple bishops in one liturgy, the Antiochian Orthodox may be outside the Church in this post:
I came across this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLBGKwrt5o&feature=related, what exactly is going on here?  ???

I've always thought only one deacon, one priest, and one bishop can be ordained at one Litrugy, around one altar table, one antimens etc, and that if more than one was to be ordained (the canons say) that the ordinations are invalid, and the Hierarch who is doing them is automatically defrocked.

I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church?

And in this post:
No, it doesn't look like an Orthodox Episcopal Consecration. That's why I bothered starting this thread. This http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/Russian_Orthodox_Episcopal_Ordination.jpg looks like an Orthodox Episcopal Consecration. Note the open Gospel book over the candidates head, not the omophorion as is used in the ordinations of Deacons and Presbyteres. I should note that on the eve of this the candidate must make a full confession of faith. This includes the Nicene creed, and various other statements. In the videos linked to the one I posted on youtube, you can see the future Antiochean Bishops making the confession of faith... but in three parts.  

Quote
Citations, please.

It should not be overlooked that the Church does not treat uncritically ordinations performed within its bosom. There are any number of Orthodox ordinations which are declared to be invalid.

"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops. This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6], by a bishop from another diocese [AC 14:, 35] and on a strange cleric [E.C.I:16; Sard. 15, Carth. 91, and others].



Quote
Quote
I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church?  
LOL.  Yes, since around 35 AD or so.

So were the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians until the fourth Ecumenical Council.

and in this post:

Quote
Why don't you bring it up with your bishop instead, to bring canonical proceedings?

Why would I do that? It's called you people should be responsible and follow the canonical proceedings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. That includes not having Subdeacons do litanies. That would also include having the soon to be deacon wear a stiharion at his ordination, after all he's a subdeacon, not doing multiple ordinations at the same Divine Liturgy, and for sure not consecrating Hierarchs as shown in the video.

Quote
Doesn't seem to be the altar Gospel book, so I guess it doesn't count.

It's not for me to say if it counts or not, I'm just a lowly Reader now where in my what I am line on my profile did I put "8th Ecumenical Council" or something to that effect.

Quote
Do you have doubts about the other 2/3?

Nope, I should have been more clearer. The confession of faith is d i v i d e d amongst each of the candidates. Each candidate must make the full confession of faith by himself, otherwise in the future they may be challenged on if they are really Orthodox or not. Example, Bishop so and so "why, I saw you make your confession of faith, you skipped (lets say) the Nicean Creed part of it, so you don't believe in all that!" It's to make sure the candidate believes in everything correctly and is in all things Orthodox. If anything, this is for his own integrity.  

The relevance is that just because an ordination happens inside the Church, if it's done contrary to the canons it's invalid. That's the relevance.

Quote
"Concerning Maximus the Cynic . . it is decreed that Maximus never was and is not now a Bishop . . since all which has been done concerning him or by him is declared to be invalid" [E.C. II:4],

even though he was an outstanding Orthodox and received his ordination from proper Orthodox bishops.


That was because he was usurping the rightful bishop, Pope Peter II acting out of his jurisdiction.

... True. And now we are talking about a multiple ordination being done, something never before done in the Orthodox Church, and something contrary to our Canons and our Holy Tradition.

Quote
This includes all those canons which proclaim invalid those Orthodox ordinations performed with substantial deviations from the canons such as without the approval of the Metropolitan [EC I:6],

So if the Canons declare that an ordination done by a visiting hierarch without permission of the local hierarch is invalid, then how much more this.

Quote
The Video shows HB Patriarch Ignatius.

So? It could show St. John Chrysostom for all I care. As we say in Greek, epi tou thematos- to the subject! No body gets an exception from the Holy Canons, not even Saints, much less Patriarchs.

Quote
And where were you in 2006?

We were in the Orthodox Church! The question is, where are you now?

Whatever you may think of merely "asking a question", the questions you asked were loaded with the subtle suggestion (the definition of insinuation) that the Antiochian Orthodox may be in schism.  This is a very scurrilous charge to make on an Internet discussion forum that boasts a good number of Antiochian Orthodox.

And since you cited the nebulous authority of "the canons" as the basis for your loaded questions,

I came across this the other day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrLBGKwrt5o&feature=related, what exactly is going on here?  ???

I've always thought only one deacon, one priest, and one bishop can be ordained at one Litrugy, around one altar table, one antimens etc, and that if more than one was to be ordained (the canons say) that the ordinations are invalid, and the Hierarch who is doing them is automatically defrocked.

I guess my question is, how is this justified? According to the Canons, are the Antiocheans still in the Church?

without ever specifying which canons were violated (despite the multiple requests from me and from others that you do so), you DO have something to qualify (or--as you say--clarify).

Therefore (putting on my moderator hat now), you now have 72 hours to provide specific quotes of those specific canons that forbid the consecration of multiple bishops in a single liturgy and thereby require us to condemn the Antiochian Orthodox Church as schismatic for violation of these canons.  Proper links are also necessary so we can cross-reference the canons and verify that what you say of them is true.  If you cannot or will not provide these citations I'm requiring of you by 12:30 a.m. (PDT) on April 28, I will lock this thread and consider further disciplinary action against you for slandering the jurisdiction of a significant number of posters on this forum.  Consider yourself duly warned.

If you have any questions about this formal request, send them to me via private message so they don't further disrupt this thread.  Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 04:11:36 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #58 on: April 25, 2010, 04:11:01 AM »

The antiochian archbishop of Australia also performed multiple ordinations in Philippines. As far as I know till now no one hierarch officially condemned them as invalid.But practicaly the clergy from EP side treat them as laymen de facto. Very sad. What kind of oikonomia it can be? Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR ordainded more than dozen priests and deacons in Indonesia.The situation was similar(non-orthodox hot-tropical less developed country ),but he performed ordinations in normal manner. Metropolitan Nektarios of Hongkong(EP)also ordained people in those countries without any irregularity or "oikonomia".Those antiochians live in the same planet as we do,why they cannot do the same things all other jurisdictions do. A good oikonomia build church,not to split.


We are uniquely privileged to have the Senior Secretary of the Ecumenical Synod contributing to this discussion.

As you say, it is very sad.   Since you treat these Antiochian men as laymen I presume that they cannot serve in any Greek churches in the States, nor in Greece nor on the Holy Mountain, nor in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchre.  Since they must be aware of the situation, I imagine they simply stay home when other Antiochian priests are invited to concelebrate in Greek churches for special days.

I'll see what I can find out as to how such men (in the Philippines) are treated by our own Russian priests in that country.  It falls within our diocese of Australia and New Zealand under Metropolitan Hilarion.  Truly a sad situation when men who believe themselves to be priests are rejected by much of the Orthodox world.

Whether we are able to find specific canons or not, it is only too obvious that the Church (well, Antioch is an exception) does not accept the validity of multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #59 on: April 25, 2010, 04:15:26 AM »
Whether we are able to find specific canons or not, it is only too obvious that the Church (well, Antioch is an exception) does not accept the validity of multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy.
The Church does not accept them, or a good number of bishops within the Church do not accept them?  There is a difference.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #60 on: April 25, 2010, 04:31:42 AM »
Whether we are able to find specific canons or not, it is only too obvious that the Church (well, Antioch is an exception) does not accept the validity of multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy.
The Church does not accept them, or a good number of bishops within the Church do not accept them?  There is a difference.

Within the Antiochian Church we may presume that the approximately 26 bishops accept the validity of multiple ordinations (but there may be some hierarchs who do not.)  Does anybody know the full number of bishops in the Church?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #61 on: April 25, 2010, 04:54:22 AM »
Whether we are able to find specific canons or not, it is only too obvious that the Church (well, Antioch is an exception) does not accept the validity of multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy.
The Church does not accept them, or a good number of bishops within the Church do not accept them?  There is a difference.

Within the Antiochian Church we may presume that the approximately 26 bishops accept the validity of multiple ordinations (but there may be some hierarchs who do not.)  Does anybody know the full number of bishops in the Church?
FYI, I don't have a problem with your statement that the Church does not accept the validity of such multiple ordinations, since that's certainly a fair assessment to make and it doesn't go so far as to imply schism on anyone's part.  If a priest's ordination is really not valid, doesn't he remain in the Church, though he would still be regarded as a mere layman?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2010, 05:26:49 AM »
Whether we are able to find specific canons or not, it is only too obvious that the Church (well, Antioch is an exception) does not accept the validity of multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy.
The Church does not accept them, or a good number of bishops within the Church do not accept them?  There is a difference.

Within the Antiochian Church we may presume that the approximately 26 bishops accept the validity of multiple ordinations (but there may be some hierarchs who do not.)  Does anybody know the full number of bishops in the Church?
FYI, I don't have a problem with your statement that the Church does not accept the validity of such multiple ordinations, since that's certainly a fair assessment to make and it doesn't go so far as to imply schism on anyone's part.  If a priest's ordination is really not valid, doesn't he remain in the Church, though he would still be regarded as a mere layman?
Christ is Risen!

To tell you the truth I am not sure if anybody can actually leave the Church since baptismal grace, in the orthodox understanding, remains with a person until the dread moment when he is consigned to hell.  Only then does the Holy Spirit withdraw from the soul completely.  It's an interesting consideration.  I wonder if any of the holy Fathers have written anything about it?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2010, 05:55:06 AM »
Help!  Fr Anastasios!  We need the canons!

I see that Fr Anastasios also claims there are canon/s forbidding multiple ordinations at one Liturgy.

Fr Anastasios wrote in April 2008: "The clergy that were received into the JP had not been baptized on reception into Orthodoxy* and furthermore their ordinations were done simultaneously at the same liturgy (i.e. more than one man raised to the same rank at the same liturgy) which is uncanonical (even SVS faculty wrote against this) back in 1987"
From the thread
"Excommunications of Ben Lomond"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15748.msg224682.html#msg224682


So even if the Reader John is unable to supply the canon/s Fr Anastasios is aware of the canon/s forbidding multiple ordinations at one Liturgy. 

Father, are you following this thread?  Could you chip in and supply whatever canon/s you had in mind two years ago?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2010, 10:48:43 AM »
Help!  Fr Anastasios!  We need the canons!

I see that Fr Anastasios also claims there are canon/s forbidding multiple ordinations at one Liturgy.

Fr Anastasios wrote in April 2008: "The clergy that were received into the JP had not been baptized on reception into Orthodoxy* and furthermore their ordinations were done simultaneously at the same liturgy (i.e. more than one man raised to the same rank at the same liturgy) which is uncanonical (even SVS faculty wrote against this) back in 1987"
From the thread
"Excommunications of Ben Lomond"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15748.msg224682.html#msg224682


So even if the Reader John is unable to supply the canon/s Fr Anastasios is aware of the canon/s forbidding multiple ordinations at one Liturgy.  

Father, are you following this thread?  Could you chip in and supply whatever canon/s you had in mind two years ago?

If Fr. Anastasios feels so inclined as to defend Chtets Ioann, that's his prerogative.  Otherwise, I would like Rdr. Ioann to answer for himself.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 10:50:07 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Online Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,347
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2010, 02:50:54 PM »
The ordinations in the Serbian parish I attend were done in the manner mentioned, when only one person of each clerical rank was ordained per liturgy. So on Saturday there was an ordination for a Reader, Subdeacon and a Deacon, and then the following day there was another Subdeacon ordained, as well as the Subdeacon from the previous day was made a Deacon.

Offline Elpidophoros

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #66 on: April 25, 2010, 03:45:28 PM »

The antiochian archbishop of Australia also performed multiple ordinations in Philippines. As far as I know till now no one hierarch officially condemned them as invalid.But practicaly the clergy from EP side treat them as laymen de facto. Very sad. What kind of oikonomia it can be? Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR ordainded more than dozen priests and deacons in Indonesia.The situation was similar(non-orthodox hot-tropical less developed country ),but he performed ordinations in normal manner. Metropolitan Nektarios of Hongkong(EP)also ordained people in those countries without any irregularity or "oikonomia".Those antiochians live in the same planet as we do,why they cannot do the same things all other jurisdictions do. A good oikonomia build church,not to split.


We are uniquely privileged to have the Senior Secretary of the Ecumenical Synod contributing to this discussion.

As you say, it is very sad.   Since you treat these Antiochian men as laymen I presume that they cannot serve in any Greek churches in the States, nor in Greece nor on the Holy Mountain, nor in Jerusalem at the Holy Sepulchre.  Since they must be aware of the situation, I imagine they simply stay home when other Antiochian priests are invited to concelebrate in Greek churches for special days.

