Spruit himself traced his claim of apostolic succession through a variety of lines, always pronouncing that his principal line was that which came down through the hands of Gerard Gul, a prominent Old Catholic (Utrecht) bishop, and Arnold Harris Matthew, Old Catholic bishop for Great Britain, whose name can be found in the episcopal lineages of a multitude of “independent hierarchs”. Additionally, Spruit (among others) claimed to be the legitimate successor to a supposed American-based Greek-Catholic patriarchate said to have been willed to him by Antoine (Joseph) Aneed, a renegade Melkite priest, who put himself forth as having episcopal orders, although he held, at best, an honorific dignity.
Rafaella:
The Church of Antioch likes to trot out their various lines of Apostolic Succession, but they are only listing the bishops who have left the Catholic Church and started their own churches. It does NOT mean that the Holy Spirit was obliged to follow them out of the Church. They no longer have authority as they are no longer under the Pope. They have made off with gifts of the Church but they are nonlegitamate and as such their “sacraments” are devoid of grace, and therefore their operations deceive the naive.
Joe alluded to the fact that the situation is not quite cut and dried and he is correct in that regard. To explain this, I’m going to describe the Catholic and the Orthodox theories as to validity of Holy Orders and, consequently, Apostolic Succession. The differences between the two are the reasons why you will most often see claims of apostolic succession by these “independent” hierarchs relying most heavily on their “Catholic” lines, rather than their “Orthodox” lines - even in instances where they are purporting to be “Orthodox” in theology or praxis.
The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly. One can discuss, debate, and disagree over which is the more rational stance, but it won’t change the fact that what is, is.
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 - for the moment - 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 both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, where the parties are the ministers and the priest witnesses.
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 exercised
oekonomia in its application to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).
(continued)
). From the onset, it looks like an exaggerated version of the Anglican Church…
