Validity of Oriental Orders

[belgianwaffles9]

Since last summer, I’ve been working on a huge chart that shows the schism and splits that have developed it the “One, holy, apostolic Church” since the death of the apostles. It is meant to show which churches are in communion with eachother, and which are in schism, and to show the apostolic succession from the original apostles, down through the ancient Pentarchy, and to the modern Patriarchs or various Churches and Rites.

I made the decision not to include any Protestant denominations, or some breakway sects, chosing instead to show only those churches which have valid holy orders.

So, my question is, does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the validity of Holy Orders in the Oriental Orthodox Churches? I’m guessing it does, because we have Coptic, Ethiopian, and Indian (etc) Catholic Churches, but I wanted to make sure.

While I’m on it, which breakaway Catholic groups have valid holy orders (Old Catholic, Polish National, etc)?

 

[jj2011]

Since last summer, I’ve been working on a huge chart that shows the schism and splits that have developed it the “One, holy, apostolic Church” since the death of the apostles. It is meant to show which churches are in communion with eachother, and which are in schism, and to show the apostolic succession from the original apostles, down through the ancient Pentarchy, and to the modern Patriarchs or various Churches and Rites.

I made the decision not to include any Protestant denominations, or some breakway sects, chosing instead to show only those churches which have valid holy orders.

So, my question is, does the Roman Catholic Church recognize the validity of Holy Orders in the Oriental Orthodox Churches? I’m guessing it does…

The answer is yes, although there are doubts about the validity of Orders in the Ethiopian Orthodox because of the way Orders have been conferred in that Church.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The answer is yes, although there are doubts about the validity of Orders in the Ethiopian Orthodox because of the way Orders have been conferred in that Church.

Does anyone know more about this. I just heard about this recently, and am interested to learn more.

When did the Ethiopians fall out of communion with the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Dan-Man916]

Since last summer, I’ve been working on a huge chart that shows the schism and splits that have developed it the “One, holy, apostolic Church” since the death of the apostles. It is meant to show which churches are in communion with

Sounds interesting. Can you post this chart?

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Sounds interesting. Can you post this chart?

I will, very soon. Theres a few things left to work on; i want to finish adding notes that explain the different splits, especially in areas where they are very complicated, happened in different stages over time, or are currently unclear. And i want to also make a section of the chart which shows the different autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Churches, their Catholic counterparts, and some of the political differences there (Russia and Estonia come to mind, for example).

After that, I think it will be largely finished, and I’ll post it here for comments, corrections, suggestions, etc.

 

[Diak]

There is no question of the validity of Holy Orders in any Church of the Alexandrian tradition, whether Coptic, Ethiopian or Eritrean. The bishops of those Churches share valid Apostolic Succession.
FDRLB

 

[Dan-Man916]

however, there are written catholic sources I know of that state that their orders are questionable.
that is what i am referring to.

 

[Ghosty]

however, there are written catholic sources I know of that state that their orders are questionable.
that is what i am referring to.

What resources? If it’s New Advent then that’s because it was written when the Orientals were still thought to be Monophysites (they’re not, and never were) and also the Catholic Encyclopedia featured there is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate when discussing non-Latin issues (to the point that it’s not even considered a valid, authoritative resource by most folks who study Eastern Christian matters, including myself).

If it’s not the New Advent website I’m curious to know where you heard it, 'cause it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of them being invalid.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jj2011]

What resources? If it’s New Advent then that’s because it was written when the Orientals were still thought to be Monophysites (they’re not, and never were) and also the Catholic Encyclopedia featured there is NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate when discussing non-Latin issues (to the point that it’s not even considered a valid, authoritative resource by most folks who study Eastern Christian matters, including myself).

If it’s not the New Advent website I’m curious to know where you heard it, 'cause it’s the first time I’ve ever heard of them being invalid.

Peace and God bless!

Okay, I think we have the message that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the best source about eastern Catholicism.

I have read in Attwater that Rome at times conditionally ordained Ethiopian clergy, not because the rite wasn’t valid, but because of the circumstances. Centuries ago, the Abuna would visit Ethiopia and (the story goes) ordain bunches of men at a time without doing the full sacramental rite correctly.