I'll see what I can find out as to how such men (in the Philippines) are treated by our own Russian priests in that country.  It falls within our diocese of Australia and New Zealand under Metropolitan Hilarion.  Truly a sad situation when men who believe themselves to be priests are rejected by much of the Orthodox world.

Whether we are able to find specific canons or not, it is only too obvious that the Church (well, Antioch is an exception) does not accept the validity of multiple ordinations at the same Liturgy.

Fr.Ambrose:
Christ is Risen!
Maybe you mistook my ID for Panosiologiotatos Archmandrite Elpidophoros(Lambriniadis ).No,I am not him.
I'm sorry for the confusion caused by my homonymous ID.
Kiss your right hand and ask your blessing!

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #67 on: April 25, 2010, 04:34:12 PM »
Peter the Aleut said:

Quote
Doesn't seem to be the altar Gospel book, so I guess it doesn't count.

It's not for me to say if it counts or not, I'm just a lowly Reader now where in my what I am line on my profile did I put "8th Ecumenical Council" or something to that effect.

What did I say up there? It's not for me to say if it counts or not. I am not the 8th Ecumenical Council.

Quote
Therefore (putting on my moderator hat now), you now have 72 hours to provide specific quotes of those specific canons that forbid the consecration of multiple bishops in a single liturgy and thereby require us to condemn the Antiochian Orthodox Church as schismatic for violation of these canons.  Proper links are also necessary so we can cross-reference the canons and verify that what you say of them is true.  If you cannot or will not provide these citations I'm requiring of you by 12:30 a.m. (PDT) on April 28, I will lock this thread and consider further disciplinary action against you for slandering the jurisdiction of a significant number of posters on this forum.  Consider yourself duly warned.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator

"Require "us" to condemn the Antiochean Orthodox Church as schismatic..." You must be kidding me? Who said we would be doing any condemning should I find the Canons I'm looking for. You will consider further disciplinary action against me for slandering a jurisdiction I did not slander? YOU slandered the Antiocheans by saying that you would condemn them if a canon was provided to you!

Not only that.... you say that you would be "required to do so!"
Rdr. Ioann,

I instructed you to discuss this with me via private message if you want to question my decision.  For arguing with my moderatorial decision in public despite my previous instructions to the contrary, you are now receiving this warning to last for the next two weeks.  If during the time of this warning you continue to argue publicly with my moderatorial decisions or with the decisions of any of my colleagues on the moderator team, you will be placed on post moderation, a status wherein everything you post will need to be approved by a moderator before it will appear on the forum.  If you think this decision wrong, please feel free to appeal it via private message to Fr. George, the global moderator responsible for overseeing my work on the Faith Issues Board.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 04:48:05 PM by PeterTheAleut »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #68 on: April 25, 2010, 05:57:23 PM »
Help!  Fr Anastasios!  We need the canons!

I see that Fr Anastasios also claims there are canon/s forbidding multiple ordinations at one Liturgy.

Fr Anastasios wrote in April 2008: "The clergy that were received into the JP had not been baptized on reception into Orthodoxy* and furthermore their ordinations were done simultaneously at the same liturgy (i.e. more than one man raised to the same rank at the same liturgy) which is uncanonical (even SVS faculty wrote against this) back in 1987"
From the thread
"Excommunications of Ben Lomond"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15748.msg224682.html#msg224682


So even if the Reader John is unable to supply the canon/s Fr Anastasios is aware of the canon/s forbidding multiple ordinations at one Liturgy.  

Father, are you following this thread?  Could you chip in and supply whatever canon/s you had in mind two years ago?

If Fr. Anastasios feels so inclined as to defend Chtets Ioann, that's his prerogative.  Otherwise, I would like Rdr. Ioann to answer for himself.

I am enquiring of Fr Anastasios for my own interest in these canons since he obviously knows about the canons prohibiting multiple ordinations and he also knows that SVS faculty members wrote against the multiple ordinations (see his message.)  Many of us would be keen to peruse the text of these canons.   I cannot find them myself and I imagine it may be difficult for Ioann to find them.  Fr Anastasios will be able to share them with us.  

I'll bring up the 2008 thread and ask Fr Anastasios from there.   The benefit of doing that is that the notification system will send him a message that there is a reply to a thread to which he has contributed.  I think we are getting closer to uncovering these canons.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 06:10:18 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #69 on: April 25, 2010, 06:09:59 PM »
For the record, I don't subscribe to notifications, nor do I read 90% of the messages on this site (which is why we have assembled a large moderatorial team)--there is no way I could run this site, the other forum I own, the Metropolis website, the 10 parish and mission websites I manage, the 3 missions and 1 mission station I pastor, and work my full time job, and continue to participate here as much as some of our other participants. I usually skim the latest posts, look for new replies in threads I've posted in before once or twice a week, and make a post here and there when something catches my attention.

However, two posters private messaged me about this thread and I thank them for that.

I will go looking for my sources.  I don't have everything at my fingertips (my seminary notes are all in a box in a closet buried at the moment) but I will try to get back to you and Ioannis this evening since you asked so nicely :)
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #70 on: April 25, 2010, 06:21:54 PM »
For the record, I don't subscribe to notifications, nor do I read 90% of the messages on this site (which is why we have assembled a large moderatorial team)--there is no way I could run this site, the other forum I own, the Metropolis website, the 10 parish and mission websites I manage, the 3 missions and 1 mission station I pastor, and work my full time job, and continue to participate here as much as some of our other participants. I usually skim the latest posts, look for new replies in threads I've posted in before once or twice a week, and make a post here and there when something catches my attention.

However, two posters private messaged me about this thread and I thank them for that.

I will go looking for my sources.  I don't have everything at my fingertips (my seminary notes are all in a box in a closet buried at the moment) but I will try to get back to you and Ioannis this evening since you asked so nicely :)

Much obliged!   As you can see many of us have an interest in the canons irrespective of Ioannis' mention of them.   But you would be doing an act of charity by helping Ioannis to discover them too.   Clearly he cannot locate them and neither can the rest of us despite some reasonable internet sleuthing skills.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #71 on: April 25, 2010, 07:42:29 PM »
For the record, I don't subscribe to notifications, nor do I read 90% of the messages on this site (which is why we have assembled a large moderatorial team)--there is no way I could run this site, the other forum I own, the Metropolis website, the 10 parish and mission websites I manage, the 3 missions and 1 mission station I pastor, and work my full time job, and continue to participate here as much as some of our other participants. I usually skim the latest posts, look for new replies in threads I've posted in before once or twice a week, and make a post here and there when something catches my attention.

However, two posters private messaged me about this thread and I thank them for that.

I will go looking for my sources.  I don't have everything at my fingertips (my seminary notes are all in a box in a closet buried at the moment) but I will try to get back to you and Ioannis this evening since you asked so nicely :)

Much obliged!   As you can see many of us have an interest in the canons irrespective of Ioannis' mention of them.   But you would be doing an act of charity by helping Ioannis to discover them too.   Clearly he cannot locate them and neither can the rest of us despite some reasonable internet sleuthing skills.
Fr. Ambrose, I will grant that others, such as you, will have their own personal and professional reasons for having these canons accessible on this forum.  However, this search is now also the focus of a disciplinary action being taken in regards to a specific Chtets Ioann, a matter to which he needs to be held fully responsible.  I insist, then, that he not be bailed out of his task either intentionally or by another acting on unrelated motives.

I therefore have an idea for a compromise position, if you're willing to cooperate with it.  Why don't you wait until after 12:30 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Wednesday morning to post or request that others post any references to canons you think may be pertinent to this discussion?  That way, you'll still be able to get what you really want from this discussion while you continue to allow Chtets Ioann to face up to the disciplinary responsibilities that have been placed upon him.  Compliance with this request is not mandatory, but I will be very grateful if you would show a little patience and choose willingly to play along.  It's up to you.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 07:47:26 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #72 on: April 25, 2010, 08:09:39 PM »
For the record, I don't subscribe to notifications, nor do I read 90% of the messages on this site (which is why we have assembled a large moderatorial team)--there is no way I could run this site, the other forum I own, the Metropolis website, the 10 parish and mission websites I manage, the 3 missions and 1 mission station I pastor, and work my full time job, and continue to participate here as much as some of our other participants. I usually skim the latest posts, look for new replies in threads I've posted in before once or twice a week, and make a post here and there when something catches my attention.

However, two posters private messaged me about this thread and I thank them for that.

I will go looking for my sources.  I don't have everything at my fingertips (my seminary notes are all in a box in a closet buried at the moment) but I will try to get back to you and Ioannis this evening since you asked so nicely :)

Much obliged!   As you can see many of us have an interest in the canons irrespective of Ioannis' mention of them.   But you would be doing an act of charity by helping Ioannis to discover them too.   Clearly he cannot locate them and neither can the rest of us despite some reasonable internet sleuthing skills.
Fr. Ambrose, I will grant that others, such as you, will have their own personal and professional reasons for having these canons accessible on this forum.  However, this search is now also the focus of a disciplinary action being taken in regards to a specific Chtets Ioann, a matter to which he needs to be held fully responsible.  I insist, then, that he not be bailed out of his task either intentionally or by another acting on different motives.

I therefore have an idea for a compromise position, if you're willing to cooperate with it.  Why don't you wait until after 12:30 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Wednesday morning to post or request that others post any references to canons you think may be pertinent to this discussion?  That way, you'll still be able to get what you really want from this discussion while you continue to allow Chtets Ioann to face up to the disciplinary responsibilities that have been placed upon him.  Compliance with this request is not mandatory, but I will be very grateful if you would show a little patience and choose willingly to play along.  It's up to you.

Dear Peter,

Let us be charitable.   Father Anastasios has obviously read the canons previously and he has the canons somewhere.  Or maybe he can refer us to the articles of the SVS faculty dealing with the action of the Metropolitan of Antioch..  It seems quite reasonable to hope he can locate the canons (or the articles.)  What purpose would it serve if he withheld posting them for another 48 hours?   I don't really understand what is going on here.  After all, Father Anastasios said that the multiple ordinations of the Church of Antioch was acting uncanonically and although I have searched that thread very thoroughly he was not asked to support that by quoting the canons.   The reason was almost certainly that we seem to take it for granted that there are such canons and we don't bother to ask to see them.

Quote
I insist, then, that he not be bailed out of his task either intentionally or by another acting on different motives.

You are writing here as an ordinary member of the Forum and I find your attitude hardhearted, as if you wish Ioann to be punished.  If Fr Athanasios has the canons why should he not offer them, irrespective of whether they "bail out" Ioann or not?  Dear brother, Christ died for us, let us treat one another with love.  Would it not be an act of love if those who have access to the canons are able to post them? Indeed, given the way your message indicates your desire to see Ioann punished, would not God Himself require that anyone who has the canons produce them and not withhold them?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #73 on: April 25, 2010, 08:42:29 PM »
For the record, I don't subscribe to notifications, nor do I read 90% of the messages on this site (which is why we have assembled a large moderatorial team)--there is no way I could run this site, the other forum I own, the Metropolis website, the 10 parish and mission websites I manage, the 3 missions and 1 mission station I pastor, and work my full time job, and continue to participate here as much as some of our other participants. I usually skim the latest posts, look for new replies in threads I've posted in before once or twice a week, and make a post here and there when something catches my attention.

However, two posters private messaged me about this thread and I thank them for that.

I will go looking for my sources.  I don't have everything at my fingertips (my seminary notes are all in a box in a closet buried at the moment) but I will try to get back to you and Ioannis this evening since you asked so nicely :)

Much obliged!   As you can see many of us have an interest in the canons irrespective of Ioannis' mention of them.   But you would be doing an act of charity by helping Ioannis to discover them too.   Clearly he cannot locate them and neither can the rest of us despite some reasonable internet sleuthing skills.
Fr. Ambrose, I will grant that others, such as you, will have their own personal and professional reasons for having these canons accessible on this forum.  However, this search is now also the focus of a disciplinary action being taken in regards to a specific Chtets Ioann, a matter to which he needs to be held fully responsible.  I insist, then, that he not be bailed out of his task either intentionally or by another acting on different motives.

I therefore have an idea for a compromise position, if you're willing to cooperate with it.  Why don't you wait until after 12:30 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time on Wednesday morning to post or request that others post any references to canons you think may be pertinent to this discussion?  That way, you'll still be able to get what you really want from this discussion while you continue to allow Chtets Ioann to face up to the disciplinary responsibilities that have been placed upon him.  Compliance with this request is not mandatory, but I will be very grateful if you would show a little patience and choose willingly to play along.  It's up to you.

