Topic: Recognition of EO Orders

[Irish Hermit]

One member is using this for his signature:

"For Chalcedonians, please note that when I use honorifics such as "Father" or "His Grace" that I am doing so only because the mods demand it as a sign of "respect", not because I recognize you as having legitimate Holy Orders."

Is this the OO view of EO Orders?  I've had the impression from Fr Peter that our Orders are recognised.

[Father Peter]

EO Orders have always been recognised. Even during the controversial period those who were priests and bishops were received as priests and bishops under a period of probation after which they continued in their orders.

The details are very well documented. When an EO bishop (I am using abbreviations for shorthand as in this case they are anachronistic of course) first insisted on reordaining it caused scandal everywhere and the emperor intervened.


Father Peter

[Alpo]

Does OOs recognize any other non-OO orders than those of EOs'?

[Father Peter]

I can't speak across the board.

Coptic Orthodox certainly not. The reception of converts from Chalcedonianism (through history) is one thing, but the development of Roman Catholicism, and then Anglicanism would probably be seen as being a step further away from the Chalcedonianism that was in view.

The multiple failed attempts at unity between OO and EO never required reordination. But then the various failed contacts with Rome in the medieval period and later also seemed to exclude anything being thought necessary in regard to orders.

Father Peter

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

One member is using this for his signature:

"For Chalcedonians, please note that when I use honorifics such as "Father" or "His Grace" that I am doing so only because the mods demand it as a sign of "respect", not because I recognize you as having legitimate Holy Orders."

Is this the OO view of EO Orders?  I've had the impression from Fr Peter that our Orders are recognised.

Well, this is a bit theologically confusing.  In the Oriental Churches, at least in my experience in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, we respect the priestly calling of any of the Apostolic fathers from various jurisdictions, and we give them due venerable respect, however we do not recognize the legitimacy of their givin of the Divine Mysteries.  So while we respect these priests and give them venerable titles such as Father and His Grace/Holiness, we do not in this recognize the baptisms, chrismations, weddings, or ordinations at the hands of these priests and bishops. We do not openly defy or disrespect them, but when such Christians come to communicate within Oriental parishes, we kindly ask  them to refrain upon self-examination.  The Oriental Orthodox is only in full communion within itself, and while are earnestly seeking full reconciliation, Christological issues in particular still technically divide us from communion with each other.  Many of us in Oriental Orthodox have a deeply imbued social respect and admiration for priests of any kind, and this is why we do such out sincerity and politeness to call them by titles, but still we do not recognize their truest legitimacy as administers of the Divine Mysteries. Further, when priests convert from Eastern Orthodoxy to theOriental, in some circumstances they may re-ordained or at least reconsecrated, and very often settle in monasticism which do not traditionally administer the Mysteries.


stay blessed,
habte selassie

[deusveritasest]

There is no one position among OO, at least not in modernity.

[Father Peter]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

But I would be interested to know which OO have reordained EO when receiving them.

When the British Orthodox diocese received an EO priest it was by advancement to the rank of Hegumenos, not by reordination. The EO bishop in question provided a canonical release to the priest to the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Father Peter

[deusveritasest]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

[Quinault]

There is also a thread on the topic of deusveritasest's signature in the private section.

[Anastasia1]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

[ialmisry]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

[Anastasia1]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

But it does not work the other way around, right?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Armenians will give communion to Episcopalians, so I don't see them as a good measuring stick for acceptance of Orthodoxy.

Some EO priests will commune Copts, Ethiopians, etc, which I think is unfortunate and a betrayal of the real situation. The Eucharist is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

[Iconodule]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith.

I agree that the share the same creed without the Filioque, but everything else about your assertions seems based on feelings that you have about them. I get the same warm fuzzies for traditionalist Roman Catholics (or Vaticanites or whatever you call them) and you totally flip out. To me it feels like we basically have the same faith as them minus the whole Pope is the king of the world thing, but you are selective in your charity.

[Anastasios]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

[Alveus Lacuna]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

[mike]

The EO bishop in question provided a canonical release to the priest to the Coptic Orthodox Church.

And it's the thing that no one understands.

[Alpo]

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

What are the other differences besides calendar?

[Anastasios]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

I usually ignore most of the comments of this nature, as I don't like upping the ante or being provocative.  But every once and awhile, I feel like I need to say something.

