OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 05:33:19 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The status of ROAC, etc., according to the Orthodox  (Read 9528 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #45 on: May 26, 2004, 04:33:30 PM »

Peter,

Quote
Believe what you will. Since you've leached onto the Vladimir Moss line, I'll post a reply to Vladimir Moss

While we all rest upon the shoulders of giants (or at the very least, rely on the histories of others), I'm getting the sneaking suspicion that your polemic is a case of "making it up as we go along."  At the very least this doesn't seem to be a subject you're overly familiar with, which would include your willingness to quote parties that I highly doubt you yourself would be in agreement with under other circumstances.

As for this being the "Vladimir Moss line", perhaps it is (though this is by accident, since I do not recall ever referencing anything he wrote on this topic as a source) - however what I know about the Old Calendarists (and what I've relayed) is actually the result of speaking with Florinite Old Calendarists themselves.  Metropolitan Cyprian's synod in reality is a very small factor in the over all "Old Calendarist" movement (for those who believe numbers matters, which seems to be at least a few people.)  If I'm guilty of totting the "Vladimir Moss" line (which is untrue, but letting this pass), then it would seem you're guilty of almost exclusively relying upon the Cyprianites for your history of the Greek Old Calendarist movement - an unwise move since he and his synod are basically unrecognized by most Old Calendarists and his explanations do not mesh well with their own self understanding.

The glaring omission, which unfortunately makes the Cyprianite position seem harmonious with the Florinite tradition, is that the Metropolitan Chrysostmos himself re-appraised the seriousness of the calendar innovation or the consequences of the flowering ecumenical movement.    This is simply not true, and none of the unfortunately quarrelsome parties that make up the "Florinite" Old Calendarists (save Cyprian's party) reflect this ommission.

Seraphim
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #46 on: May 26, 2004, 07:07:01 PM »

The Old Believers thought they were following St Athanasius too when they broke with evil 'world Orthodoxy' in the 1600s for crossing themselves with two fingers and the thumb, 'the claw of Satan'! (Bwah-ha-ha-ha!)

I don't represent ROCOR. What I find interesting is that those who are steeped in ROCOR either aren't online posting away or if they are online - like ania, for example, from a Russian priestly family worthy of respect - they don't act like Mr Reeves and his friends. They're not rabbiting on about the sects' favourite issues.

Your response, Mr Reeves, regarding Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and St Tikhon doesn't make any sense. According to the logic you use, the Russian Orthodox Church has been part of evil 'world Orthodoxy' for a long time, at least since the 1800s when they began fraternizing with Anglicans at all in any 'context'.

And you still sound like a Donatist.

So the sects and the little boys playing Orthodox online still look at best like the Old Believers and the c.u. Orthodox win their argument.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2004, 07:08:04 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #47 on: May 30, 2004, 07:33:13 PM »

Serge,

Quote
The Old Believers thought they were following St Athanasius too when they broke with evil 'world Orthodoxy' in the 1600s for crossing themselves with two fingers and the thumb, 'the claw of Satan'! (Bwah-ha-ha-ha!)

Obviously comparing and contrasting the situations of either the ROAC or the Old Believers will go nowhere, before more basic issues are discussed - which is what I have been trying to do, however miserably.

Quote
I don't represent ROCOR.

Well, in a small way you do, given you are a member of the clergy in ROCOR (the last time I checked, Readers were tonsured and numbered amongst the clergy, no?)

With that in mind, I'd like your take on the following, which came from your Church some 21 years ago...

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

This is of course ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism, which at least at one time (it's probably still there, despite the events of recent years) was read with the Church's other anathemas on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in ROCOR parishes.

Given your status as a cleric in ROCOR (though you'd think being a simple layman in ROCOR would be sufficient in matters like this), can I assume you are in agreement with the anathemas of your own church?

Quote
Your response, Mr Reeves, regarding Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and St Tikhon doesn't make any sense. According to the logic you use, the Russian Orthodox Church has been part of evil 'world Orthodoxy' for a long time, at least since the 1800s when they began fraternizing with Anglicans at all in any 'context'.

