T
TheRam
Guest
acusitory or statistically speaking could send this thread in a tailspin…careful.
- Status
F
Fortiterinre
Guest
twiztedseraph said:
No one here is questioning your loyalty to Rome; the fact remains that there are many different branches of autocephalous (“self-headed”) Christianity that seek apostolic succession precisely to avoid Rome, and the Vatican scarcely has the ability to speak out on all of them. In Chicago alone we have an Apostolic Catholic Church, an Independent one, and two branches of Episcopal churches not in the Anglican Communion. All of them sought apostolic succession through established lines, but all have very original theologies that may or may not intend to do what the Catholic Church does in ordination.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
Fortiterinre said:Thank you! One of the autocephalous trends has been for Episcopalian genre priests to seek ordination through Orthodox or otherwise sacramentally valid apostolic succession, and it could take the whole forum locked in a room days to figure out the “valid” and “invalid” elements!
Don’t know if it is of interest but Irish Melkite has a succinct explanation of the differences between the Orthodox and Catholic teaching on Apostolic Succession.
Basically Catholic theology on this point follows Saint Augustine and considers as valid any Apostolic Succession with form and content intact.
Orthodox theology follows Saint Cyprian and considers there is no grace-filled Apostolic Succesion outside the Church even when the form and content has been retained.
See Irish Melkite’s messages # 89 and # 90
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=36756
T
twiztedseraph
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Wow Father, this is the first time I’ve seen you outside the Orthodox Forum, what a treat
T
Topher
Guest
Fr Ambrose:
Fr. Ambrose, I ask his in all respect and out sinsere curiosity. Do, then, the Orthodox chruches consider Catholic ordinations valid, since the Orthodox churches would consider the Catholic Church outside of the Church?
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
Seraph,
While I’m unfamiliar with the EWTN piece that you referenced or the situation of the particular priest formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), you might find some background detail on the CEC useful.
The CEC (and its parent body the Int’l Communion of the CEC) was formed in the early 1990s, although it has origins in an evangelical movement that arose about 15 years prior to that. It isn’t entirely clear from whence CEC’s first presbyters derived, i.e., by whom they were ordained and into which ecclesial community - that’s important to keep in mind, since it may have implications for the issue of the validity of the CEC’s orders.
Austin Randolph Adler, who is now the Primate or Patriarch (he appears to use both titles) of the CEC, was its founding bishop. Prior to that he pastored Stone Mountain Church, apparently an evangelical - possibly non-denominational - congregation. He was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Timothy Barker, then of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch - Malabar Rite (CACA-MR). How Adler came into contact with the CACA-MR is unclear; it is one of several so-called “Spruit-line” Churches - the reference being to Herman Spruit, hierarch of the CACA-MR as well as progenitor of a significant number of other “independent Catholic” and “independent Orthodox” Churches. (The CACA-MR is, by the way, neither Catholic, nor of Antioch, and has no relationship to the Malabarese.)
Subsequently, in the mid-'90s, Adler and Randolph Sly, another CEC bishop, apparently became concerned about the validity of the episcopal lineage conferred by Barker and sought additional episcopal consecration from William Millsaps, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC). The EMC was originally a diocese within the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) but broke with its parent in 1992 (about the same time that the CEC came into being) over issues of theology and practice within the Episcopal Communion.
In 1997, Archbishops Adler, Sly, and 3 other CEC hierarchs were re-consecrated (sub conditione, I believe) by bishops of Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira (ICAB) - the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. Shortly thereafter, those newly re-consecrated laid hands on most of the remaining CEC hierarchs. The ICAB has its episcopal origins from the so-called “Duarte-Costa line”, which originated in the mid-20th century when Carlos Duarte-Costa, then a Latin Catholic bishop, resigned his titular episcopacy and broke with Rome to found the schismatic ICAB.