I’m by no means an expert here; just repeating what I vaguely remember from reading twenty years ago.

Obviously what happened (or may have happened) in the past does not exclude the possibility that valid orders were conferred later on; I simply can’t speak to that.

 

[AJV]

Ghosty, even while holding that the OO were Monophysites, their orders were always acknowledged. This was done in the case of the Syriacs and the Armenians. The difficulty with the Ethiopians was not using their own. When they did, it was always regarded as valid - “Quatenus Aethiopes lacobitarum vel alio ritu utantur, in quo eorum sacerdotes seu monachi per manuum impositionem ordinentur, eorum ordinatio est valida”

In the 18th century there was only one archbishop sent by the Coptic Pope from Egypt for the whole country. Thus there were mass ordinations. Instea dof using the rites in the Ethiopian liturgical books, the archbishop was said to have ordained deacons by placing his cross on their heads and ordained priests by placing his hands on the head and saying “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. In addition the word and/or gesture were sometimes omitted for some in the vast number. This question came to prominence with the Anglican Orders- on account of the fact that some claimed the authority of a spurious decree that recognized the ordinations as valid (“Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” was declared insufficient by Leo XIII)

I think that such a defect may be removed by now. The Ethiopian Orthodox now have their own heirachy with bishops and a Patriarch. Hence no need for mass ordinations and presumably they follow the Ordination rites of their books. Moreover, in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII did mention that moral contact suffices hence the numerous doubts of valid ordinations due to not explicitly touching the head are somewhat clarified.

I’m not so familiar with Orthodox practise- would the Orthodox churches recognize the raising of someone to the diaconate by only the imposition of the cross on the head?

 

[AJV]

Ghosty, even while holding that the OO were Monophysites, their orders were always acknowledged. This was done in the case of the Syriacs and the Armenians. The difficulty with the Ethiopians was not using their own.

In the 18th century there was only one archbishop sent by the Coptic Pope from Egypt for the whole country. Thus there were mass ordinations. It was said that instead of using the rites in the Ethiopian or Coptic liturgical books, the archbishop ordained deacons by placing his cross on their heads and ordained priests by placing his hands on the head and saying “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. In addition the word and/or gesture were sometimes omitted for some in the vast number. This question came to prominence with the Anglican Orders- on account of the fact that some claimed the authority of a supposed decree that recognized the ordinations as valid (“Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” was declared insufficient by Leo XIII)

I think that such a defect may be removed by now. The Ethiopian Orthodox now have their own heirachy with bishops and a Patriarch. Hence no need for mass ordinations and presumably they follow the Ordination rites of their books.

Some books do state the case that the Ordination rite had onyl been used once over all with “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” over each. But for that, in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII did mention that moral contact suffices hence the numerous doubts of valid ordinations due to not explicitly touching the head are somewhat clarified.

I’m not so familiar with Orthodox practise- would the Orthodox churches recognize the raising of someone to the diaconate by only the imposition of the cross on the head?

 

[AJV]

Ghosty, even while holding that the OO were Monophysites, their orders were always acknowledged. This was done in the case of the Syriacs and the Armenians. The difficulty with the Ethiopians was not using their own.

In the 18th century there was only one archbishop sent by the Coptic Pope from Egypt for the whole country. Thus there were mass ordinations. It was said that instead of using the rites in the Ethiopian or Coptic liturgical books, the archbishop ordained deacons by placing his cross on their heads and ordained priests by placing his hands on the head and saying “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. In addition the word and/or gesture were sometimes omitted for some in the vast number. This question came to prominence with the Anglican Orders- on account of the fact that some claimed the authority of a supposed decree that recognized the ordinations as valid (“Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” was declared insufficient by Leo XIII)

I think that such a defect may be removed by now. The Ethiopian Orthodox now have their own heirachy with bishops and a Patriarch. Hence no need for mass ordinations and presumably they follow the Ordination rites of their books.

Some articles do state the case as where the Ordination rite had only been used once over all with “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” over each. At that time it was therefore decided to conditionally re-ordain. But in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII declared that moral contact suffices hence the numerous doubts of valid ordinations due to not explicitly touching the head are somewhat clarified.