Dear Peter,

Let us be charitable.   Father Anastasios has obviously read the canons previously and he has the canons somewhere.  Or maybe he can refer us to the articles of the SVS faculty dealing with the action of the Metropolitan of Antioch..  It seems quite reasonable to hope he can locate the canons (or the articles.)  What purpose would it serve if he withheld posting them for another 48 hours?   I don't really understand what is going on here.  After all, Father Anastasios said that the multiple ordinations of the Church of Antioch was acting uncanonically and although I have searched that thread very thoroughly he was not asked to support that by quoting the canons.   The reason was almost certainly that we seem to take it for granted that there are such canons and we don't bother to ask to see them.

Quote
I insist, then, that he not be bailed out of his task either intentionally or by another acting on different motives.

You are writing here as an ordinary member of the Forum and I find your attitude hardhearted, as if you wish Ioann to be punished.  If Fr Athanasios has the canons why should he not offer them, irrespective of whether they "bail out" Ioann or not?  Dear brother, Christ died for us, let us treat one another with love.  Would it not be an act of love if those who have access to the canons are able to post them? Indeed, given the way your message indicates your desire to see Ioann punished, would not God Himself require that anyone who has the canons produce them and not withhold them?
I wish not that anyone be punished, and I'm sorry for ever communicating that motive.  I just believe that the most charitable thing we can do for Chtets Ioann is to let him learn that he willingly took on particular responsibilities to comply with the rules of this forum when he registered for an account here and that his actions on this forum do have consequences, consequences that he needs to face up to if he wants to post inflammatory stuff here.  Ideally, I would like to see him fulfill the responsibilities I've given him so that he can negate the need for any further action, for such would be a good learning experience for him.  Bail him out, and you deprive him of that experience that is so necessary for his proper adjustment to this forum.

It's like a saying we have in this part of the world:  "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime."  My hope here is that I can "teach a man to fish".

I posted my replies in the above conversation with you in black type to invite a little public discussion of this matter for the purpose of transparency, since you're not the only one who has an interest in knowing the reasoning behind my request to you.  I see, however, that our continued back-and-forth is starting to veer off the topic of the OP, so I ask that we continue this discussion via PM's.  I will therefore no longer discuss this issue with you on this thread.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2010, 08:46:39 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #74 on: April 25, 2010, 09:57:02 PM »
I have copies of the two articles from St Vlads Theological Quarterly that discuss the Antiochian cluster ordinations. I'll post details tomorrow. Nothing that new in them. St Symeon of Thessaloniki says cluster ordinations are contrary to Tradition, the Moscow Synod forbids them, and St Nikodemos does say they aren't allowed in his commentary on the Apostolic Canons. But the ecumenically accepted sources are silent on the matter.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline CCTE

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #75 on: April 26, 2010, 12:50:12 AM »
It is a common practice in the Antiochian Patriarchate to ordain more than 1 deacon/priest or bishop at the same liturgy? How much common or uncommon it is? Or this are some exceptions?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #76 on: April 26, 2010, 09:13:53 AM »
Hristos a inviat!
It is a common practice in the Antiochian Patriarchate to ordain more than 1 deacon/priest or bishop at the same liturgy?

Not that I know of.


Quote
How much common or uncommon it is? Or this are some exceptions?

In conversion cases, common enough. Part of it is timing, increased because of such requirements that married converts being ordained have to first be chrismated then remarried in the Church before ordination, etc. Sort of like the mass weddings or baptisms going on in Russia now.  In the case under discussion, the exception was the setting up of a whole Archdiocesan hierarchy: the constitution etc after some wrangling had been passed (and we thought, finalized).

« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 09:14:25 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline CCTE

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #77 on: April 26, 2010, 10:33:01 AM »
Adevarat a Inviat
Thank you for answer.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2010, 10:42:14 AM »
I have a feeling that, even if somebody can somehow unearth a canon somewhere, the practice of non-cluster ordinations emanated from an incident where a cluster ordination was performed to mask the elevation of an unworthy person. May be it even was a practice of the church that was taken advantage of for a period of years or decades before they ended the practice? In any case, I have not heard of one argument against cluster baptisms, which are in the mind of some theologians (like Father Alexander Schmemann--gasp!!!) the ordination of lay folks. Surely there have been unworthy baptisms. Come to think of it, there was an even worse example. Correct me if I am wrong but, is it not true that all Russian government officials had to take Holy Communion at least once a year--including Hebrews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists? How is this not more scandalous than the cluster ordinations that were done by the Patriarch of Antioch, who was close to or over 90 years of age at the time?

In any case, I believe it was the case that as was the case with doctrinal pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, so it was with the canons: the application of Biblical and Apostolic standards and concepts to contemporary problems. An eminently sensible and laudable approach that, unfortunately, has been turned on its head, especially in the case of canons, practice and rubrics. We have seen this played out on this forum over and over again: instead of appealing to the Holy Scriptures (as did the Apostles) and to the Apostles as well as the Holy Scriptures (as did the Early Fathers), the first recourse of many is to the current practice of one's church (In one memorable instance, universal practice was equated to the practice of the Romanian Church). Others, repeat the mantra "but, the rubrics do not allow it!" Yet others appeal to yet-to-be-identified canons or to relatively recent Fathers. What in the world is the problem with such brethren that they are unable to see the forest for the trees? Why can't they discern what is essential and what is not? Is their faith so weak that to change any practice, no matter how minute, would weaken their faith further, perhaps fatally? I really do not get it and actually am somewhat disheartened. So, it is time to go back to the Lenten prayer of Saint Ephrem the Syrian...
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 10:44:29 AM by Second Chance »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2010, 11:05:05 AM »
Christ is risen!
I have a feeling that, even if somebody can somehow unearth a canon somewhere, the practice of non-cluster ordinations emanated from an incident where a cluster ordination was performed to mask the elevation of an unworthy person. May be it even was a practice of the church that was taken advantage of for a period of years or decades before they ended the practice? In any case, I have not heard of one argument against cluster baptisms, which are in the mind of some theologians (like Father Alexander Schmemann--gasp!!!) the ordination of lay folks. Surely there have been unworthy baptisms. Come to think of it, there was an even worse example. Correct me if I am wrong but, is it not true that all Russian government officials had to take Holy Communion at least once a year--including Hebrews, Muslims, agnostics and atheists? How is this not more scandalous than the cluster ordinations that were done by the Patriarch of Antioch, who was close to or over 90 years of age at the time?

In any case, I believe it was the case that as was the case with doctrinal pronouncements of the ecumenical councils, so it was with the canons: the application of Biblical and Apostolic standards and concepts to contemporary problems. An eminently sensible and laudable approach that, unfortunately, has been turned on its head, especially in the case of canons, practice and rubrics. We have seen this played out on this forum over and over again: instead of appealing to the Holy Scriptures (as did the Apostles) and to the Apostles as well as the Holy Scriptures (as did the Early Fathers), the first recourse of many is to the current practice of one's church (In one memorable instance, universal practice was equated to the practice of the Romanian Church). Others, repeat the mantra "but, the rubrics do not allow it!" Yet others appeal to yet-to-be-identified canons or to relatively recent Fathers. What in the world is the problem with such brethren that they are unable to see the forest for the trees? Why can't they discern what is essential and what is not? Is their faith so weak that to change any practice, no matter how minute, would weaken their faith further, perhaps fatally? I really do not get it and actually am somewhat disheartened. So, it is time to go back to the Lenten prayer of Saint Ephrem the Syrian...
LOL. Tradition is what I saw my grandfather do as a kid.

Nothing wrong with recourse to local practice.  The problem is when inquiry ends there.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 11:05:34 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #80 on: April 26, 2010, 11:19:19 AM »
Here's the promised info. After the Antiochians performed mass ordinations of the Evangelical Orthodox, there were two articles that appeared in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. They were:

  • Boojamra, John L., and Paul D. Garrett. "Cluster ordinations : investigation into an ecclesiastical non-issue." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32, no. 1 (January 1, 1988): 72-87.
  • Butler, Michael. "Cluster ordinations" : a reply to Boojamra and Garrett." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32, no. 4 (January 1, 1988): 390-395.

The first claims this is a non-issue. It's a pretty involved argument, but basically they show that the earliest evidence (from the Fathers and Canons) is inconclusive or silent. No early source condemns cluster ordinations; various early sources speak of ordinands in the singular and/or plural, especially when it comes to the presbyterate; the Eastern polemics against the West (e.g. St. Photius) do not attack cluster ordinations, even though they were common in the West, etc. Finally, they argue on a theological (as well as historical) level that the presbyterate is fundamentally collegial in nature (a la the Didascalia Apostolorum), whereas the Episcopate is monarchial (a la St. Ignatius). Thus, cluster ordinations to priestly offices other than Bishop offer no theological inconsistency.

That aside, the first article does admit that later sources condemn the practice, most notably St Symeon of Thessaloniki, the Moscow Synod of 1666, and St. Nikodemos of Mt. Athos. The authors of the first article put forth arguments for why these condemnations should not be taken as binding. I've summarized them below, along with the second article's rebuttal.

St. Symeon of Thessalonika (15th century), who calls it an "innovation" and something which has not been received in the East. The first article argues this is basically just an anti-Jacobite polemic. The second article counters that regardless of motive it is a clear testimony of the received tradition at the time.

The Moscow Synod of 1666, "which stated with reference to cluster ordinations among the Little Russians that 'in the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo and no such custom,'" (p. 80). The first article dismisses this because the Synod was "petty and ludicrous" and mainly concerned on this point with countering the Jacobites (p. 80). The second article counters by arguing that "hid­den agendas notwithstanding, the synod's condemnation stands intact, because indeed 'in the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo and no such custom,'" (p. 392).

St Nikodemos the Hagiorite (circa 1800), whose "commentary forbidding multiple ordination is completely unrelated to the canon [Apostolic Canon 58] which forbids more than one ordination of the same person to the same office" (p. 76). In other words, the first article says this interpretation is an interpolation. The second article counters: this does "not invalidate the commentary. A case can be made for accepting the interpretation of St Nicodemus of this canon based on his status as a Father of the Church and the codifier of the Pedalion. But even if we precind from the question of the Hagiorite's spiritual authority, might we not see here an attempt to find a canonical mooring for a practice which was without a formal canonical basis, but which was nevertheless an established practice of the Church?" (p. 391).

The first article concludes:

Quote
No less avoidable is the conclusion that nothing can be proved from the silence of early documents regarding the number of people ordained at a given time. In fact, patristic texts and descriptions of services come close enough in sense and purpose to cluster ordination. What remains absolutely clear, however, is that there is no prohibition against it in ecumenical canon law, ecclesiastical practice, in patristic commentaries on pertinent scriptural passages, even the often petty theological polemics which have cluttered Orthodox and Roman Catholic relationships since the ninth century; that it had been done in the past and at least in Russia during the seventeenth century; that it is presently done today among Roman Catholics without any objections from the Orthodox; that those among the Orthodox who regard Roman Catholic sacraments as valid (in whatever sense) have received former Roman clerics in their orders with no [re]ordination, clerics who were almost surely multiply ordained in their former obedience; that it is presently performed, at least at the diaconal level, in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria.

In the light of the silence of history, tradition, and the canons, as well as the more positive rubrical affirmation, we are driven to suggest that the objections to multiple ordinations is rooted in something other than the tradition and life of the Church.

The second article concludes:

Quote
If the early evidence is inconclusive (as B & G admit), the later evidence is very clear: cluster ordination was not the practice of the Eastern Church. Furthermore, what is significantly missing from B & G's argument is the evidence of Byzantine and Slavic service books. Are there rubrics or allowances in any service books of any time period unambiguously to support cluster ordinations? And perhaps most importantly, how can cluster ordination be defended as a legitimate practice today since it is not the current practice of the Church, and on the basis of B & G's own evidence, it has not been the Church's practice for 1300 years?

....
Β & G conclude their article by saying, "in light of the silence of history, tradition, and the canons, as well as the more positive rubrical affirmation, we are driven to suggest that the objections to multiple ordinations is rooted in something other than the tradition and life of the Church" (p. 87).
It is precisely Tradition and the life of the Church which raises objection to multiple ordination. Many of Β & G's own sources say as much. That they can make such a statement suggests to me that Boojamra and Garrett have a jaundiced view of Tradition, little respect for the particular traditions (like singular ordinations) which embody it, and that their article represents an attempt to refute or deny the practice and the life of the Church with which their views on cluster ordinations are clearly at odds.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 11:28:43 AM by pensateomnia »
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #81 on: April 26, 2010, 12:10:36 PM »
Christos anesti ke efcharisto!
Here's the promised info. After the Antiochians performed mass ordinations of the Evangelical Orthodox, there were two articles that appeared in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. They were:

  • Boojamra, John L., and Paul D. Garrett. "Cluster ordinations : investigation into an ecclesiastical non-issue." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32, no. 1 (January 1, 1988): 72-87.
  • Butler, Michael. "Cluster ordinations" : a reply to Boojamra and Garrett." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32, no. 4 (January 1, 1988): 390-395.