It's funny that you presume to force me into a mould (including a "logic") which obviously does not fit given my own self expressed opinion on the examples you brought up.  Could it be you're disappointed that these examples are not the pro-ecumenist magic bullets you've taken them to be?

Quote
And you still sound like a Donatist.

Then you obviously do not understand what Donatism was.

Quote
So the sects and the little boys playing Orthodox online still look at best like the Old Believers and the c.u. Orthodox win their argument.

And so ends your pretense of offering a "reasoned, non-partisan look at the subject".

Seraphim
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #48 on: May 30, 2004, 10:27:41 PM »

Quote
Obviously comparing and contrasting the situations of either the ROAC or the Old Believers will go nowhere, before more basic issues are discussed - which is what I have been trying to do, however miserably.

I couldn't agree more that trying to talk to you is a waste of time. This thread is really for the benefit of new visitors and of those Orthodox, like ania for example, I do respect. You are neither Orthodox nor somebody I respect.

Quote
This is of course ROCOR's Anathema Against Ecumenism

The relevance here is that it shows some people in the Orthodox Church happen to agree with you. But that doesn't answer my last point, that there are and have been for some time - at least since Met. Philaret of Moscow's time, the early 1800s - people in good standing and of high rank in the Russian Orthodox Church who believe quite differently.

Again, since according to the worldview of ROAC that taints a church as being part of evil 'world Orthodoxy', that makes 19th-century Russian Orthodoxy bogus so where does that leave ROAC?

Just as an academic exercise on this board I'm trying to show that according to the logic of all the c.u. Orthodox taken together (with their opposite opinions on your favourite subjects cancelling each other out), ROAC doesn't make sense.

To quote you:

Quote
It's funny that you presume to force me into a mould (including a "logic") which obviously does not fit given my own self expressed opinion on the examples you brought up.

And, quoting me, to bring up somebody who does identify with ROCOR and whom I do respect:

Quote
What I find interesting is that those who are steeped in ROCOR either aren't online posting away or if they are online - like ania, for example, from a Russian priestly family worthy of respect - they don't act like Mr Reeves and his friends. They're not rabbiting on about the sects' favourite issues.

Moving right along:

Quote
And so ends your pretense of offering a "reasoned, non-partisan look at the subject".

No pretence, old man. I did offer such. I also don't take you seriously.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2004, 10:29:12 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2004, 10:50:38 PM »


As for whether the Pope's men would accept one of these groups' priests without reordination, I don't speak for them but my guess is no, based on the logic I laid out in my first posting. They say: (repeating myself) 'the Orthodox have the power of the keys over their own people; therefore, if the Orthodox withhold grace from these ordinations*, then we will treat them as invalid, even though if a bishop who left us did this we'd recognize the ordination'.

*As happened when Bishop Valentine left them and consequently they deposed him.

Catholics have been known to receive deposed Orthodox clergymen.  cf. "Father" David Anderson.
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.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #50 on: May 30, 2004, 11:22:17 PM »

Quote
Catholics have been known to receive deposed Orthodox clergymen.  cf. "Father" David Anderson.


As I'm just a passing outside observer of the Anderson situation I have no idea of the timing of all that. It may be as you say, that the OCA dropped him before the Ukrainian Catholic Church picked him up.

One way around that is the Ukrainian Catholics could say they were applying economy! Just like if, for example, the clergy of ROAC wanted to (re)join the c.u. Orthodox - as I said before, I reckon the former Orthodox clergy among them would just be reinstated without any reordination, even though they'd been deposed, and those men they'd ordained probably would be accepted retroactively in their orders - 'the church is supplying any grace that may have been lacking in the valid form' might be how they'd put it.

But if a bishop, priest or deacon has been dropped by the Orthodox, not been picked up by them and so is just floating out there on his own or in some sect not recognized by the Orthodox, then I think what I said stands - the Vatican recognizes the Orthodox' power of the keys over their own people so until either they or the Orthodox pick him up, functionally he's not a bishop, priest or deacon.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2004, 11:35:19 PM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2004, 03:20:32 AM »



As I'm just a passing outside observer of the Anderson situation I have no idea of the timing of all that. It may be as you say, that the OCA dropped him before the Ukrainian Catholic Church picked him up.