I’m not so familiar with Orthodox practise- would the Orthodox churches recognize the raising of someone to the diaconate by only the imposition of the cross on the head?

 

[JMBNH]

Old Catholic (Utrecht Union) churches have valid apostolic succession, as does the Polish National Church, not sure about the Philippines National Church. Also assume you know, but if not, the Assyrian Church of the East has valid orders also

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty, even while holding that the OO were Monophysites, their orders were always acknowledged. This was done in the case of the Syriacs and the Armenians. The difficulty with the Ethiopians was not using their own.

In the 18th century there was only one archbishop sent by the Coptic Pope from Egypt for the whole country. Thus there were mass ordinations. It was said that instead of using the rites in the Ethiopian or Coptic liturgical books, the archbishop ordained deacons by placing his cross on their heads and ordained priests by placing his hands on the head and saying “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. In addition the word and/or gesture were sometimes omitted for some in the vast number. This question came to prominence with the Anglican Orders- on account of the fact that some claimed the authority of a supposed decree that recognized the ordinations as valid (“Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” was declared insufficient by Leo XIII)

I think that such a defect may be removed by now. The Ethiopian Orthodox now have their own heirachy with bishops and a Patriarch. Hence no need for mass ordinations and presumably they follow the Ordination rites of their books.

Some articles do state the case as where the Ordination rite had only been used once over all with “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum” over each. At that time it was therefore decided to conditionally re-ordain. But in Sacramentum Ordinis, Pius XII declared that moral contact suffices hence the numerous doubts of valid ordinations due to not explicitly touching the head are somewhat clarified.

I’m not so familiar with Orthodox practise- would the Orthodox churches recognize the raising of someone to the diaconate by only the imposition of the cross on the head?

Very interesting! Thanks for the information!

Peace and God bless!

 

[twf]

Actually this makes me think of a Latin ordination I witnessed where the bishop did not directly lay hands on the candidate’s head, but simply extended his hands just above the head as he recited the prayers of ordination.

 

[Dan-Man916]

What resources?

I have a 1 volume book called the new catholic encyclopedia. I can look up the publishing information if you’d like, as I have it at home. But in their entry about the ethiopian orthodox it says that the validity of their orders is in question.
I ahve also read this somewhere else very recently, but I can’t remember where. that is why i was wondering, as I had always assumed that their orders were valid.

The other distinction that is made is that it is the Ethiopian Orthodox, but they don’t name the entire coptic Church.
I need to check on this again to make sure I have my information correct, but that made me wonder if there is a distinction between the Ethiopian Church and the rest of the Coptic Orthodox in union with the Pope of Alexandria.

I honestly don’t know.

 

[Volodymyr]

In the 18th century there was only one archbishop sent by the Coptic Pope from Egypt for the whole country. Thus there were mass ordinations.The archbishop ordained deacons by placing his cross on their heads and ordained priests by placing his hands on the head and saying “Accipe Spiritum Sanctum”. I think that such a defect may be removed by now.

I am somewhat confusing about concern for “validity”. Why do Catolics spend worring about such of other ordinations. Is this a concern to Catolics or Ethiopians?

As far as I know from Archmandrite Porphiryi (Uspenskij) from 19th century, Ethiopian church was considered entirely Orthodox and hopeful to be united with Russian church but interrupted by Bolshevik revolution. Orthodox churches do not judge other churches. Our diakons are diakons - others are diakons in their churches, not our business.

Do you really believe Egyptian Kopt from Aleksandria goes to Abyssinia and is speaking latin phrase “Accipte Spirtum sanctum??” very unlikely probability

 

[AJV]

I am somewhat confusing about concern for “validity”. Why do Catolics spend worring about such of other ordinations. Is this a concern to Catolics or Ethiopians?

As far as I know from Archmandrite Porphiryi (Uspenskij) from 19th century, Ethiopian church was considered entirely Orthodox and hopeful to be united with Russian church but interrupted by Bolshevik revolution. Orthodox churches do not judge other churches. Our diakons are diakons - others are diakons in their churches, not our business.