The first claims this is a non-issue. It's a pretty involved argument, but basically they show that the earliest evidence (from the Fathers and Canons) is inconclusive or silent. No early source condemns cluster ordinations; various early sources speak of ordinands in the singular and/or plural, especially when it comes to the presbyterate; the Eastern polemics against the West (e.g. St. Photius) do not attack cluster ordinations, even though they were common in the West, etc. Finally, they argue on a theological (as well as historical) level that the presbyterate is fundamentally collegial in nature (a la the Didascalia Apostolorum), whereas the Episcopate is monarchial (a la St. Ignatius). Thus, cluster ordinations to priestly offices other than Bishop offer no theological inconsistency.

That aside, the first article does admit that later sources condemn the practice, most notably St Symeon of Thessaloniki, the Moscow Synod of 1666, and St. Nikodemos of Mt. Athos. The authors of the first article put forth arguments for why these condemnations should not be taken as binding. I've summarized them below, along with the second article's rebuttal.

St. Symeon of Thessalonika (15th century), who calls it an "innovation" and something which has not been received in the East. The first article argues this is basically just an anti-Jacobite polemic. The second article counters that regardless of motive it is a clear testimony of the received tradition at the time.

The Moscow Synod of 1666, "which stated with reference to cluster ordinations among the Little Russians that 'in the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo and no such custom,'" (p. 80). The first article dismisses this because the Synod was "petty and ludicrous" and mainly concerned on this point with countering the Jacobites (p. 80). The second article counters by arguing that "hid­den agendas notwithstanding, the synod's condemnation stands intact, because indeed 'in the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo and no such custom,'" (p. 392).

St Nikodemos the Hagiorite (circa 1800), whose "commentary forbidding multiple ordination is completely unrelated to the canon [Apostolic Canon 58] which forbids more than one ordination of the same person to the same office" (p. 76). In other words, the first article says this interpretation is an interpolation. The second article counters: this does "not invalidate the commentary. A case can be made for accepting the interpretation of St Nicodemus of this canon based on his status as a Father of the Church and the codifier of the Pedalion. But even if we precind from the question of the Hagiorite's spiritual authority, might we not see here an attempt to find a canonical mooring for a practice which was without a formal canonical basis, but which was nevertheless an established practice of the Church?" (p. 391).

The first article concludes:

Quote
No less avoidable is the conclusion that nothing can be proved from the silence of early documents regarding the number of people ordained at a given time. In fact, patristic texts and descriptions of services come close enough in sense and purpose to cluster ordination. What remains absolutely clear, however, is that there is no prohibition against it in ecumenical canon law, ecclesiastical practice, in patristic commentaries on pertinent scriptural passages, even the often petty theological polemics which have cluttered Orthodox and Roman Catholic relationships since the ninth century; that it had been done in the past and at least in Russia during the seventeenth century; that it is presently done today among Roman Catholics without any objections from the Orthodox; that those among the Orthodox who regard Roman Catholic sacraments as valid (in whatever sense) have received former Roman clerics in their orders with no [re]ordination, clerics who were almost surely multiply ordained in their former obedience; that it is presently performed, at least at the diaconal level, in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria.

In the light of the silence of history, tradition, and the canons, as well as the more positive rubrical affirmation, we are driven to suggest that the objections to multiple ordinations is rooted in something other than the tradition and life of the Church.

The second article concludes:

Quote
If the early evidence is inconclusive (as B & G admit), the later evidence is very clear: cluster ordination was not the practice of the Eastern Church. Furthermore, what is significantly missing from B & G's argument is the evidence of Byzantine and Slavic service books. Are there rubrics or allowances in any service books of any time period unambiguously to support cluster ordinations? And perhaps most importantly, how can cluster ordination be defended as a legitimate practice today since it is not the current practice of the Church, and on the basis of B & G's own evidence, it has not been the Church's practice for 1300 years?

....
Β & G conclude their article by saying, "in light of the silence of history, tradition, and the canons, as well as the more positive rubrical affirmation, we are driven to suggest that the objections to multiple ordinations is rooted in something other than the tradition and life of the Church" (p. 87).
It is precisely Tradition and the life of the Church which raises objection to multiple ordination. Many of Β & G's own sources say as much. That they can make such a statement suggests to me that Boojamra and Garrett have a jaundiced view of Tradition, little respect for the particular traditions (like singular ordinations) which embody it, and that their article represents an attempt to refute or deny the practice and the life of the Church with which their views on cluster ordinations are clearly at odds.
Michael Butler. I know that name from somewhere.

While he is correct that the latter authorities quoted are clear, it is also clear that they are at a time when the Vatican had definitely left the Church and many in the Church were making distinctions, real and imagined, to clarify that wall between us. If the practice was common in the first millenium under Rome, that the earlier testimony is clear, the practice was (and hence is) Orthodox.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 12:11:08 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2010, 12:25:00 PM »
Michael Butler. I know that name from somewhere.

He's an OCA priest, currently serving in the Diocese of the Midwest. Ph.D. from Fordham. Quite a good homilist. You've probably seen him at Rives Junction.

While he is correct that the latter authorities quoted are clear, it is also clear that they are at a time when the Vatican had definitely left the Church and many in the Church were making distinctions, real and imagined, to clarify that wall between us. If the practice was common in the first millenium under Rome, that the earlier testimony is clear, the practice was (and hence is) Orthodox.

 ??? In the period in question, it was also common under Rome to profess the filioque and require clerical celibacy for the presbyterate.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2010, 01:40:15 PM »
Michael Butler. I know that name from somewhere.

He's an OCA priest, currently serving in the Diocese of the Midwest. Ph.D. from Fordham. Quite a good homilist. You've probably seen him at Rives Junction.

While he is correct that the latter authorities quoted are clear, it is also clear that they are at a time when the Vatican had definitely left the Church and many in the Church were making distinctions, real and imagined, to clarify that wall between us. If the practice was common in the first millenium under Rome, that the earlier testimony is clear, the practice was (and hence is) Orthodox.

 ??? In the period in question, it was also common under Rome to profess the filioque and require clerical celibacy for the presbyterate.
The filioque wasn't adopted by the Vatican until 1015, and there is the testimony of Pope Leo III putting up the silver placques on St. Peter's against. It doesn't appear until 589 anywhere at all.

Mandated clerical celibacy was condemned at Nicea, or at the latest the account of Nicea of Socretes Scholasticus (439).

In both cases, the condemnation in the East has been clear and consistent during the first millenium.  If mass ordination was common, it would seem someone would know in the East to condemn it. Yet we find no such thing.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2010, 05:45:01 PM »
When I kept saying "it's against the canons" what I meant in reality was the spirit of the canons, the rules, what we do in the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example one could say "Rd. Ioann, why are you dressed up like a deacon, that's uncanonical, that's against the canons!" That person isn't implying there is a specific canon against me doing so, they are implying that what I am doing is wrong, never done before, something that just is not done.

I literally have read the whole Rudder in the past 48 hours. I can come up with no canon that says multiple ordinations are invalid. However, does this mean that this is still uncanonical, of course, because it's against the s p i r i t of the canons, ie: introducing something that has just never been done before in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Any logical person can go through my posts in this thread and can see that I say that, and furthermore that I refuse to pass on judgment to the Antiocheans as it is not my place... I say that twice. To that end, I'd like to thank ialmisry for his statement:

Quote
In both cases, the condemnation in the East has been clear and consistent during the first millennium. If mass ordination was common, it would seem someone would know in the East to condemn it. Yet we find no such thing.

However, one Orthodox Council - the Moscow Council of 1666 did condemn it. And the presider at that Council was the Patriarch of Antioch.

Folks, this is now getting to be a bit redundant, seeing that all I am doing is repeating myself. This will be the final post I will make concerning this subject.... unless of course the discussion begins to go on a road that actually leads somewhere.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 05:50:45 PM by Chtets Ioann »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2010, 10:50:38 PM »
Folks, this is now getting to be a bit redundant, seeing that all I am doing is repeating myself. This will be the final post I will make concerning this subject.... unless of course the discussion begins to go on a road that actually leads somewhere.


Dear Ioann,

The jury has not yet come back with a decision on this.   Father Anastasios agrees with you that the ordinations were uncanonical.  I doubt if he wrote that in the sense of "the spirit of the canons renders it uncanonical."   I imagine he has actual existing canons in mind.

Pensateomnia has given us some very interesting information, on Moscow's canon and Saint Nikodemos' commentary on Apostolic Canon 45, which is not quite relevant (in the logic of the western mind) to the actual canon but Saint Nikodemos sees it as relevant.

Fr Anastasios wrote in April 2008: "The clergy that were received into the JP had not been baptized on reception into Orthodoxy* and furthermore their ordinations were done simultaneously at the same liturgy (i.e. more than one man raised to the same rank at the same liturgy) which is uncanonical (even SVS faculty wrote against this) back in 1987"
From the thread
"Excommunications of Ben Lomond"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15748.msg224682.html#msg224682


Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2010, 11:19:44 PM »
Folks, this is now getting to be a bit redundant, seeing that all I am doing is repeating myself. This will be the final post I will make concerning this subject.... unless of course the discussion begins to go on a road that actually leads somewhere.


Dear Ioann,

The jury has not yet come back with a decision on this.   Father Anastasios agrees with you that the ordinations were uncanonical.  I doubt if he wrote that in the sense of "the spirit of the canons renders it uncanonical."   I imagine he has actual existing canons in mind.

Pensateomnia has given us some very interesting information, on Moscow's canon and Saint Nikodemos' commentary on Apostolic Canon 45, which is not quite relevant (in the logic of the western mind) to the actual canon but Saint Nikodemos sees it as relevant.

Fr Anastasios wrote in April 2008: "The clergy that were received into the JP had not been baptized on reception into Orthodoxy* and furthermore their ordinations were done simultaneously at the same liturgy (i.e. more than one man raised to the same rank at the same liturgy) which is uncanonical (even SVS faculty wrote against this) back in 1987"
From the thread
"Excommunications of Ben Lomond"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15748.msg224682.html#msg224682



Dear Fr Ambrose,

Christ is Risen!

I'm just back in this thread for the first time since yesterday. I'm sorry that I was not able to dig out my notes, but once I saw that pensateomnia was going to look in to it, I figured I'd wait.

What he cited from the Butler article is what I was thinking about when I wrote in 2008 that they are uncanonical, and if I had in mind a specific canon, I was wrong, while I might have been using the term "uncanonical" as against the whole canonical tradition, which is passed down to us both in the canons and in their commentary (by such luminaries as Balsamon, Zonaras, and St Nikodemos).  While there is no specific canon in the collection of canons as others have demonstrated, St Nikodemos's commentary is authoritative in its own right, as he is presenting the lived interpretation of these canons, much as the commentary of Balsamon and Zonaras (11th-12th centuries) is considered authoritative (pensateomnia: what do HC instructors teach about St Nikodemos's commentary? Is it considered authoritative in the same was as Balsamon's and Zonaras's? I know at SVS we almost never talked about St Nikodemos's commentaries and their authoritativeness, but we did speak about Balsamon's and Zonaras's authority.  As a Greek Old Calendarist, I can testify that St Nikodemos's commentary is basically held up to that level among us. But I don't know about other places).

This is one of the aspects of the Orthodox canonical tradition that vexes Westerners; the commentary on canons is often considered as authoritative as the text of the canons themselves. It's also why we have to be careful with the English translation of the Rudder published by Cummings, which has Makrakite commentary interspersed with St Nikodemos's, and has the potential to lead people astray.  So they are uncanonical insofar as they go against the canonical tradition, both written and unwritten, which is witnessed by St Symeon, the local council of Moscow, and St Nikodemos.

Boojamra's approach seems reductionist, as did Fr Joseph Allen's torturous case he raised in the book "Vested in Grace" where he tries to argue for twice-married clergy and other things based on appeals to precedents in the past where exceptions were raised.  This is a foreign methodology.

So to summarize, I don't know what my thought was in 2008, but when I said it was uncanonical, whether I mistakenly thought of an individual canon or I was thinking of the things pensateomnia pointed out above, I would stand by my assertion that in the received tradition of Orthodoxy, these multiple ordinations are uncanonical, and the JP treated them as such. I'm sorry if my less-than-clear comment "off the cuff" back then was confusing in any way.

Fr A.
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #87 on: April 27, 2010, 12:01:18 AM »
When I kept saying "it's against the canons" what I meant in reality was the spirit of the canons,

In other words, what you think they should say, rather than what they say.