[Iconodule]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

I usually ignore most of the comments of this nature, as I don't like upping the ante or being provocative.  But every once and awhile, I feel like I need to say something.

Isn't a schismatic, by definition, someone who separates from the Church for reasons other than a genuine difference in faith? Otherwise, what is the difference between a schismatic and a heretic? I do not consider you to be a heretic- I do not think our differences constitute a difference in faith. (Obviously, you disagree.)

[Anastasios]

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

What are the other differences besides calendar?

I don't want to derail this current thread, so I think I will pass on responding. You should be able to find my views expressed on other threads.

[Anastasios]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

I usually ignore most of the comments of this nature, as I don't like upping the ante or being provocative.  But every once and awhile, I feel like I need to say something.

Isn't a schismatic, by definition, someone who separates from the Church for reasons other than a genuine difference in faith?

We're not separated from the Church.

[Iconodule]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

I usually ignore most of the comments of this nature, as I don't like upping the ante or being provocative.  But every once and awhile, I feel like I need to say something.

Isn't a schismatic, by definition, someone who separates from the Church for reasons other than a genuine difference in faith?

We're not separated from the Church.

You're not answering the question. Okay, so we New Calendarists are separated... the question remains the same.

[Iconodule]

In any case, my basic point still stands: we have no business taking communion in churches which are not in communion with our own, regardless of whether we think we share the same faith.

[Anastasios]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

I usually ignore most of the comments of this nature, as I don't like upping the ante or being provocative.  But every once and awhile, I feel like I need to say something.

Isn't a schismatic, by definition, someone who separates from the Church for reasons other than a genuine difference in faith?

We're not separated from the Church.

You're not answering the question. Okay, so we New Calendarists are separated... the question remains the same.

You and I have discussed this issue before on the forum, right? I think you already know how I would answer the question and I certainly know which direction the conversation would go in, which positions we would both take, etc.

It doesn't bother me if you think that my church is a schismatic non-Orthodox organization.  I just think it's annoying to see the term "Old Calendarist schismatic" thrown about in a thread about EO/OO issues, and I think you've done it before.  Speaking for myself, I generally try to avoid throwing around equivalent terminology when possible and think it would be cool if others did, too.  I'm not going to say you can't do it, but I'll probably feel obligated to respond if you do, and we'll go around in circles again and again.

[Anastasios]

In any case, my basic point still stands: we have no business taking communion in churches which are not in communion with our own, regardless of whether we think we share the same faith.

If that is your basic point, then I agree wholeheartedly.

[ialmisry]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

But it does not work the other way around, right?

No. I know of clergy of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Russia and the OCA, i.e. practically everyone for whom this is realistic possibility in great numbers,giving communinon to Copts, Syriac and Armenians.

[ialmisry]

Armenians will give communion to Episcopalians, so I don't see them as a good measuring stick for acceptance of Orthodoxy.

Salpy, can we get confirmation of this?

Some EO priests will commune Copts, Ethiopians, etc, which I think is unfortunate and a betrayal of the real situation. The Eucharist is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

Not entirely correct on either score: the OO and EO confess the One Orthodox Faith, part of which is the eucharistic ecclesiology. Which is why we both have closed communion. And yet intercommunion.

[Iconodule]

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

We do not share the same confession of faith as New Calendarist schismatics. If we did, we would be in communion with you.

Oh, snap!

I usually ignore most of the comments of this nature, as I don't like upping the ante or being provocative.  But every once and awhile, I feel like I need to say something.

Isn't a schismatic, by definition, someone who separates from the Church for reasons other than a genuine difference in faith?

We're not separated from the Church.

You're not answering the question. Okay, so we New Calendarists are separated... the question remains the same.

You and I have discussed this issue before on the forum, right? I think you already know how I would answer the question and I certainly know which direction the conversation would go in, which positions we would both take, etc.

It doesn't bother me if you think that my church is a schismatic non-Orthodox organization.  I just think it's annoying to see the term "Old Calendarist schismatic" thrown about in a thread about EO/OO issues, and I think you've done it before.  Speaking for myself, I generally try to avoid throwing around equivalent terminology when possible and think it would be cool if others did, too.  I'm not going to say you can't do it, but I'll probably feel obligated to respond if you do, and we'll go around in circles again and again.

I'm not interested in arguing about who is or who is not a schismatic. I just want to know what your definition of "schismatic" is and how it differs from "heretic."

[ialmisry]

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith.