Do you really believe Egyptian Kopt from Aleksandria goes to Abyssinia and is speaking latin phrase “Accipte Spirtum sanctum??” very unlikely probability

No he spoke in Coptic - I have the words but I do not have the font.I think in Latin characters it is “Ci imbnevma suab” (as is evident, I know barely anything about Coptic, so this is an approximation) I merely put it in Latin because that was the language employed for the phrase in the Anglican controversy

As to why it was worrying, it was the question of whether to re-ordain priests and deacons who joined the communion with Rome or not.

It is, I think the same with Orthodox Churches, is it not? our priests are priests to us, but if they join the Orthodox Church the Orthodox bishop will decide whether to receive them throguh vesting or whether they should be re-chrismated or what. That is a determination then upon our (Catholic) Orders, but made because the person is joining the Orthodox.

 

[Volodymyr]

AJF says: t is, I think the same with Orthodox Churches, is it not? our priests are priests to us, but if they join the Orthodox Church the Orthodox bishop will decide whether to receive them throguh vesting or whether they should be re-chrismated or what.

Of course there are problems with legality of priesthood (законность рукоположения) in So-called Kyivan patrchiate church and also among the old believers (белокриницкие и новозыбковцы) who do not agree among themselves as to valid ordination. But canonical Orthodox church does not take a position until they wish to return to Orthodoxy. Then Bishop will make arrangements. Church does not judge others so that Orthodox people do not say to Kyivan patriarchate or Old Believer friends - you church is not legal, your church has insufficient ordinated priests and bishops. This is no concern of Orthodox laymen or Orthodox church. I have now read about Catolic statments about anglikan church and think that this is quite a pointless statement in past. Now it seems as many Anglikans as can become Catolic priests - just fine. So why make a statement previously about someone elses church?

 

[Ghosty]

AJF says: t is, I think the same with Orthodox Churches, is it not? our priests are priests to us, but if they join the Orthodox Church the Orthodox bishop will decide whether to receive them throguh vesting or whether they should be re-chrismated or what.

Of course there are problems with legality of priesthood (законность рукоположения) in So-called Kyivan patrchiate church and also among the old believers (белокриницкие и новозыбковцы) who do not agree among themselves as to valid ordination. But canonical Orthodox church does not take a position until they wish to return to Orthodoxy. Then Bishop will make arrangements. Church does not judge others so that Orthodox people do not say to Kyivan patriarchate or Old Believer friends - you church is not legal, your church has insufficient ordinated priests and bishops. This is no concern of Orthodox laymen or Orthodox church. I have now read about Catolic statments about anglikan church and think that this is quite a pointless statement in past. Now it seems as many Anglikans as can become Catolic priests - just fine. So why make a statement previously about someone elses church?

Such statements are only made when people from that group want to enter the Catholic Church, or for some reason the Sacraments might be requested from their ministers (for example a Catholic receiving the Eucharist from an Orthodox priest). In those situations the Catholic Church must determine whether or not the Sacraments actually exist in that group so we know what to do with those who would enter our Church, or whether we’d actually be receiving the Sacraments from their ministers.

For example, if an Anglican priest wants to become a Catholic priest, we must know if he was already actually a priest or simply acting as one. If he is already a priest then he doesn’t need the Sacrament of Ordination, but does need to be formally accepted into the Church. If he is not actually a priest then he must be Ordained AND accepted canonically.

Since the numbers of ministers entering the Catholic Church has been very great, the need for general statements and decisions that could be applied acrossed the board are required. So we can say “unless this Anglican was Ordained by someone who was actually a Bishop, he must be Ordained upon entering the Catholic Church”.

It’s not like the Catholic Church just goes around randomly making these decisions, but rather it became a necessity to make such decisions due to large numbers entering the Church (in the case of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox we have entire Churches that have come into the Catholic Communion, so such determinations are quite necessary).

In the case of the Orthodox there has never even been a need for such a ruling, as it’s simply been generally accepted and understood (with a few notable exceptions) that they are real Churches with real priests and Bishops, and that Christ and the Holy Spirit are really present in their Sacraments.

Hope that clears things up!

Peace and God bless!