Quote
the rules, what we do in the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example one could say "Rd. Ioann, why are you dressed up like a deacon, that's uncanonical, that's against the canons!" That person isn't implying there is a specific canon against me doing so, they are implying that what I am doing is wrong, never done before, something that just is not done.

I should think there is something about impersonating clergy.  There is in the law.

Quote
I literally have read the whole Rudder in the past 48 hours.

Better use could have been made of the time.

Quote
I can come up with no canon that says multiple ordinations are invalid. However, does this mean that this is still uncanonical, of course, because it's against the s p i r i t of the canons, ie: introducing something that has just never been done before in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.


Quote
Any logical person can go through my posts in this thread and can see that I say that, and furthermore that I refuse to pass on judgment to the Antiocheans as it is not my place... I say that twice. To that end, I'd like to thank ialmisry for his statement:

Quote
In both cases, the condemnation in the East has been clear and consistent during the first millennium. If mass ordination was common, it would seem someone would know in the East to condemn it. Yet we find no such thing.

However, one Orthodox Council - the Moscow Council of 1666 did condemn it.

along with the most devote part of the Patriarchate, those would not let Caesar decide what was God's.  I agree with Solzhenitsyn: much of the persecusion by the Bolsheviks was to atone for the treatment of the Old Ritualists.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-PxVklqRBgUC&pg=PA144&dq=Moscow+1666+Antioch&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Moscow%201666%20Antioch&f=false


Quote
And the presider at that Council was the Patriarch of Antioch.

St. Peter at Antioch, unlike his successor at Rome, never claimed to be infallible. And since the Pope of Alexadria was present, what business did Antioch have to preside?

Quote
Folks, this is now getting to be a bit redundant, seeing that all I am doing is repeating myself.
If you repeated the canons first, you wouldn't have to do that.
Quote
This will be the final post I will make concerning this subject.... unless of course the discussion begins to go on a road that actually leads somewhere.
To what the canons actually say?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #88 on: April 27, 2010, 12:03:47 AM »

. If the practice was common in the first millenium under Rome, that the earlier testimony is clear, the practice was (and hence is) Orthodox.

Admittedly, there are difficulties for an Irish brain to penetrate the logic of an Egyptian brain so we are doomed to misunderstanding  :laugh: -- but IF the practice of multiple ordinations remains Orthodox today then so too would the consecration of married bishops.

So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #89 on: April 27, 2010, 12:10:39 AM »
Christos anesti!
Folks, this is now getting to be a bit redundant, seeing that all I am doing is repeating myself. This will be the final post I will make concerning this subject.... unless of course the discussion begins to go on a road that actually leads somewhere.


Dear Ioann,

The jury has not yet come back with a decision on this.   Father Anastasios agrees with you that the ordinations were uncanonical.  I doubt if he wrote that in the sense of "the spirit of the canons renders it uncanonical."   I imagine he has actual existing canons in mind.

Pensateomnia has given us some very interesting information, on Moscow's canon and Saint Nikodemos' commentary on Apostolic Canon 45, which is not quite relevant (in the logic of the western mind) to the actual canon but Saint Nikodemos sees it as relevant.

Fr Anastasios wrote in April 2008: "The clergy that were received into the JP had not been baptized on reception into Orthodoxy* and furthermore their ordinations were done simultaneously at the same liturgy (i.e. more than one man raised to the same rank at the same liturgy) which is uncanonical (even SVS faculty wrote against this) back in 1987"
From the thread
"Excommunications of Ben Lomond"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15748.msg224682.html#msg224682



Dear Fr Ambrose,

Christ is Risen!

I'm just back in this thread for the first time since yesterday. I'm sorry that I was not able to dig out my notes, but once I saw that pensateomnia was going to look in to it, I figured I'd wait.

What he cited from the Butler article is what I was thinking about when I wrote in 2008 that they are uncanonical, and if I had in mind a specific canon, I was wrong, while I might have been using the term "uncanonical" as against the whole canonical tradition, which is passed down to us both in the canons and in their commentary (by such luminaries as Balsamon, Zonaras, and St Nikodemos).  While there is no specific canon in the collection of canons as others have demonstrated, St Nikodemos's commentary is authoritative in its own right, as he is presenting the lived interpretation of these canons, much as the commentary of Balsamon and Zonaras (11th-12th centuries) is considered authoritative (pensateomnia: what do HC instructors teach about St Nikodemos's commentary? Is it considered authoritative in the same was as Balsamon's and Zonaras's? I know at SVS we almost never talked about St Nikodemos's commentaries and their authoritativeness, but we did speak about Balsamon's and Zonaras's authority.  As a Greek Old Calendarist, I can testify that St Nikodemos's commentary is basically held up to that level among us. But I don't know about other places).
This topic just came up:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.msg424795/topicseen.html#msg424795

Quote
This is one of the aspects of the Orthodox canonical tradition that vexes Westerners; the commentary on canons is often considered as authoritative as the text of the canons themselves. It's also why we have to be careful with the English translation of the Rudder published by Cummings, which has Makrakite commentary interspersed with St Nikodemos's, and has the potential to lead people astray.  So they are uncanonical insofar as they go against the canonical tradition, both written and unwritten, which is witnessed by St Symeon, the local council of Moscow, and St Nikodemos.

Boojamra's approach seems reductionist, as did Fr Joseph Allen's torturous case he raised in the book "Vested in Grace" where he tries to argue for twice-married clergy and other things based on appeals to precedents in the past where exceptions were raised.  This is a foreign methodology.

also breaks the principle: exception makes the rule.



Quote
So to summarize, I don't know what my thought was in 2008, but when I said it was uncanonical, whether I mistakenly thought of an individual canon or I was thinking of the things pensateomnia pointed out above, I would stand by my assertion that in the received tradition of Orthodoxy, these multiple ordinations are uncanonical, and the JP treated them as such. I'm sorry if my less-than-clear comment "off the cuff" back then was confusing in any way.

Fr A.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 12:12:50 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #90 on: April 27, 2010, 12:12:17 AM »
Here's the promised info. After the Antiochians performed mass ordinations of the Evangelical Orthodox, there were two articles that appeared in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly.

Dear Pensateomnia,  we are all indebted to you for searching out this material and presenting it on the Forum.  Thank you!  Much appreciated!

Btw, does your screen name mean "Think all things"?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #91 on: April 27, 2010, 12:19:13 AM »
Christos Voskrese, Father!

. If the practice was common in the first millenium under Rome, that the earlier testimony is clear, the practice was (and hence is) Orthodox.

Admittedly, there are difficulties for an Irish brain to penetrate the logic of an Egyptian brain so we are doomed to misunderstanding  :laugh: -- but IF the practice of multiple ordinations remains Orthodox today then so too would the consecration of married bishops.

Not exactly: we DO have canons on that.


Quote
So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..
Don't know where that would be: Russia has only one instance of it.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #92 on: April 27, 2010, 12:20:08 AM »
When I kept saying "it's against the canons" what I meant in reality was the spirit of the canons,

In other words, what you think they should say, rather than what they say.

Don't be too hard on him.  We see that a well educated priest from Saint Vladimir's seminary made the same presumption that such ordinations are uncanonical.

I myself would probably have made the same statement as Fr Anastasios and Ioann, although I would have felt uneasy and hedged a bit because I have never sighted the canons. 

But now we see that while such ordinations are not frequent occurrences in the life of the Church, we cannot label them uncanonical (I think?)  Not sure what this would mean for bishops who ordain such priests a second time?


Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #93 on: April 27, 2010, 12:23:07 AM »
Quote

In other words, what you think they should say, rather than what they say.

Gesh LOL. I know I promised I wouldn't respond to any of this anymore but come on, I said it up there, and Fr. Anastasios also said it:
Quote
I would stand by my assertion that in the received tradition of Orthodoxy, these multiple ordinations are uncanonical...

I think now the discussion is verging into "Is something uncanonical if there is no specific Canon to back it up."

Quote
I should think there is something about impersonating clergy.  There is in the law.

Your probably right... could you provide me with something. Ok, let me give another example "That priest is serving Proskomedia outside the Altar, and he's pausing like it's some sort of demonstration, that uncanonical!" This does happen in some places, it happened at a local parish over here and people said (they were Greeks) it's "AntiKanoniko" Against the rules. If you can find a Canon even about how to serve Proskomedia in the first place, be my guest  :P

Quote
Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Never heard that before... could you provide a scriputal passage, and we'd have to read it in the original Greek to see what it really says. What word is used for ordination etc, it could have said someone blessed them to do something, and our friendly Anglican 16th century translators could have stuck the word ordination in there instead of blessing, stuff like that happened.
Quote

along with the most devote part of the Patriarchate, those would not let Caesar decide what was God's.  I agree with Solzhenitsyn: much of the persecusion by the Bolsheviks was to atone for the treatment of the Old Ritualists.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-PxVklqRBgUC&pg=PA144&dq=Moscow+1666+Antioch&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Moscow%201666%20Antioch&f=false

Not sure what you means about the Old Ritualists... a good friend of mine is an old ritualist. He went from being canonical (in ROCOR) to uncanonical. Let me put this very nicely: even when he was canonical, he was a stubborn person to debate with. That was just him though. I've heard nothing but wonderful things about the folks in Erie. I don't know what went on in Russia back then, I've tried to make some sense of it all but its pretty confusing. If they were as stubborn as my friend, well good luck :P

Quote
St. Peter at Antioch, unlike his successor at Rome, never claimed to be infallible. And since the Pope of Alexadria was present, what business did Antioch have to preside?

Never knew that the Patriarch of Alexandria was at the Moscow Council of 1666. I dunno what business he (Antioch) had in presiding... I think his name was Ignatius? I also think he was pretty brilliant and well renowned back then. If so, that was probably the reason they had preside.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #94 on: April 27, 2010, 12:24:08 AM »


But now we see that while such ordinations are not frequent occurrences in the life of the Church, we cannot label them uncanonical (I think?)  Not sure what this would mean for bishops who ordain such priests a second time?



No, as I argued, the commentaries are often just as authoritative as the canons themselves. I still maintain that cluster ordinations are uncanonical.
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #95 on: April 27, 2010, 12:27:11 AM »
Christos Voskrese, Father!
[
Quote
So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..
Don't know where that would be: Russia has only one instance of it.

Ireland and the whole British Isles performed single-consecrator episcopal ordinations for centuries.

When Saint Augustine arrived in England he asked Pope Gregory what he was to do about this - the Pope answered and told him to accept them as legit and he even advised Augustine himself to carry out single-bishop consecrations if 2 or 3 bishops could not be gathered.

At the back of my mind I believe this was the norm in Germanic countries and Gaul.... but I would need to check

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #96 on: April 27, 2010, 12:31:12 AM »

This topic just came up:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19811.msg424795/topicseen.html#msg424795

I'm sorry, the way the posts are quoted and replied to, I simply can't follow the discussion.

Skimming the post, I would agree that the Rudder is not the only or most authoritative collection of canons (I have said that before), but rather Rhalles and Potles and the Syntagma in Fourteen Titles are probably better is what we were taught at SVS.  I can't read Greek fluently, but the absence of all of Zonaras's and Balsamon's commentary is a deficiency in the Rudder. Still, the Rudder is a convenient compilation for quick reference, and St Nikodemos's commentary is authoritative and a witness to the canonical tradition, even if it is not the only source or the best source.

Quote
Boojamra's approach seems reductionist, as did Fr Joseph Allen's torturous case he raised in the book "Vested in Grace" where he tries to argue for twice-married clergy and other things based on appeals to precedents in the past where exceptions were raised.  This is a foreign methodology.

also breaks the principle: exception makes the rule.[/quote]

I am not sure what you are getting at, but I will state clearly that there is no concept of precedence in the canonical tradition, and so appeals to exceptions in the past (i.e. economies) is somewhat pointless and foreign. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2010, 12:34:56 AM »
Christos Voskrese, Father!
[
Quote
So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..
Don't know where that would be: Russia has only one instance of it.

Ireland and the whole British Isles performed single-consecrator episcopal ordinations for centuries.

When Saint Augustine arrived in England he asked Pope Gregory what he was to do about this - the Pope answered and told him to accept them as legit and he even advised Augustine himself to carry out single-bishop consecrations if 2 or 3 bishops could not be gathered.