One way around that is the Ukrainian Catholics could say they were applying economy! Just like if, for example, the clergy of ROAC wanted to (re)join the c.u. Orthodox - as I said before, I reckon the former Orthodox clergy among them would just be reinstated without any reordination, even though they'd been deposed, and those men they'd ordained probably would be accepted retroactively in their orders - 'the church is supplying any grace that may have been lacking in the valid form' might be how they'd put it.

But if a bishop, priest or deacon has been dropped by the Orthodox, not been picked up by them and so is just floating out there on his own or in some sect not recognized by the Orthodox, then I think what I said stands - the Vatican recognizes the Orthodox' power of the keys over their own people so until either they or the Orthodox pick him up, functionally he's not a bishop, priest or deacon.

The OCA never had him - he belonged to the Antiochians before he got dropped/deposed/suspended/whatever for leading the charge to leave w/ Hardenbrook.

Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2004, 10:54:05 AM »

Elisha,

I understand why you think that but I know that Fr David Anderson was an OCA priest, not an Antiochian one. Not only was he in the OCA but he is also a star graduate of St Vladimir's Seminary where he was the prot+¬g+¬ of Fr Alexander Schmemann. He was only on loan to the Antiochians at SS. Peter and Paul, Ben Lomond, California. When the unpleasantness happened between that church and their bishop, I think he was sent back to the OCA. It was a blow to them and particularly to SVS when he left.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2004, 10:55:27 AM by Serge » Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2004, 11:24:25 AM »

[When the unpleasantness happened between that church and their bishop, I think he was sent back to the OCA. It was a blow to them and particularly to SVS when he left. ]

That is true.  Fr Anderson was originally either a Byzantine Catholic or a Ukrainian Catholic who converted.  He was considered an expert in Liturgics.  So when the former EOC joined with the Antiochians Metropolitan Phillip asked he be loaned to the Antiochians to teach Liturgics to the new Orthodox Christians. Metropolitan Theodosius agreed to it.

Fr Anderson was sent to Ben Lomond which was considered as the 'mother church' of the former EOC at the time.  He did wonders there.  I attended Liturgy there and was spellbound by the beauty.
Many of the practices being used were from the early church.  When I was there, even though there was no Bishop present, the Liturgy began with all the Priests and Deacons in the middle of the Church.  They remained there until the 'little entrance when the Gospel was taken through the 'Royal Doors' and placed on the Altar.  The remaining part of the service was now done in the Sanctuary. (I understand this was one of the practices they were told to get rid of.)

The problems started to occur when the new Antiochian Bishop came into that diocese.  He was from the middle east and was not familiar with many of the slavic practices used in many of the Antiochian churches (most of which used things from both the Byzantine and Slavic traditions).  Metropolitan Phillip also wanted more uniformity of practice amongst the Antiochian Churches.
Fr Anderson, along with many others fought the imposed changes and were excommunicate for being disobedient to both the Metropolitan and diocesean bishop.

At this point Metropolitan Theodosuis went to bat for Fr Anderson.  Reminding Metropolitan Phillip Fr Anderson was only on TEMPORARY assisgnment to the Antiochians.  As personal favor he asked Metropolitan Phillip to rescind the excommunication of Fr Anderson and release him back into the OCA.  Metropolitan Phillip complied and Fr Anderson was brought back to the OCA UNDER THE DIRECT AUTHORITY OF METROPOLITAN THEODOSIUS.  

The straw that broke the camels back was when one of the Deacons from the group that was excommunicated died.  Fr Anderson wanted to serve at his funeral.  Metropolitan Theodosius told him he could attend but could not serve.  Reminding him the the Deacon had been excommunicated and was still under an edict by a canonical bishop which had to be honored according to the canons of the Church.