I agree that the share the same creed without the Filioque, but everything else about your assertions seems based on feelings that you have about them.

No, just the facts (though I am fond of them).  Like the fact that the OO did not canonize Eutyches but rather condemn him, a simple fact that I have had to argue with with EO monks, priests and even bishops, who should know better.  That they didn't, or don't, stems largely from the fact that the main bulk of the EO Churches do not historically have any contact (or minimal) with any OO.  Which is why EO Alexandria and Antioch (I'd add Jerusalem, but they barely acknowledge their EO  flock, let alone their OO neighbors) should serve as point man (which would be better if Alexandria would get a native Pope rather than importing one from Greece and Cyprus).

I get the same warm fuzzies for traditionalist Roman Catholics (or Vaticanites or whatever you call them) and you totally flip out. To me it feels like we basically have the same faith as them minus the whole Pope is the king of the world thing, but you are selective in your charity.

"Traditionalist Roman Catholics"-supreme pontiff=0

Btw, I know of the Vatican rebaptizing EO and OO, and vice versa, let alone reordaining.  I don't know of mass examples of EO rebaptizing/reordaining OO or vice versa. Old Calendarists will rebaptize and reordain OO, but we have examples of Old Calendarists rebaptizing and reordaining EO.

[Salpy]

Armenians will give communion to Episcopalians, so I don't see them as a good measuring stick for acceptance of Orthodoxy.

Salpy, can we get confirmation of this?

I personally haven't seen this.  Deusveritasest, however, says he has personally seen it and that the Armenian primate, Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, knew about it.

Some years ago there was a liturgy at my parish where Bishop Bruno was a guest.   Archbishop Hovnan was celebrating the liturgy and Bishop Bruno basically sat up front with some other ecumenical guests.  I seem to recall that Bishop Bruno and the other guests did not commune.

Of course that does not mean that it does not happen.  It has always been my understanding that Protestants are not allowed to commune in Armenian churches, but then some people don't consider Episcopalians to be Protestant.  Also, I think that Archbishop Hovnan studied a number of years ago in England and his associations with the Episcopalians is positive and probably is based more on what he experienced with the Anglicans there.

[ozgeorge]

What does "recognizing orders" entail?
Does it mean that one simply recognizes that someone holds the office of Deacon/Priest/Bishop in a particular Church or does it mean that the Mysteries celebrated by that Deacon/Priest/Bishop are genuine Mysteries of the Church in the Fullness of Grace?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Armenians will give communion to Episcopalians, so I don't see them as a good measuring stick for acceptance of Orthodoxy.

Some EO priests will commune Copts, Ethiopians, etc, which I think is unfortunate and a betrayal of the real situation. The Eucharist is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

No disrespect, but its precisely these divisive attitudes that continue to bring schism in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church.  Lets stop all this nonsense in the bud! Why argue over such things and divide those willing to unite and come together? We must start somewhere, and I for one am glad to see many leaders of our Churches coming together for dialogue year after year, and it is logical that our Churches will all reunite sooner than later, as we are all coming to realize that mostly, we have all been reaffirming the same things in different phraseology and history and culture, but these should not divide our Communion.  

Also, I feel your interpretation of the Eucharist is a bit disingenuous, as the Eucharist is the Divine Flesh and Blood of God in actuality, not symbol, and as such it is not merely an expression of unity (which would be the case it it were purely symbolic) but rather IS THE MEANS and SOURCE towards unity.  It is the United Person of Jesus Christ that united seemingly divided humanity, just as Christ even united the division between Herod and Pilate, and ONLY Jesus Christ in the literal sense, who in the operative and active power of God unites human beings who are inherently separate and fractured.  We never unite ourselves by our good ideas or our ideals, by our sociocultural baggage or our kinship history, rather it is purely the love which only emanates from the Godhead which brings harmony, unity, closeness.  Where human beings seek pride, self seeking ambition, and division, the Lord alone grants us Unity, Harmony, Oneness.  So we must pray always in humility and sincerity that GOD bring us together, and not we ourselves!

Further, the Eucharist is the very source of this operative Power of God amongst us, so why should we be divided amongst those who uniformly confess the Real Presence and sing, "Amen Amen Amen, I believe and I confess that this is truly He"

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Alveus Lacuna]

Also, I feel your interpretation of the Eucharist is a bit disingenuous, as the Eucharist is the Divine Flesh and Blood of God in actuality, not symbol, and as such it is not merely an expression of unity (which would be the case it it were purely symbolic) but rather IS THE MEANS and SOURCE towards unity.

OK, so let's commune everybody and have unity.

[deusveritasest]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

The Armenian church, actually. They're the only ones I've known to do so consistently, however.

[deusveritasest]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

The Copts don't do so consistently, however, like the Armenians seem to. From personal experience, I have been told by more than one Coptic Priest that I would be welcomed to Communion after being Chrismated, even though as you know and as they knew that I was baptized and chrismated in your church.

[deusveritasest]

But it does not work the other way around, right?

The most liberal approach I have seen among their churches is in the Greek Metropolis of San Francisco where OO are allowed to take Communion with no qualifications. The more common liberal approach is to allow OO to Commune with no qualifications except that they accept that the EOC is the Church and that they must not return to an OO church. Usually, however, I believe their approach is slightly more conservative than either.

[deusveritasest]

Armenians will give communion to Episcopalians, so I don't see them as a good measuring stick for acceptance of Orthodoxy.

I doubt you have evidence of instances of this besides what I witnessed to. As such, I highly doubt that this applies to all that general of a level throughout the Armenian church. For all we know it isn't much more than a peculiarity of the Diocese of the Western US.

But I agree, this sort of nonsense should not be looked to as a measuring stick.

Some EO priests will commune Copts, Ethiopians, etc, which I think is unfortunate and a betrayal of the real situation. The Eucharist is an expression of unity, not a means to it.

Totally agreed.

[deusveritasest]

There has never been ONE position in EO or OO.

At one (perhaps more than one) point no OO church was willing to give Holy Communion to any Chalcedonian.

The situation is very different now (lamentably so).

I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case with respect to Holy Orders.

There are OOs that will give Communion to the EOs? Who? Why? Since when?

Yes. The Copts, Syriac, Armenians. We have the same Faith. At least since the 60's, from what I've read. I can only personally attest from the late 80's.

We also have the same faith as Old Calendarist schismatics but that doesn't give me license to take communion at one of their churches.

*thumbs up*

(I must say that I find it sad that OO so seldomly witness to a Traditional Orthodox ecclesiology like you Chalcedonians do.  )

[deusveritasest]

Isn't a schismatic, by definition, someone who separates from the Church for reasons other than a genuine difference in faith?

Yes.

But he seems to think that there was a genuine definition of faith, and hence why he sees separating himself from your church as not schism.

I think this same reasoning has to be applied to the Chalcedonian schism. Too many try to act as if it was a two-sided schism and no party is at fault or unequal. But applying your definition of schism, if Chalcedon was truly orthodox, our independent existence is not justified and we are schismatics, plain and simply.

[deusveritasest]

In any case, my basic point still stands: we have no business taking communion in churches which are not in communion with our own, regardless of whether we think we share the same faith.

Agreed: not until there is general recognition on both sides of us having the necessary pre-requisites for full communion and there is an official re-establishment of such.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!@

Also, I feel your interpretation of the Eucharist is a bit disingenuous, as the Eucharist is the Divine Flesh and Blood of God in actuality, not symbol, and as such it is not merely an expression of unity (which would be the case it it were purely symbolic) but rather IS THE MEANS and SOURCE towards unity.

OK, so let's commune everybody and have unity.

that is not quite what I am implying.  We should be praying for the unification of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church because it is One, and we should not meditate on the seemingly fractured moments, but rather pray in earnest and sincerity for God to bring about Unity.  We spend a lot of time talking about those things which divide us, so is it any wonder we continue to have division? We must pray and hope for unity, not just artificially manifest it, because that is not Unity.  God brings Unity, but like all Divine gifts, sometimes it can be overlooked by self-determination and free will.  Therefore we as Christians should hope for and cultivate true Christian love and unity of the Churches.  We don't have to artificially bring it about by our own idealistic volition, but if our attitudes are so pessimistic how will we even see the spiritual opportunities where God is bringing us together?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[deusveritasest]

Not entirely correct on either score: the OO and EO confess the One Orthodox Faith, part of which is the eucharistic ecclesiology. Which is why we both have closed communion. And yet intercommunion.

Eucharistic theology also should lead you to conclude that one group has not been Orthodox in the same sense during our division and thus that they cannot be simply "intercommuned" in the sense you are speaking of.