At the back of my mind I believe this was the norm in Germanic countries and Gaul.... but I would need to check

There is no reason that a single-handed consecration could not be considered valid, but single-handed consecrations violate the collegial principle and are thus deemed uncanonical. In The Struggle Against Ecumenism, there is described the case of a bishop who did single-handed consecrations in two cases during the Greek War of Independence owing to difficulties.  The first consecration was accepted by a Synod after the fact, giving the collegiality to the ordination.  The other was deemed to be unnecessary and thus without effect, and the bishop was censured in some way, although later this was overturned and the consecrated bishop was accepted.  The point being that what is most important is not the validity of the act considered per se but the fidelity to the collegial and catholic witness of the Church.

If anyone knows more about the case I cite, I would welcome discussion of it in case I am off in any detail.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 12:35:14 AM by Fr. Anastasios »
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2010, 12:42:35 AM »
I try not to make statements like "that's against the canons" but sometimes I get lazy or honestly forgetful or rushed.  It's always good to cite one's sources.  The problem with a forum like this is on the one hand, this is informal discussion.  It would be tiresome to cite everything. On the other hand, sometimes people make statements that just require proof.  That is why we allow moderators to issue such requests.  Not everyone agrees with when the moderators issue such requests, but I think the principle that we should be careful what we say and avoid generalities stands.  I myself try to be aware of when I make generalities and seeing how my statement "they are uncanonical" required a follow-up discussion, it is a reminder of my need to be vigilant, and I hope others do as well.  We all can make mistakes, get confused, or overgeneralize.
Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #99 on: April 27, 2010, 12:52:19 AM »


But now we see that while such ordinations are not frequent occurrences in the life of the Church, we cannot label them uncanonical (I think?)  Not sure what this would mean for bishops who ordain such priests a second time?



No, as I argued, the commentaries are often just as authoritative as the canons themselves. I still maintain that cluster ordinations are uncanonical.

It's a moot point.  The canons are the considered conciliar decisions of usually several hundred bishops.  The commentary is the opinion of one man.

Speaking personally, I would not refuse to serve Liturgy with a priest or bishop ordained in a multiple ordination.  I would consider him a priest/bishop even if the manner of ordination was irregular.  Presumably the clergy of Jerusalem (and the EP?) would refuse to serve with him..

But I would also serve Liturgy with a man who was ordained by an Orthodox bishop but had been received by chrismation or confession of faith.  Again the clergy of Jerusalem would presumably refuse since they would count him as unbaptized/.

We are looking at something over which the Churches do not fully agree.

Father, while I am writing, may I thank you for your illuminating message up above, No. 86

Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,517
  • St. Chrysostomos the New
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #100 on: April 27, 2010, 01:20:04 AM »


But now we see that while such ordinations are not frequent occurrences in the life of the Church, we cannot label them uncanonical (I think?)  Not sure what this would mean for bishops who ordain such priests a second time?



No, as I argued, the commentaries are often just as authoritative as the canons themselves. I still maintain that cluster ordinations are uncanonical.

It's a moot point.  The canons are the considered conciliar decisions of usually several hundred bishops.  The commentary is the opinion of one man.

Speaking personally, I would not refuse to serve Liturgy with a priest or bishop ordained in a multiple ordination.  I would consider him a priest/bishop even if the manner of ordination was irregular.  Presumably the clergy of Jerusalem (and the EP?) would refuse to serve with him..

But I would also serve Liturgy with a man who was ordained by an Orthodox bishop but had been received by chrismation or confession of faith.  Again the clergy of Jerusalem would presumably refuse since they would count him as unbaptized/.

We are looking at something over which the Churches do not fully agree.

Father, while I am writing, may I thank you for your illuminating message up above, No. 86

You're welcome! I'm glad something I wrote could be useful, because far too often I think I just write too much.

So we don't have to belabor the point, would you state that this is a fair assessment of where we stand on this issue?

1) I agree with you that there is some disagreement over this by the Churches--I think that is a demonstrable fact given that Antioch did the consecrations and other cluster ordinations.

2) I still don't agree that it's moot, the commentary on the canons may be by one man, but at least in the case of Zonaras and Balsamon, they simply are taken as equal to the canons themselves, and bishops have recourse to their statements regularly across the world, when applying canons, which gives them their own kind of ecumenicity. You have the opinion that the canons outweigh the commentary because the commentary was not voted on in a Synod.

3) I will submit for the sake of discussion that St Nikodemos's commentary is not given the same weight as Balsamon and Zonaras (i.e. ecumenicity due to centuries of acceptance and use) but his opinion is taken seriously. Obviously, that his opinion is not taken on the same level as B. and Z. is proven by the fact that Antioch ignored his commentary. So I think we agree on that point.

4) I would not take it on myself to not serve with people I am in communion with, who had problematic ordinations IMO.  I would trust the Church's judgment, as I think you are saying you would. So I think we agree on that point that we would let the Church decide, not our own reasoning.

Is that a fair summation of our agreements and divergences?

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism and may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2010, 02:01:14 AM »
When I kept saying "it's against the canons" what I meant in reality was the spirit of the canons, the rules, what we do in the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example one could say "Rd. Ioann, why are you dressed up like a deacon, that's uncanonical, that's against the canons!" That person isn't implying there is a specific canon against me doing so, they are implying that what I am doing is wrong, never done before, something that just is not done.

I literally have read the whole Rudder in the past 48 hours. I can come up with no canon that says multiple ordinations are invalid. However, does this mean that this is still uncanonical, of course, because it's against the s p i r i t of the canons, ie: introducing something that has just never been done before in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Any logical person can go through my posts in this thread and can see that I say that, and furthermore that I refuse to pass on judgment to the Antiocheans as it is not my place... I say that twice. To that end, I'd like to thank ialmisry for his statement:

Quote
In both cases, the condemnation in the East has been clear and consistent during the first millennium. If mass ordination was common, it would seem someone would know in the East to condemn it. Yet we find no such thing.

However, one Orthodox Council - the Moscow Council of 1666 did condemn it. And the presider at that Council was the Patriarch of Antioch.

Folks, this is now getting to be a bit redundant, seeing that all I am doing is repeating myself. This will be the final post I will make concerning this subject.... unless of course the discussion begins to go on a road that actually leads somewhere.

I find that explanation acceptable as a defense of why it's not necessary for us to have the formal word of a written canon to deem something such as cluster ordinations uncanonical.  Thank you.

That said, I'm still troubled by your repeated suggestion that Antioch's violation of the canons, in spirit or according to the letter, makes the Antiochian Church potentially schismatic.  The accusation of schism against an Orthodox Christian communion represented by so many members of this forum is a charge we on the moderator team take very seriously, particularly since such charges have the potential of inflaming some virulent passions that can disrupt the peace of the forum.  This doesn't mean that we necessarily forbid such allegations of schism, however.  If the accuser makes a good faith attempt to present factual evidence to support his claim, we will permit him to make his case, but he had better be able to provide the evidence, lest he be seen as merely stirring up trouble.

As I see it, you made the effort to support your insinuation that the Church of Antioch possibly put itself in schism by performing multiple episcopal ordinations in one liturgy, so I will not pursue any more action against you.  Just be aware that loaded questions, such as those you asked on this thread, do have the same potential of inflaming passions as blatant accusations, so please be careful how you voice your questions in the future.  Thank you.

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #102 on: April 27, 2010, 03:00:52 AM »
Quote

In other words, what you think they should say, rather than what they say.

Gesh LOL. I know I promised I wouldn't respond to any of this anymore

It was the spirit of what you said, rather than what you said. :P

Quote
but come on, I said it up there, and Fr. Anastasios also said it:
Quote
I would stand by my assertion that in the received tradition of Orthodoxy, these multiple ordinations are uncanonical...

I think now the discussion is verging into "Is something uncanonical if there is no specific Canon to back it up."

That it might.

I should think there is something about impersonating clergy.  There is in the law.

Your probably right... could you provide me with something. Ok, let me give another example "That priest is serving Proskomedia outside the Altar, and he's pausing like it's some sort of demonstration, that uncanonical!" This does happen in some places, it happened at a local parish over here and people said (they were Greeks) it's "AntiKanoniko" Against the rules. If you can find a Canon even about how to serve Proskomedia in the first place, be my guest  :P

Since I find nothing uncanonical nor anticanonical-or, for that matter unOrthodox-about serving Proskomedia outside the Altar, in particular if the priest is demonstrating what the Church is doing to prepare the Euchariest, I don't have the urge to find a Canon.


Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Never heard that before... could you provide a scriputal passage, and we'd have to read it in the original Greek to see what it really says. What word is used for ordination etc, it could have said someone blessed them to do something, and our friendly Anglican 16th century translators could have stuck the word ordination in there instead of blessing, stuff like that happened.

Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου

along with the most devote part of the Patriarchate, those would not let Caesar decide what was God's.  I agree with Solzhenitsyn: much of the persecusion by the Bolsheviks was to atone for the treatment of the Old Ritualists.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-PxVklqRBgUC&pg=PA144&dq=Moscow+1666+Antioch&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Moscow%201666%20Antioch&f=false

Not sure what you means about the Old Ritualists... a good friend of mine is an old ritualist. He went from being canonical (in ROCOR)

When?

Quote
to uncanonical. Let me put this very nicely: even when he was canonical, he was a stubborn person to debate with. That was just him though. I've heard nothing but wonderful things about the folks in Erie. I don't know what went on in Russia back then, I've tried to make some sense of it all but its pretty confusing. If they were as stubborn as my friend, well good luck :P

St. Peter at Antioch, unlike his successor at Rome, never claimed to be infallible. And since the Pope of Alexadria was present, what business did Antioch have to preside?

Never knew that the Patriarch of Alexandria was at the Moscow Council of 1666. I dunno what business he (Antioch) had in presiding... I think his name was Ignatius?

No.  Macarius III.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline pensateomnia

  • Bibliophylax
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,360
  • metron ariston
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #103 on: April 27, 2010, 10:07:59 AM »
Dear Pensateomnia,  we are all indebted to you for searching out this material and presenting it on the Forum.  Thank you!  Much appreciated!

You're welcome.

Btw, does your screen name mean "Think all things"?

Yes. I would translate it as "Y'all, think about/consider/weigh all things!" as per ecclesiastical Latin.

As for the larger issues: It's mainly a question of one's hermeneutical approach to the canons and Tradition in general. I see several problem's with the pro-cluster argument/hermeneutic:

1) Arguments from silence don't show that a practice is in accordance with Tradition.

2) There's no way to know if the East had any idea about the cluster ordinations that were going on in 9th to 10th century Southern Italy. In fact, it seems more likely that someone like St. Photios did not know, since his familiarity with Roman customs pretty much extends only to Rome's actions in Thrace.

3) Regardless, I don't know if most people (including ialmisry) want to turn 9th or 10th century Southern Italian manuscripts into the standard guide for Orthodox ordinations. If so, then we better start ordaining deaconesses in the altar, per the euchologia of the same provenance.

4) The allegedly positive evidence (i.e the ambiguity of grammatical number in early sources like the Euchologion of Serapion) relates to ordinations to the presbyterate, not to the episcopacy. In fact, one of the points of the first article was that cluster ordinations are, perhaps, reflective of the earliest understanding of the collegium of the presbyterate -- not the Episcopacy. So, the article seems to raise more issues than it solves when it comes to cluster ordinations of bishops. In fact, as far as I know, Roman Catholics do not perform cluster ordinations when raising a priest to the Episcopal office. I imagine the Armenians probably have the same practice. It just doesn't jive with the rite itself or with the Ignatian understanding of the Episcopacy.

All that aside, the place of cluster ordinations in the Orthodox canonical tradition is far less pressing than, say, reception by vesting or intercommunion (both not uncommon in certain areas), so I don't think it's on anybody's list of issues for debate.
But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

Offline Chtets Ioann

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #104 on: April 27, 2010, 02:04:18 PM »
Quote
Since I find nothing uncanonical nor anticanonical-or, for that matter unOrthodox-about serving Proskomedia outside the Altar, in particular if the priest is demonstrating what the Church is doing to prepare the Euchariest, I don't have the urge to find a Canon.

Even if you had the urge to find a Canon, there just isn't a Canon for you to find. The reason why it's improper is because it doesn't reflect the symbolism of the Proskomedia. One priest told me that Proskomedia is a mystery, indeed I've read that in many liturgical hand books. It represents the Nativity of Christ in the flesh (that's why there's an Icon of the Nativity on the Proskomedia) and just as the Nativity took place in a secret manner, in a cave, only announced to the shepherds, and glorified by them, the wise men, and the angels... in the same manner Proskomedia is done in secret, by the priest and the deacon without any people who are on the other side of the iconscrean noticing.

Quote
Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου

Acts is in the plural, however this could be interpreted in the following manner: "Metropolitan Jonah raised three men to the priesthood..." (in three days) It says that they laid their hands on them, but as far as how fast or when, it doesn't mention any of that. As far as the quote from Timothy, it says that he was raised to a Presbyter.
Quote
Not sure what you means about the Old Ritualists... a good friend of mine is an old ritualist. He went from being canonical (in ROCOR)

When?