The late Bishop Duarte-Costa, together with his immediate episcopal descendents, have been a prolific source of episcopal orders, not only in the Western Hemisphere, but throughout the world - resulting in an abundance of “independent Catholic” Churches and other ecclesial bodies that, arguably, have claim to Apostolic Succession, valid orders, and valid sacraments.
The CEC, as a consequence of the consecration afforded to their hierarchs by the Duarte-Costa connection, also falls into that murky realm of an arguable claim to validity, because of the Augustinian theory of same to which the Catholic Church subscribes. In brief, under the Augustinian theory (which I explained in detail in a post on this forum about a year ago - and to which Father Ambrose kindly offered a link above), a bishop with valid episcopal orders continues to have and validly exercise same (though illicitly), despite his estrangement from the Church, provided that proper form, matter, and intent are present.
(continued)
While I’m unfamiliar with the EWTN piece that you referenced or the situation of the particular priest formerly of the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC), you might find some background detail on the CEC useful.
The CEC (and its parent body the Int’l Communion of the CEC) was formed in the early 1990s, although it has origins in an evangelical movement that arose about 15 years prior to that. It isn’t entirely clear from whence CEC’s first presbyters derived, i.e., by whom they were ordained and into which ecclesial community - that’s important to keep in mind, since it may have implications for the issue of the validity of the CEC’s orders.
Austin Randolph Adler, who is now the Primate or Patriarch (he appears to use both titles) of the CEC, was its founding bishop. Prior to that he pastored Stone Mountain Church, apparently an evangelical - possibly non-denominational - congregation. He was consecrated a bishop by Bishop Timothy Barker, then of the Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch - Malabar Rite (CACA-MR). How Adler came into contact with the CACA-MR is unclear; it is one of several so-called “Spruit-line” Churches - the reference being to Herman Spruit, hierarch of the CACA-MR as well as progenitor of a significant number of other “independent Catholic” and “independent Orthodox” Churches. (The CACA-MR is, by the way, neither Catholic, nor of Antioch, and has no relationship to the Malabarese.)
Subsequently, in the mid-'90s, Adler and Randolph Sly, another CEC bishop, apparently became concerned about the validity of the episcopal lineage conferred by Barker and sought additional episcopal consecration from William Millsaps, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC). The EMC was originally a diocese within the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) but broke with its parent in 1992 (about the same time that the CEC came into being) over issues of theology and practice within the Episcopal Communion.
In 1997, Archbishops Adler, Sly, and 3 other CEC hierarchs were re-consecrated (sub conditione, I believe) by bishops of Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira (ICAB) - the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil. Shortly thereafter, those newly re-consecrated laid hands on most of the remaining CEC hierarchs. The ICAB has its episcopal origins from the so-called “Duarte-Costa line”, which originated in the mid-20th century when Carlos Duarte-Costa, then a Latin Catholic bishop, resigned his titular episcopacy and broke with Rome to found the schismatic ICAB.
The late Bishop Duarte-Costa, together with his immediate episcopal descendents, have been a prolific source of episcopal orders, not only in the Western Hemisphere, but throughout the world - resulting in an abundance of “independent Catholic” Churches and other ecclesial bodies that, arguably, have claim to Apostolic Succession, valid orders, and valid sacraments.
The CEC, as a consequence of the consecration afforded to their hierarchs by the Duarte-Costa connection, also falls into that murky realm of an arguable claim to validity, because of the Augustinian theory of same to which the Catholic Church subscribes. In brief, under the Augustinian theory (which I explained in detail in a post on this forum about a year ago - and to which Father Ambrose kindly offered a link above), a bishop with valid episcopal orders continues to have and validly exercise same (though illicitly), despite his estrangement from the Church, provided that proper form, matter, and intent are present.
(continued)
I
Irish_Melkite
Guest
To definitively (as opposed to arguably) establish validity requires a detailed study of the episcopal genealogy of the one who claims to be a bishop and Rome has made no definitive statement with respect to the validity of the Duarte-Costa lines as a whole, nor is it likely to do so.