Fr Anderson responded by once again disobeying another Bishop(the third) and serving the funeral after which he returned to the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Orthodoc


     
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 31, 2004, 11:44:46 AM »

One minor correction, if I recall rightly:

Quote
That is true.  Fr Anderson was originally either a Byzantine Catholic or a Ukrainian Catholic who converted.

I don't think he was in the Ukrainian or any other Byzantine Catholic Church to begin with. Rather he was a Roman Catholic layman who converted and then went to SVS and became a priest in the OCA.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #55 on: May 31, 2004, 11:06:33 PM »

The timing of this is a bit obscure, so bear with me. Never mind the whole issue of what exactly ecumenism actually means; the Protestants don't agree, so why should anyone accept an Orthodox definition of it? It's our word, not theirs.

But be that as it may, the impression I get is that ROCOR's "ecumenism" predates Valentine by some years. And since it is a property of truth to be objective, "ecumenism" was a heresy before it was declared to be such.

So where does the grace come from? The theory that you can get grace from out of a graceless body by "correcting" their errors is utterly Protestant; it simply doesn't work in Orthodoxy. So how can ROAC have grace?
Logged
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2004, 11:39:01 PM »

Quote
The theory that you can get grace from out of a graceless body by "correcting" their errors is utterly Protestant; it simply doesn't work in Orthodoxy. So how can ROAC have grace?

An excellent point, Keble!
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 01, 2004, 04:14:51 PM »

Keble,

Quote
But be that as it may, the impression I get is that ROCOR's "ecumenism" predates Valentine by some years. And since it is a property of truth to be objective, "ecumenism" was a heresy before it was declared to be such.

Ecumenism as a heresy, obviously, has always been incorrect.  Quite true - the ancient canons make such obviously clear (calling for the deposition of heirarchs who confound the Baptism of the Church with the "baptism" of heretics.)

As for old "ROCOR Ecumenism", I've yet to see this validated as being a matter of fact.   St.Tikhon working to receive some High Church Anglicans into the Russian Orthodox Church (unfortunately, it never panned out) under a "western rite" accommodation hardly smacks of the ecclessiastical equivocation which characterizes heretical ecumenism.

Quote
So where does the grace come from? The theory that you can get grace from out of a graceless body by "correcting" their errors is utterly Protestant; it simply doesn't work in Orthodoxy. So how can ROAC have grace?

This line of speculation is unnecessary, given that there is not a problem to begin with.

Seraphim
Logged

The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2004, 04:20:07 PM »

Quote
St. Tikhon working to receive some High Church Anglicans into the Russian Orthodox Church (unfortunately, it never panned out) under a "western rite" accommodation hardly smacks of the ecclessiastical equivocation which characterizes heretical ecumenism.

He was a guest of honour sitting with the clergy in choir at the consecration of the Episcopal cathedral in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. There's a photo of him there.

Surely this would damn him as an evil 'world Orthodox'Gäó to ROAC. Then again, disaffected boys playing Orthodox today always know better than real pre-revolutionary Russian Orthodox bishops.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2004, 04:27:25 PM »

Quote
He was a guest of honour sitting with the clergy in choir at the consecration of the Episcopal cathedral in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. There's a photo of him there.

That would surely put him in league with half of the heirarchs on that "Kiss of Judas" page on the ROAC site, wouldn't it?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,814


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 01, 2004, 04:31:03 PM »

Quote
That would surely put him in league with half of the heirarchs on that "Kiss of Judas" page on the ROAC site, wouldn't it?

A punto, signore.
Logged

"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

High-church libertarian
Blog
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #61 on: June 01, 2004, 06:22:53 PM »

Keble,Ecumenism as a heresy, obviously, has always been incorrect.  Quite true - the ancient canons make such obviously clear (calling for the deposition of heirarchs who confound the Baptism of the Church with the "baptism" of heretics.)

I'm not going to touch the "baptism" crack here because then I'd have to go into the history of the Western theory on this, and I have better things to do.