In 2008. The reason of his schisming had only to do with New vs. Old Rite.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #105 on: April 27, 2010, 02:36:13 PM »
Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Never heard that before... could you provide a scriputal passage, and we'd have to read it in the original Greek to see what it really says. What word is used for ordination etc, it could have said someone blessed them to do something, and our friendly Anglican 16th century translators could have stuck the word ordination in there instead of blessing, stuff like that happened.

Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου
And Jesus shared Communion with His disciples after supper, a practice the Church continued through at least the end of the first century, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:17-23.  Yet the Holy Spirit had very good reason to lead the Church to abandon that practice and forbid the eating of anything within the hours prior to receiving Holy Communion.  Why do you then insist that some practice must be okay because it was (supposedly) practiced by Jesus and the Apostles, even though the practice has long since been banished from the Church?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,314
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #106 on: April 27, 2010, 02:45:26 PM »
Even if you had the urge to find a Canon, there just isn't a Canon for you to find. The reason why it's improper is because it doesn't reflect the symbolism of the Proskomedia. One priest told me that Proskomedia is a mystery, indeed I've read that in many liturgical hand books. It represents the Nativity of Christ in the flesh (that's why there's an Icon of the Nativity on the Proskomedia) and just as the Nativity took place in a secret manner, in a cave, only announced to the shepherds, and glorified by them, the wise men, and the angels... in the same manner Proskomedia is done in secret, by the priest and the deacon without any people who are on the other side of the iconscrean noticing. 

It currently is paralleled to the Nativity, yes, but the older tradition was to have an icon of the Extreme Humility.

Either way, according to the ancient understanding, the Proskomedia should not be performed in the Altar at all - originally it was performed in a different area of the Church, and the gifts were brought into the Church by the Deacons at the Great Entrance.  The Sanctuary/Altar is the place for the prepared sacrifice, not to prepare it.  The gifts (bread and wine) would be taken to the Church's treasury-house, where they would be prepared for the Liturgy out of sight of even the chief celebrants, and then brought into the Church.

Nevertheless, the ultimate authority lies with the diocesan bishop - if he gives the blessing for Proskomedia to be performed outside the Altar, then go do it, and if he does not, then it is forbidden.
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #107 on: April 27, 2010, 04:17:26 PM »
Dear Pensateomnia,  we are all indebted to you for searching out this material and presenting it on the Forum.  Thank you!  Much appreciated!

You're welcome.

Btw, does your screen name mean "Think all things"?

Yes. I would translate it as "Y'all, think about/consider/weigh all things!" as per ecclesiastical Latin.

As for the larger issues: It's mainly a question of one's hermeneutical approach to the canons and Tradition in general. I see several problem's with the pro-cluster argument/hermeneutic:

1) Arguments from silence don't show that a practice is in accordance with Tradition.

2) There's no way to know if the East had any idea about the cluster ordinations that were going on in 9th to 10th century Southern Italy. In fact, it seems more likely that someone like St. Photios did not know, since his familiarity with Roman customs pretty much extends only to Rome's actions in Thrace.

3) Regardless, I don't know if most people (including ialmisry) want to turn 9th or 10th century Southern Italian manuscripts into the standard guide for Orthodox ordinations. If so, then we better start ordaining deaconesses in the altar, per the euchologia of the same provenance.

So? Why would the world end?

Quote
4) The allegedly positive evidence (i.e the ambiguity of grammatical number in early sources like the Euchologion of Serapion) relates to ordinations to the presbyterate, not to the episcopacy. In fact, one of the points of the first article was that cluster ordinations are, perhaps, reflective of the earliest understanding of the collegium of the presbyterate -- not the Episcopacy. So, the article seems to raise more issues than it solves when it comes to cluster ordinations of bishops. In fact, as far as I know, Roman Catholics do not perform cluster ordinations when raising a priest to the Episcopal office. I imagine the Armenians probably have the same practice. It just doesn't jive with the rite itself or with the Ignatian understanding of the Episcopacy.

All that aside, the place of cluster ordinations in the Orthodox canonical tradition is far less pressing than, say, reception by vesting or intercommunion (both not uncommon in certain areas), so I don't think it's on anybody's list of issues for debate.
I'd agree there.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #108 on: April 27, 2010, 04:26:02 PM »
Since I find nothing uncanonical nor anticanonical-or, for that matter unOrthodox-about serving Proskomedia outside the Altar, in particular if the priest is demonstrating what the Church is doing to prepare the Euchariest, I don't have the urge to find a Canon.

Even if you had the urge to find a Canon, there just isn't a Canon for you to find. The reason why it's improper is because it doesn't reflect the symbolism of the Proskomedia.

I see Rome is speaking again.

Quote
One priest told me that Proskomedia is a mystery, indeed I've read that in many liturgical hand books. It represents the Nativity of Christ in the flesh (that's why there's an Icon of the Nativity on the Proskomedia) and just as the Nativity took place in a secret manner, in a cave, only announced to the shepherds, and glorified by them, the wise men, and the angels... in the same manner Proskomedia is done in secret, by the priest and the deacon without any people who are on the other side of the iconscrean noticing.

The nonsense of clericalism.

Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου

Acts is in the plural, however this could be interpreted in the following manner: "Metropolitan Jonah raised three men to the priesthood..." (in three days)

No, the context won't allow that.

Quote
It says that they laid their hands on them, but as far as how fast or when, it doesn't mention any of that.

Unless you are trying to read something into it, yes its does.

Quote
As far as the quote from Timothy, it says that he was raised to a Presbyter.

No, he was a bishop, which at the time (and in some ways, stll is=presbyter): note how qualifications for bishop and deacon are outlined but nothing on priests.  They were not established yet as a grade of the ordained priesthood yet.

]Not sure what you means about the Old Ritualists... a good friend of mine is an old ritualist. He went from being canonical (in ROCOR)

When?

In 2008. The reason of his schisming had only to do with New vs. Old Rite.
In 2008 ROCOR wasn't canonical in the usual sense of the word.  Or did he leave after the Act of Canonical Communion was signed?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 04:27:17 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #109 on: April 27, 2010, 04:30:48 PM »
Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Never heard that before... could you provide a scriputal passage, and we'd have to read it in the original Greek to see what it really says. What word is used for ordination etc, it could have said someone blessed them to do something, and our friendly Anglican 16th century translators could have stuck the word ordination in there instead of blessing, stuff like that happened.

Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου
And Jesus shared Communion with His disciples after supper, a practice the Church continued through at least the end of the first century, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:17-23.  Yet the Holy Spirit had very good reason to lead the Church to abandon that practice and forbid the eating of anything within the hours prior to receiving Holy Communion.  Why do you then insist that some practice must be okay because it was (supposedly) practiced by Jesus and the Apostles, even though the practice has long since been banished from the Church?
We have testimony from the first century (including I Corinthians 11) to the present practice, IIRC.  We have yet to see multiple ordinations banished from the Church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2010, 04:49:52 PM »
Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Never heard that before... could you provide a scriputal passage, and we'd have to read it in the original Greek to see what it really says. What word is used for ordination etc, it could have said someone blessed them to do something, and our friendly Anglican 16th century translators could have stuck the word ordination in there instead of blessing, stuff like that happened.

Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου
And Jesus shared Communion with His disciples after supper, a practice the Church continued through at least the end of the first century, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:17-23.  Yet the Holy Spirit had very good reason to lead the Church to abandon that practice and forbid the eating of anything within the hours prior to receiving Holy Communion.  Why do you then insist that some practice must be okay because it was (supposedly) practiced by Jesus and the Apostles, even though the practice has long since been banished from the Church?

By "supposedly practiced by Jesus and the Apostles," surely you are not questioning the testimony of the Holy Scriptures? And, if it was indeed practiced by Jesus and His Apostles, that practice was OK was it not? If another practice came into being (as it did), would it not be logical to consider that the newer practice superseded but did not invalidate the earlier practice?

« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 04:50:16 PM by Second Chance »

Offline serb1389

  • Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,123
  • Save Oh Lord your People! And Bless us all!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2010, 05:20:49 PM »
Here's the promised info. After the Antiochians performed mass ordinations of the Evangelical Orthodox, there were two articles that appeared in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. They were:

  • Boojamra, John L., and Paul D. Garrett. "Cluster ordinations : investigation into an ecclesiastical non-issue." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32, no. 1 (January 1, 1988): 72-87.
  • Butler, Michael. "Cluster ordinations" : a reply to Boojamra and Garrett." St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 32, no. 4 (January 1, 1988): 390-395.

The first claims this is a non-issue. It's a pretty involved argument, but basically they show that the earliest evidence (from the Fathers and Canons) is inconclusive or silent. No early source condemns cluster ordinations; various early sources speak of ordinands in the singular and/or plural, especially when it comes to the presbyterate; the Eastern polemics against the West (e.g. St. Photius) do not attack cluster ordinations, even though they were common in the West, etc. Finally, they argue on a theological (as well as historical) level that the presbyterate is fundamentally collegial in nature (a la the Didascalia Apostolorum), whereas the Episcopate is monarchial (a la St. Ignatius). Thus, cluster ordinations to priestly offices other than Bishop offer no theological inconsistency.

That aside, the first article does admit that later sources condemn the practice, most notably St Symeon of Thessaloniki, the Moscow Synod of 1666, and St. Nikodemos of Mt. Athos. The authors of the first article put forth arguments for why these condemnations should not be taken as binding. I've summarized them below, along with the second article's rebuttal.

St. Symeon of Thessalonika (15th century), who calls it an "innovation" and something which has not been received in the East. The first article argues this is basically just an anti-Jacobite polemic. The second article counters that regardless of motive it is a clear testimony of the received tradition at the time.

The Moscow Synod of 1666, "which stated with reference to cluster ordinations among the Little Russians that 'in the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo and no such custom,'" (p. 80). The first article dismisses this because the Synod was "petty and ludicrous" and mainly concerned on this point with countering the Jacobites (p. 80). The second article counters by arguing that "hid­den agendas notwithstanding, the synod's condemnation stands intact, because indeed 'in the Holy Eastern Church there is no such ordo and no such custom,'" (p. 392).

St Nikodemos the Hagiorite (circa 1800), whose "commentary forbidding multiple ordination is completely unrelated to the canon [Apostolic Canon 58] which forbids more than one ordination of the same person to the same office" (p. 76). In other words, the first article says this interpretation is an interpolation. The second article counters: this does "not invalidate the commentary. A case can be made for accepting the interpretation of St Nicodemus of this canon based on his status as a Father of the Church and the codifier of the Pedalion. But even if we precind from the question of the Hagiorite's spiritual authority, might we not see here an attempt to find a canonical mooring for a practice which was without a formal canonical basis, but which was nevertheless an established practice of the Church?" (p. 391).

The first article concludes:

Quote
No less avoidable is the conclusion that nothing can be proved from the silence of early documents regarding the number of people ordained at a given time. In fact, patristic texts and descriptions of services come close enough in sense and purpose to cluster ordination. What remains absolutely clear, however, is that there is no prohibition against it in ecumenical canon law, ecclesiastical practice, in patristic commentaries on pertinent scriptural passages, even the often petty theological polemics which have cluttered Orthodox and Roman Catholic relationships since the ninth century; that it had been done in the past and at least in Russia during the seventeenth century; that it is presently done today among Roman Catholics without any objections from the Orthodox; that those among the Orthodox who regard Roman Catholic sacraments as valid (in whatever sense) have received former Roman clerics in their orders with no [re]ordination, clerics who were almost surely multiply ordained in their former obedience; that it is presently performed, at least at the diaconal level, in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria.

In the light of the silence of history, tradition, and the canons, as well as the more positive rubrical affirmation, we are driven to suggest that the objections to multiple ordinations is rooted in something other than the tradition and life of the Church.

The second article concludes:

Quote
If the early evidence is inconclusive (as B & G admit), the later evidence is very clear: cluster ordination was not the practice of the Eastern Church. Furthermore, what is significantly missing from B & G's argument is the evidence of Byzantine and Slavic service books. Are there rubrics or allowances in any service books of any time period unambiguously to support cluster ordinations? And perhaps most importantly, how can cluster ordination be defended as a legitimate practice today since it is not the current practice of the Church, and on the basis of B & G's own evidence, it has not been the Church's practice for 1300 years?

