How can Eastern Orthodox have valid bishops?

[Dandelion_Wine]

I have a clarity question as a follow-up to What can’t a deacon do?

If a bishop needs permission from the pope to ordain a bishop, how are the Orthodox doing it? I can see that they had valid orders because the bishops were able to ordain priests. But as time went on, how could they ordain more bishops unless they had permission from the pope?

 

[Michelle_Arnold]

The necessary permission of the pope is an ecclesial discipline, not a doctrine. A bishop has *the power *to validly ordain another bishop, but under canon law he cannot use it licitly (i.e., lawfully) without permission of the pope. As an example of how this works, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of the Society of St. Pius X presumably validly ordained four bishops for his society in 1988. But because those ordinations were not approved by the pope, they were illicit. By virtue of canon law, Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he ordained illicitly were automatically excommunicated.

So long as the sacrament of holy orders is validly conferred, the man who is ordained is a valid deacon, priest, or bishop. But if the ordination occurred outside proper ecclesial discipline, the valid ordination would be unlawful (i.e., illicit). In the Catholic Church, a bishop must have the permission of the pope to licitly ordain another bishop.