Typically, absent circumstances necessitating it (such as the request a few years ago by the USCCB for clarification as to Apostolic Succession and validity of orders and sacraments in the US-based Polish National Catholic Church), Rome usually declines comment, believing (rightly) that affirming or disavowing validity encourages others in their pursuit of a “magic touch” and proliferates these quasi-Catholic ecclesia. Rome has implicitly acknowledged validity in the instance of some individual hierarchs with Duarte-Costa lines (e.g., Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz, of blessed memory), but any conclusion as to the validity of others, particularly lines that are derivitive or significantly removed in time from Bishop Duarte-Costa himself (as is the case here), would be speculative at best, presumptuous at worst.
(I should acknowledge here that the CACA-MR, from which the CEC originally claimed succession, itself has some arguable claims to validity given that the multiple episcopal lines from which it derived included at least a few hierarchs who, again arguably, had valid episcopal orders themselves or in their lineage. However, over time, the CACA-MR has sufficiently departed in praxis from Catholicism as to make it increasingly unlikely that the validity of its orders has been maintained.)
An additional concern vis-a-vis the CEC hierarchy is whether or not its bishops had valid presbyteral orders prior to their elevation to the episcopacy. Within the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, presbyteral orders have generally not been deemed valid by the Catholic Church, although an element of uncertainty was introduced and the waters were somewhat muddied in the twentieth century by the participation of Old Catholic hierarchy in some Anglican and Episcopal ordinations. However, it should be noted that the CEC, its name notwithstanding, did not originate in the Episcopal Church.
As I remarked in the beginning of my post, by whom those who became the CEC’s bishops were ordained and into which ecclesial community could be factors in the validity of subsequent episcopal ordinations. That is not to say that it is an issue which couldn’t have been cured, if a bishop with valid, though illicit, faculties ordained them to the priesthood prior to consecrating them as bishops. From publically available information, it can’t be determined one way or the other whether that happened in this instance.
The CEC is a small but viable ecclesial body, with about 1000 congregations scattered across 40 of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, 3 Canadian provinces, and some 12-15 foreign countries. It claims about 200,000 communicants, last I checked, a number that is probably a bit high - but in the neighborhood. The Church’s theology, praxis, organization, and functioning is sufficiently mainstream to keep it out of the realm of being classed as vagante.
In sum, the CEC may have achieved valid Apostolic Succession and all that comes with that, but it cannot be stated with any certainty, absent a detailed study of all the lineages involved.
Before any speculates or asks, it should be noted that the CEC does not fall within the provisions of Canon 844 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law. So that, even in instances of grave necessity, Catholics may not lawfully approach CEC clergy to receive the Sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist, or Anointing of the Sick.
In §3 of that Canon, reference is made to “members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid Eastern Churches so far as the Sacraments are concerned.” At present, the sole other Church formally judged “to be in the same position” as the Orthodox Churches “so far as the Sacraments are concerned” is the Polish National Catholic Church (and only its US jurisdictions).
Finally, the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) is not to be confused with the Charismatic Catholic Church (CCC), which presents its own set of problems
- albeit slightly less convoluted.
Many years,
Neil
Typically, absent circumstances necessitating it (such as the request a few years ago by the USCCB for clarification as to Apostolic Succession and validity of orders and sacraments in the US-based Polish National Catholic Church), Rome usually declines comment, believing (rightly) that affirming or disavowing validity encourages others in their pursuit of a “magic touch” and proliferates these quasi-Catholic ecclesia. Rome has implicitly acknowledged validity in the instance of some individual hierarchs with Duarte-Costa lines (e.g., Bishop Salomão Barbosa Ferraz, of blessed memory), but any conclusion as to the validity of others, particularly lines that are derivitive or significantly removed in time from Bishop Duarte-Costa himself (as is the case here), would be speculative at best, presumptuous at worst.