....
Β & G conclude their article by saying, "in light of the silence of history, tradition, and the canons, as well as the more positive rubrical affirmation, we are driven to suggest that the objections to multiple ordinations is rooted in something other than the tradition and life of the Church" (p. 87).
It is precisely Tradition and the life of the Church which raises objection to multiple ordination. Many of Β & G's own sources say as much. That they can make such a statement suggests to me that Boojamra and Garrett have a jaundiced view of Tradition, little respect for the particular traditions (like singular ordinations) which embody it, and that their article represents an attempt to refute or deny the practice and the life of the Church with which their views on cluster ordinations are clearly at odds.

I have both of these articles, if anyone is interested in reading them as a PDF just PM me or email me.  This is what I was promising in an earlier post (above). 

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2010, 05:22:19 PM »
I have both of these articles, if anyone is interested in reading them as a PDF just PM me or email me.  This is what I was promising in an earlier post (above). 
Christ is risen!
I'll take you up on that.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2010, 06:51:36 PM »
Sorry, the Church that consecrated St. Paul and St. Barnabus together was the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Never heard that before... could you provide a scriputal passage, and we'd have to read it in the original Greek to see what it really says. What word is used for ordination etc, it could have said someone blessed them to do something, and our friendly Anglican 16th century translators could have stuck the word ordination in there instead of blessing, stuff like that happened.

Don't blame the Anglicans. Acts 13:3 τότε νηστεύσαντες καὶ προσευξάμενοι καὶ ἐπιθέντες αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας ἀπέλυσαν.  Cf. I Tim. 4:14 μὴ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἐν σοὶ χαρίσματος, ὃ ἐδόθη σοι διὰ προφητείας μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου
And Jesus shared Communion with His disciples after supper, a practice the Church continued through at least the end of the first century, as evidenced in 1 Corinthians 11:17-23.  Yet the Holy Spirit had very good reason to lead the Church to abandon that practice and forbid the eating of anything within the hours prior to receiving Holy Communion.  Why do you then insist that some practice must be okay because it was (supposedly) practiced by Jesus and the Apostles, even though the practice has long since been banished from the Church?

By "supposedly practiced by Jesus and the Apostles," surely you are not questioning the testimony of the Holy Scriptures?
No.  I included the word "supposedly" as a parenthetical to address any practice someone may attribute falsely to Jesus and the Apostles based on a faulty reading of the Gospel and Epistles.

And, if it was indeed practiced by Jesus and His Apostles, that practice was OK was it not? If another practice came into being (as it did), would it not be logical to consider that the newer practice superseded but did not invalidate the earlier practice?
I'm not sure I buy into this concept of validity that you bring up with your use of the word "invalidate".  I'm just arguing that the Holy Spirit had good reason to inspire the Church to change some of her practices and that we need to follow the authority of the Church when she does this.  Citing the authority of the Scriptures has its benefits, but when we do this to prove that a practice is OK in ignorance or defiance of the Church's later disapproval of it (e.g., Communion after a meal), we run the risk of isolating the Scriptures from the rest of Holy Tradition and denying the Holy Spirit the authority to lead His Church.

In this case, we have someone citing the authority of Apostolic precedent to support his claim that multiple ordinations in one Liturgy are okay, despite the later tradition within the Church to not permit such ordinations or even recognize them as invalid, a tradition to which many have borne witness here.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 06:53:19 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2010, 08:01:57 PM »
In fact, one of the points of the first article was that cluster ordinations are, perhaps, reflective of the earliest understanding of the collegium of the presbyterate -- not the Episcopacy. So, the article seems to raise more issues than it solves when it comes to cluster ordinations of bishops. In fact, as far as I know, Roman Catholics do not perform cluster ordinations when raising a priest to the Episcopal office. I imagine the Armenians probably have the same practice. It just doesn't jive with the rite itself or with the Ignatian understanding of the Episcopacy.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, we do perform cluster ordinations of bishops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY7zpgVuz3o&feature=player_profilepage&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2FArmenianChurch%23p%2Fu%2F1%2FBY7zpgVuz3o

Not only that, but in the last few days I've discovered that cluster ordinations of bishops are also performed by the other OO Churches:

Coptic Orthodox Church:

http://dbebawy.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/coptic-ordinations-pentecost-2009/


Syriac Orthodox Church:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9404.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9409.0.html



Malankara Orthodox Church:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19799.0.html



Ethiopian Orthodox Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI_8wWsL_xs



I have to comment on how unusual it is to find this sort of uniformity among the OO's.  We've been very isolated from each other over the centuries and there has been no "OO empire" or other unifying authority to force any sort of conformity upon us.  Consequently, we have each preserved virtually unchanged very ancient traditions from each of our own parts of the world.  Diversity in practice is one of our distinguishing characteristics.  We differ in a lot of practices, from the bread we use in communion to the shape of our altars.  We differ in our liturgical vestments and even in our ranks of clergy:  Armenians don't have metropolitans, but Copts do; Copts and other non-Armenians don't have vartabeds, but Armenians do. 

And yet here we all allow cluster ordinations.  That's just weird.  I would expect some of our Churches to allow it and others to ban it like the EO's.  And yet, none of us ban it.  I have to say that I am pleased that I finally found a uniform practice.  Or perhaps I should say a uniform lack of a ban on a practice.   :)

In any event, I would think that this would be evidence that at least prior to the fifth century there was no ban anywhere on cluster ordination.  I mean if such a ban existed, at least one of the OO Churches would have preserved it.  Also, in all the polemics going back and forth between the EO's and OO's during the centuries following Chalcedon, you would think there would be some mention of it by the EO's if they felt it was a bad practice.  Goodness knows, just about everything else in which we differ was picked on.  There is an article floating around on this forum in which Fr. John Erickson mentions an EO polemic which condemns the Armenians for giving up dairy during the week before Lent, for goodness sakes.  And yet cluster ordinations of bishops were never condemned by the EO's during all that time. 

I don't know.  I'm obviously not an expert on this, but I think this supports the possibility that the EO ban on cluster ordinations is something that developed rather late.  I could be wrong.  Maybe someone needs to do a doctoral thesis on this or something.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2010, 09:00:27 PM »
In fact, one of the points of the first article was that cluster ordinations are, perhaps, reflective of the earliest understanding of the collegium of the presbyterate -- not the Episcopacy. So, the article seems to raise more issues than it solves when it comes to cluster ordinations of bishops. In fact, as far as I know, Roman Catholics do not perform cluster ordinations when raising a priest to the Episcopal office. I imagine the Armenians probably have the same practice. It just doesn't jive with the rite itself or with the Ignatian understanding of the Episcopacy.

Actually, as I pointed out earlier, we do perform cluster ordinations of bishops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY7zpgVuz3o&feature=player_profilepage&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2FArmenianChurch%23p%2Fu%2F1%2FBY7zpgVuz3o

Not only that, but in the last few days I've discovered that cluster ordinations of bishops are also performed by the other OO Churches:

Coptic Orthodox Church:

http://dbebawy.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/coptic-ordinations-pentecost-2009/


Syriac Orthodox Church:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9404.0.html

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9409.0.html



Malankara Orthodox Church:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19799.0.html



Ethiopian Orthodox Church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI_8wWsL_xs



I have to comment on how unusual it is to find this sort of uniformity among the OO's.  We've been very isolated from each other over the centuries and there has been no "OO empire" or other unifying authority to force any sort of conformity upon us.  Consequently, we have each preserved virtually unchanged very ancient traditions from each of our own parts of the world.  Diversity in practice is one of our distinguishing characteristics.  We differ in a lot of practices, from the bread we use in communion to the shape of our altars.  We differ in our liturgical vestments and even in our ranks of clergy:  Armenians don't have metropolitans, but Copts do; Copts and other non-Armenians don't have vartabeds, but Armenians do.

I think the Syriac malfone are similiar.

Quote
And yet here we all allow cluster ordinations.  That's just weird.  I would expect some of our Churches to allow it and others to ban it like the EO's.  And yet, none of us ban it.  I have to say that I am pleased that I finally found a uniform practice.  Or perhaps I should say a uniform lack of a ban on a practice.   :)

In any event, I would think that this would be evidence that at least prior to the fifth century there was no ban anywhere on cluster ordination.  I mean if such a ban existed, at least one of the OO Churches would have preserved it.  Also, in all the polemics going back and forth between the EO's and OO's during the centuries following Chalcedon, you would think there would be some mention of it by the EO's if they felt it was a bad practice.  Goodness knows, just about everything else in which we differ was picked on.  There is an article floating around on this forum in which Fr. John Erickson mentions an EO polemic which condemns the Armenians for giving up dairy during the week before Lent, for goodness sakes.  And yet cluster ordinations of bishops were never condemned by the EO's during all that time.  

I don't know.  I'm obviously not an expert on this, but I think this supports the possibility that the EO ban on cluster ordinations is something that developed rather late.  I could be wrong.  Maybe someone needs to do a doctoral thesis on this or something.
I'm wondering if this is on point:
Interesting bit on the autocephaly of Georgia:
Quote

The patriarch of Antioch, while ordaining Petros as kat'oghikos also gave him twelve bishops. [Thereafter] they went first to Constantinople where they received numerous gifts and the emperor's daughter, Helen (Heghine), and thence they went to Vaxt'ang. And the country was gladdened. The kat'oghikos sat at the church of Sion, in Mts'xet'a, which Vaxt'ang had built, and Samuel resided at the bishop's palace of Mts'xet'a. One bishop was stationed in Klarchet', one in Artahan, one in Jawaxet', one in Manklis, one in Bolnis (Bawghnis), one in Risha, one at the place named Saint Nino above the gate of Ujarma, one in Jeram, one in Ch'elt', one for two churches, Xornoyboj and at Agarak opposite Xunan. Vaxt'ang built a church at Nik'oz over the martyrium of Razhden, the Iranian nourisher of Vaxt'ang's first wife, [a man] who believed in Christ, was persecuted for the faith by the Iranians, but did not renounce Christ. They killed him for his good confession in the glory of Christ God, and the seat of a bishop was located on the site of his martyrium. Now Vaxt'ang had three sons and one daughter from [his wife] Helen. Then Vaxt'ang [85] dwelled at Ujarma, giving the greater part of the country [g91] to his senior son, Dach'i, and he married Xorandze, his senior sister, to the Armenian bdeshx, Bakur.
http://rbedrosian.com/gc5.htm

Note: the granting of the 12 bishops was to make the Catholicos fully ennabled to act as an autocephalos Church.
C. Peter ruled (467-474)
I wonder if "gave" means that he ordained.

Part of the differnce, whether it developed among the EO or OO, lies perhaps in the difference between the EO and OO episcopacy in much of their respective histories and jurisdictions.  The OO patriarchs often had to send groups of bishops into rather isolated areas.  As the EO became more and more "Polis" centric, crowds of titular bishops (such as Patriarch Balsamon "of Antioch") lagging about didn't create such a need of mass ordinations: adding one more absetee bishop at the EP's court didn't have a problem to be ordained one at time.  There was no pressing need for more bishops there (there are canons against bishops lingering at Constantinople, not that they were enforced), plenty of bishops on hand to ordain, so no scheduling problems to get everyone together, as no one was going afar anyways.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 09:01:14 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #116 on: April 28, 2010, 01:17:18 AM »
Wasn't St. James Barradaeus ordained along with another bishop?  The other bishop preached to the Arabs, but I can't recall his name.  You know who I'm talking about.  St. Theodora arranged for it.  Can you find sources on this?  Would there be anything which tells whether they were ordained during the same ceremony?

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,461
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2010, 01:39:35 AM »
Looking at Fr. Samuel's book, pages 176-177, it says: "The consecration of Jacob and Theodore was performed by Theodosius of Alexandria under the Patronage of empress Theodora, at the request of al-Harith ibn Jabadah, the ruler of the Arab Christians."  This happened in 542.  It doesn't specify exactly how it was done, though.  One would think, though, that if the consecrations were done separately, the two men would not always be mentioned together whenever one hears about how St. James came about being ordained.  And yet whenever you read about St. James, it always mentions how he was consecrated along with this other man.

Offline Subdeacon Michael

  • Subdeacon Cyprian
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 260
    • The Orthodox Church of the Gauls on Facebook
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Orthodox Church of the Gauls
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2010, 06:20:34 PM »
In 2008 ROCOR wasn't canonical in the usual sense of the word.

How so?
'It was not a question of any tolerance of this or that custom, but of the restoration within universal Orthodoxy of the legitimate, immortal, and Orthodox face of the West.' - St John of Saint-Denis (Eugraph Kovalevsky)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,541
Re: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch
« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2010, 07:34:18 PM »
In 2008 ROCOR wasn't canonical in the usual sense of the word.

How so?

My bad. Mixed up the date of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion (the Feast of the Ascension, May 17, 2007)
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth