Author Topic: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch  (Read 23152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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: 6,707
  • 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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,343
  • 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: 296
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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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: 41,385
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