Quote
As for old "ROCOR Ecumenism", I've yet to see this validated as being a matter of fact.   St.Tikhon working to receive some High Church Anglicans into the Russian Orthodox Church (unfortunately, it never panned out) under a "western rite" accommodation hardly smacks of the ecclessiastical equivocation which characterizes heretical ecumenism.

But the facts are against you. The current hostility between Anglicans and the Orthodox is a recent development. The historical pattern is that of classic ecumenism: mutual respect coupled with acknowledged separation.

Quote
This line of speculation is unnecessary, given that there is not a problem to begin with.

Well, apparently there is a problem. What we've seen here is a repeated pattern of you personally having to abandon "worthies" when you've been confronted with the fact that they didn't agree with you. You had to do it earlier with Seraphim Rose, and now you're going to have to do it with the sainted Tikhon. Eventually you will be trapped into simply denying the truth about some figure, or not having enough "Orthodox" hierarchs left to attach ROAC to. SO how do you justify it?
Logged
Suaiden
Dcn Joseph Suaiden
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308


« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2004, 04:22:54 PM »

Joe, that's also factually incorrect, since I was there for the whole thing.  He was supposed to be under Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff's spiritual direction, who had supported AROC for years even then....  when the Skete came in, he put himself under Dormition Skete's direction, with the ok of the Metropolitan, on the basis that an Archimandrite is of "higher rank".

You are also neglecting the fact that they had been communicating for months.
Logged

Still a Deacon of the Autonomous Metropolia, Nope, Still Don't Like Ecumenism, Yep, Still Western "Rite"
JoeZollars
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,278

Pray for me an unworthy sinner


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2004, 01:44:18 AM »

Vagante is as Vagante does.  Seriously. In CO, they have a 32 year old Archimandrite, a hieromonk who was tonsured as a hegumen and to the great schema the very day he was first made a monk.  fr. Dionysi in Colorado Springs was ordained a Deacon and Priest all at once the first time he met the metropolitan in suzdal.  There are other examples I could say, but they would reveal confidences.  

This group may be close to Orthodoxy and seen as just schismatic by others or even as just plain old Orthodox by others, but in my book these examples and others proove it is nothing more than a vagante cult.  I say cult, because the group fits the textbook definition of a cult.  I believe Serge has said a few words about this at his blog.

Joe Zollars

Ladies, Gentlemen, and assorted others:

I apologize for this post and subsequent ones.  It was sinful for me to engage in such slanderous gossip and I beg your forgiveness.

Joe Zollars
Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,492



« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2005, 03:55:16 AM »

I also apologize for my posts on this thread. What a mess.
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2005, 11:24:48 AM »

I'm not sure what caused the new post to an old thread, but since this popped up I stopped and read it.  Just want to comment on the issue as to whether or not the Catholics would be likely to accept the ordained status of an Orthodox presbyter who was out of communion with his own former Church - and, unfortunately, the answer is generally "yes".

The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although the latter have been known to exercise oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.

Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments. As an example, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity or oekonomia on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy.

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church in some instances could likely find itself in the position of accepting the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of the so-called "independent movements") whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations.

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2005, 02:20:00 PM »

Augustinian and Cyprianic theories are useful categories, Neil, but as the neighborhood devil's advocate I would like to point out that Thuc's ordinations in the Catholic Church were ruled invalid and oftentimes "independent" Orthodox get accepted at some point "as is."  But the two general trends are much as you have stated them.

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.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,701


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #67 on: February 14, 2005, 12:41:10 PM »

Just want to comment on the issue as to whether or not the Catholics would be likely to accept the ordained status of an Orthodox presbyter who was out of communion with his own former Church - and, unfortunately, the answer is generally "yes".

Actually, a question came up in the EWTN canon law question and answer section about the validity of certain Protestant service where, according to the poster, an Orthodox priest "confected" the Eucharist.  I responded to that particular question and answer with my own ideas, and asked a question about whether or not Catholics would recognise the priesthood of someone defrocked by the Orthodox--do they accept it because it was a valid ordination, and so conferred an "indelible mark" on the soul, or do they reject it because they accept the authority of Orthodox bishops over their people?--and the canonist seemed to say that the Catholics would regard such a man as the Orthodox themselves regard him. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #68 on: February 14, 2005, 01:15:30 PM »

Augustinian and Cyprianic theories are useful categories, Neil, but as the neighborhood devil's advocate I would like to point out that Thuc's ordinations in the Catholic Church were ruled invalid and oftentimes "independent" Orthodox get accepted at some point "as is." But the two general trends are much as you have stated them.

Dustin,

You're right about Thuc. He's a bad example, as the question of his mental status raised issues with respect to intent and has generally caused his ordinations to be questioned, with validity not accorded to the majority of them.

As to "independent" Orthodox, I think we are talking about apples and oranges. I'm not thinking of folks like the TOC or any of the "schismatic", "non-canonical", or "irregular" Churches. I had in mind the true vagante, like THEOCACNA, the Nasrani Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and others of that ilk.

I know of no recent instance in which such "presbyters" or "bishops" from those types of Churches were accepted "as is" by any canonical Orthodox Church (nor even by any of the schismatic, etc. Churches). (There were a very few instances, many decades ago, in which folks from some such entities were accepted, but this was back at a time when their episcopal ancestry from Bishop Aftimios Ofiesh was still very fresh in terms of time.)

Phil.

I think I read the exchange of which you're speaking.

I disagree with the canonist, unless you approach it from the perspective of "would" Catholics accept him? - where "would" has the sense of "be willing to" - to which the answer is hopefully, "no". However, were they to accept him, history suggests that he would be found to have valid orders. I've seen some odd folks cross the Tiber and have validity accorded to them. (I've also seen a few of the same going the other way and accorded validity under the guise of oekonomia.)

Many years,

Neil
« Last Edit: February 14, 2005, 01:16:28 PM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2005, 02:24:00 PM »

Neil,

You might be surprised what has occurred if you look deep enough Wink  I was thinking more of Ofiesh who qualifies as a vagante in my book but who once was a legitimate Orthodox bishop.

Thuc was crazy that's true, so it's a bad example.

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.
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #70 on: February 15, 2005, 03:47:38 AM »

You might be surprised what has occurred if you look deep enough Wink I was thinking more of Ofiesh who qualifies as a vagante in my book but who once was a legitimate Orthodox bishop.

Dustin,

Not anywhere near as surprised as you think  Wink - vagantes are a long-time specialty of mine.  I agree with you wholeheartedly as to Ofiesh, but glad you said it first as I've gotten tired, over the years, of the battles with folk who will defend him as legitimate to the bitter end  Roll Eyes.

Many years,

Neil

Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,135



« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2011, 09:05:23 PM »

You might be surprised what has occurred if you look deep enough Wink I was thinking more of Ofiesh who qualifies as a vagante in my book but who once was a legitimate Orthodox bishop.

Dustin,

Not anywhere near as surprised as you think  Wink - vagantes are a long-time specialty of mine.  I agree with you wholeheartedly as to Ofiesh, but glad you said it first as I've gotten tired, over the years, of the battles with folk who will defend him as legitimate to the bitter end  Roll Eyes.

Many years,

Neil


LOL. To the bitter end of the argument, or to the bitter end of his life?

My understanding is that Ofiesh isn't really the culprit, but the bishop he consecrated as bishop of Washington, D.C. and the Western Rite, Igantius Nichols.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/tag/ignatius-nichols/

Nichols seems to be the one laying hands on all sorts of vagantes.  Ofiesh seems to have stopped laying hands on anyone after Nichols, and his consecration I would say was valid at the time. It is only shortly after Nichols consecration that both Ofiesh and Nichols earned their deposition, and hence there inability to consecrate within the context of the Orthodox Church any longer.

btw, much of Nichols schismatic progeny ended up back in Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 09:07:27 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
Tags: ROAC ROCOR World Orthodoxy Old Calendarists traditionalist calendar vagante 
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.114 seconds with 54 queries.