(I should acknowledge here that the CACA-MR, from which the CEC originally claimed succession, itself has some arguable claims to validity given that the multiple episcopal lines from which it derived included at least a few hierarchs who, again arguably, had valid episcopal orders themselves or in their lineage. However, over time, the CACA-MR has sufficiently departed in praxis from Catholicism as to make it increasingly unlikely that the validity of its orders has been maintained.)
An additional concern vis-a-vis the CEC hierarchy is whether or not its bishops had valid presbyteral orders prior to their elevation to the episcopacy. Within the Anglican and Episcopal Churches, presbyteral orders have generally not been deemed valid by the Catholic Church, although an element of uncertainty was introduced and the waters were somewhat muddied in the twentieth century by the participation of Old Catholic hierarchy in some Anglican and Episcopal ordinations. However, it should be noted that the CEC, its name notwithstanding, did not originate in the Episcopal Church.
As I remarked in the beginning of my post, by whom those who became the CEC’s bishops were ordained and into which ecclesial community could be factors in the validity of subsequent episcopal ordinations. That is not to say that it is an issue which couldn’t have been cured, if a bishop with valid, though illicit, faculties ordained them to the priesthood prior to consecrating them as bishops. From publically available information, it can’t be determined one way or the other whether that happened in this instance.
The CEC is a small but viable ecclesial body, with about 1000 congregations scattered across 40 of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, 3 Canadian provinces, and some 12-15 foreign countries. It claims about 200,000 communicants, last I checked, a number that is probably a bit high - but in the neighborhood. The Church’s theology, praxis, organization, and functioning is sufficiently mainstream to keep it out of the realm of being classed as vagante.
In sum, the CEC may have achieved valid Apostolic Succession and all that comes with that, but it cannot be stated with any certainty, absent a detailed study of all the lineages involved.
Before any speculates or asks, it should be noted that the CEC does not fall within the provisions of Canon 844 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law. So that, even in instances of grave necessity, Catholics may not lawfully approach CEC clergy to receive the Sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist, or Anointing of the Sick.
In §3 of that Canon, reference is made to “members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid Eastern Churches so far as the Sacraments are concerned.” At present, the sole other Church formally judged “to be in the same position” as the Orthodox Churches “so far as the Sacraments are concerned” is the Polish National Catholic Church (and only its US jurisdictions).
Finally, the Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) is not to be confused with the Charismatic Catholic Church (CCC), which presents its own set of problems
- albeit slightly less convoluted.Many years,
Neil
T
twiztedseraph
Guest
The Orthodox teach that Orders are the property of the Church, not independant of the Church. Thus when a priest is in schism with the Church he is a layman, with no power whatsoever. He can say all the Sacramental formulas he wants, but he’d be lucky to get so much as a breeze of air.
We as Catholics teach that the Orders confer a sacramental seal and character on the soul. Thus if a Bishop receives orders, he is a Bishop forever, even if the Pope himself issues a bull of excommunication, he retains the “power” not the “right” to ordain. So he could technically (though illicitly, and sacraligously) establish his own Church.
Most traditional Orthodox view us as being devoid of all grace, thus we have no sacraments, not even baptism…this may seem hard to accept, but we should respect their view and show them the truth of the matter via our perfect conduct.
Pax vobiscum.
T
totustuusmaria
Guest
That priest is from my parish!!!
I know him!
He wants to resume his ministry, but Rome has to decide. Usually that decision takes awhile. It isn’t just “standard preceedur” Rome looks at each case induvidually.
T
twiztedseraph
Guest
Michael Cumbie?
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Yes . . . and each year that goes by, there are more and more cases for Rome to examine!
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
To be fair, the Orthodox view Catholics as devoid of all mysteriological grace (I don’t know if we would call that sacramental grace, or if that goes so far as to exclude all sanctifying grace). They would still recognize the presence of some grace, but only to a certain extent.
- Status