OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 02, 2014, 09:18:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bishops Consecrations in Antioch  (Read 6179 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #90 on: April 27, 2010, 12:12:17 AM »

Here's the promised info. After the Antiochians performed mass ordinations of the Evangelical Orthodox, there were two articles that appeared in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly.

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

Btw, does your screen name mean "Think all things"?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #91 on: April 27, 2010, 12:19:13 AM »

Christos Voskrese, Father!

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

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

Not exactly: we DO have canons on that.


Quote
So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..
Don't know where that would be: Russia has only one instance of it.
Logged

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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #92 on: April 27, 2010, 12:20:08 AM »

When I kept saying "it's against the canons" what I meant in reality was the spirit of the canons,

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

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

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

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

Logged
Chtets Ioann
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR - Diocese of Canada
Posts: 125



« Reply #93 on: April 27, 2010, 12:23:07 AM »

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #94 on: April 27, 2010, 12:24:08 AM »



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



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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #95 on: April 27, 2010, 12:27:11 AM »

Christos Voskrese, Father!
[
Quote
So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..
Don't know where that would be: Russia has only one instance of it.

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

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

At the back of my mind I believe this was the norm in Germanic countries and Gaul.... but I would need to check
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 27, 2010, 12:31:12 AM »


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

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

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

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

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

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2010, 12:34:56 AM »

Christos Voskrese, Father!
[
Quote
So too would the consecration of a bishop by a single bishop - the norm for centuries in some parts of the Church..
Don't know where that would be: Russia has only one instance of it.

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

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

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

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

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

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2010, 12:42:35 AM »

I try not to make statements like "that's against the canons" but sometimes I get lazy or honestly forgetful or rushed.  It's always good to cite one's sources.  The problem with a forum like this is on the one hand, this is informal discussion.  It would be tiresome to cite everything. On the other hand, sometimes people make statements that just require proof.  That is why we allow moderators to issue such requests.  Not everyone agrees with when the moderators issue such requests, but I think the principle that we should be careful what we say and avoid generalities stands.  I myself try to be aware of when I make generalities and seeing how my statement "they are uncanonical" required a follow-up discussion, it is a reminder of my need to be vigilant, and I hope others do as well.  We all can make mistakes, get confused, or overgeneralize.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #99 on: April 27, 2010, 12:52:19 AM »



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



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

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

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

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

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

Father, while I am writing, may I thank you for your illuminating message up above, No. 86
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,462


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 27, 2010, 01:20:04 AM »



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that a fair summation of our agreements and divergences?

Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: April 27, 2010, 02:01:14 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- PeterTheAleut
Faith Issues Section Moderator
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #102 on: April 27, 2010, 03:00:52 AM »

Quote

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

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

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

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

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

That it might.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

When?

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

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

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

No.  Macarius III.

Logged

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
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,349


metron ariston


« Reply #103 on: April 27, 2010, 10:07:59 AM »

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

You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that aside, the place of cluster ordinations in the Orthodox canonical tradition is far less pressing than, say, reception by vesting or intercommunion (both not uncommon in certain areas), so I don't think it's on anybody's list of issues for debate.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Chtets Ioann
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: ROCOR - Diocese of Canada
Posts: 125



« Reply #104 on: April 27, 2010, 02:04:18 PM »

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

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

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

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

When?

In 2008. The reason of his schisming had only to do with New vs. Old Rite.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #105 on: April 27, 2010, 02:36:13 PM »

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,077


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #106 on: April 27, 2010, 02:45:26 PM »

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the ultimate authority lies with the diocesan bishop - if he gives the blessing for Proskomedia to be performed outside the Altar, then go do it, and if he does not, then it is forbidden.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #107 on: April 27, 2010, 04:17:26 PM »

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

You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So? Why would the world end?

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

All that aside, the place of cluster ordinations in the Orthodox canonical tradition is far less pressing than, say, reception by vesting or intercommunion (both not uncommon in certain areas), so I don't think it's on anybody's list of issues for debate.
I'd agree there.
Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #108 on: April 27, 2010, 04:26:02 PM »

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

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

I see Rome is speaking again.

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

The nonsense of clericalism.

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

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

No, the context won't allow that.

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

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

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

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

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

When?

In 2008. The reason of his schisming had only to do with New vs. Old Rite.
In 2008 ROCOR wasn't canonical in the usual sense of the word.  Or did he leave after the Act of Canonical Communion was signed?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 04:27:17 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #109 on: April 27, 2010, 04:30:48 PM »

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

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

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

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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,833



« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2010, 04:49:52 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,379


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2010, 05:20:49 PM »

Here's the promised info. After the Antiochians performed mass ordinations of the Evangelical Orthodox, there were two articles that appeared in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. They were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first article concludes:

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

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

The second article concludes:

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

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

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

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2010, 05:22:19 PM »

I have both of these articles, if anyone is interested in reading them as a PDF just PM me or email me.  This is what I was promising in an earlier post (above). 
Christ is risen!
I'll take you up on that.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,349


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2010, 06:51:36 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2010, 08:01:57 PM »

In fact, one of the points of the first article was that cluster ordinations are, perhaps, reflective of the earliest understanding of the collegium of the presbyterate -- not the Episcopacy. So, the article seems to raise more issues than it solves when it comes to cluster ordinations of bishops. In fact, as far as I know, Roman Catholics do not perform cluster ordinations when raising a priest to the Episcopal office. I imagine the Armenians probably have the same practice. It just doesn't jive with the rite itself or with the Ignatian understanding of the Episcopacy.

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

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

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

Coptic Orthodox Church:

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


Syriac Orthodox Church:

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

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



Malankara Orthodox Church:

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



Ethiopian Orthodox Church:

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



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

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

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

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

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2010, 09:00:27 PM »

In fact, one of the points of the first article was that cluster ordinations are, perhaps, reflective of the earliest understanding of the collegium of the presbyterate -- not the Episcopacy. So, the article seems to raise more issues than it solves when it comes to cluster ordinations of bishops. In fact, as far as I know, Roman Catholics do not perform cluster ordinations when raising a priest to the Episcopal office. I imagine the Armenians probably have the same practice. It just doesn't jive with the rite itself or with the Ignatian understanding of the Episcopacy.

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

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

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

Coptic Orthodox Church:

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


Syriac Orthodox Church:

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

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



Malankara Orthodox Church:

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



Ethiopian Orthodox Church:

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



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

I think the Syriac malfone are similiar.

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

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

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

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

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

Part of the differnce, whether it developed among the EO or OO, lies perhaps in the difference between the EO and OO episcopacy in much of their respective histories and jurisdictions.  The OO patriarchs often had to send groups of bishops into rather isolated areas.  As the EO became more and more "Polis" centric, crowds of titular bishops (such as Patriarch Balsamon "of Antioch") lagging about didn't create such a need of mass ordinations: adding one more absetee bishop at the EP's court didn't have a problem to be ordained one at time.  There was no pressing need for more bishops there (there are canons against bishops lingering at Constantinople, not that they were enforced), plenty of bishops on hand to ordain, so no scheduling problems to get everyone together, as no one was going afar anyways.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2010, 09:01:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #116 on: April 28, 2010, 01:17:18 AM »

Wasn't St. James Barradaeus ordained along with another bishop?  The other bishop preached to the Arabs, but I can't recall his name.  You know who I'm talking about.  St. Theodora arranged for it.  Can you find sources on this?  Would there be anything which tells whether they were ordained during the same ceremony?
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,657


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2010, 01:39:35 AM »

Looking at Fr. Samuel's book, pages 176-177, it says: "The consecration of Jacob and Theodore was performed by Theodosius of Alexandria under the Patronage of empress Theodora, at the request of al-Harith ibn Jabadah, the ruler of the Arab Christians."  This happened in 542.  It doesn't specify exactly how it was done, though.  One would think, though, that if the consecrations were done separately, the two men would not always be mentioned together whenever one hears about how St. James came about being ordained.  And yet whenever you read about St. James, it always mentions how he was consecrated along with this other man.
Logged

Subdeacon Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 195



« Reply #118 on: June 27, 2010, 06:20:34 PM »

In 2008 ROCOR wasn't canonical in the usual sense of the word.

How so?
Logged

'There is nothing upon earth holier, higher, grander, more solemn, more life-giving than the Liturgy. The church, at this particular time, becomes an earthly heaven; those who officiate represent Christ Himself, the angels, the cherubim, seraphim and apostles.' - St John of Kronstadt
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,866



« Reply #119 on: June 27, 2010, 07:34:18 PM »

In 2008 ROCOR wasn't canonical in the usual sense of the word.

How so?

My bad. Mixed up the date of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion (the Feast of the Ascension, May 17, 2007)
Logged

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
Tags: bishops Ordination cheval mort multiple ordinations 
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 57 queries.