Why would an Orthodox Christian bishop ordain a non-Orthodox Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Morgan_Hiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Morgan_Hiver said:
Sorry that I have not had time to reply to my own thread. Ok, so, there is a church called the Byzantine Catholic Church located in Los Angeles that claims to be a TRUE TRADITIONAL church that started with a Russian Orthodox Archbishop that had to escape his country during the Revolution. Because of this they claim to have apostolic succession and from there they went and ordained a bunch of other weird organizations such as the Bishop of the Apostolic Catholic Church in Long Beach, CA. This guy thinks that his mother is the Blessed Virgin reincarnated. She was canonized by him.

There are so many others that I came across with equally bizarre antics and very similar ordinations.

By the way, not that I am offended, but I am a male.
Click to expand...
Could you give the internet links of those two mentioned above? I’d like to have a look at them.
 
Morgan_Hiver said:
Sorry that I have not had time to reply to my own thread. Ok, so, there is a church called the Byzantine Catholic Church located in Los Angeles that claims to be a TRUE TRADITIONAL church that started with a Russian Orthodox Archbishop that had to escape his country during the Revolution. Because of this they claim to have apostolic succession and from there they went and ordained a bunch of other weird organizations such as the Bishop of the Apostolic Catholic Church in Long Beach, CA. This guy thinks that his mother is the Blessed Virgin reincarnated. She was canonized by him.

There are so many others that I came across with equally bizarre antics and very similar ordinations.

By the way, not that I am offended, but I am a male.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what that group has to do with the OP. :confused:
 
Morgan_Hiver said:
Sorry that I have not had time to reply to my own thread. Ok, so, there is a church called the Byzantine Catholic Church located in Los Angeles that claims to be a TRUE TRADITIONAL church that started with a Russian Orthodox Archbishop that had to escape his country during the Revolution. Because of this they claim to have apostolic succession and from there they went and ordained a bunch of other weird organizations such as the Bishop of the Apostolic Catholic Church in Long Beach, CA. This guy thinks that his mother is the Blessed Virgin reincarnated. She was canonized by him.

There are so many others that I came across with equally bizarre antics and very similar ordinations.

By the way, not that I am offended, but I am a male.
Click to expand...
Hello Morgan.

What you are encountering is vaganteism.This is not as common in the Orthodox tradition as it is in the west, because the Orthodox churches tend to adhere to the Cyprianic concept of episcopacy. In the Cyprianic model a bishop separated from his faith is no bishop, so he has nothing to ‘pass on’.

This differs from the common western concept, wherin a bishop can make another even of faithless and confused men.

Working from memory I think the most common vagante lines of succession are the Matthew, Thuc, Duarte Costa and Vilatte. These are normally thought of as Catholic lines. I can’t explain why this gets started, whether through idealism or perhaps a desparate need for money (or both, at different times) that drives a man to consecrate bishops. It is odd that there are people out there willing to pay for it. The SSPX bishops of Archbishop LaFebvre would also be in this category, although no one is suggesting that these men paid for the honors.

There was one bishop named Ofiesh who actually was Orthodox and became a renegade through some circumstances around the time of the Russian revolution. He eventually married in a civil ceremony and quit the church. Subsequent to his separation from canonical Orthodoxy none of his ordinations would be recognized by the Orthodox and there is no succession, although they might be recognized by Catholics and Anglicans who keep track of such things.

Apparently Archbishop Milingo has started his own line of fashionably renegade bishops in the last decade. The Papacy seems to have taken a more Orthodox stance in his case, actually denying that he is making bishops. That is a positive step and a real change in attitude.

Nevertheless, there are many hopeful little groups out there which will parade their credentials of episcopal lines of succession before us, as if it really matters if they don’t teach the truth. They should be ignored.
 
Madaglan said:
Not all groups that have “Orthodox” in their name are canonically Orthodox.

The following page provides numerous groups in the US that claim to be Orthodox but are in fact schismatic, heretical, etc.
aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html
Click to expand...
Hi

thank you for sharing. That’s pretty intersting.
I wouldn’t have guessed that there are that many “pseudo-Orthodox Churches” in the US.

But one Church reminded me of the Old Catholic Church/in communion with Utrecht: The Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Church - Nashua, NH
 
This subject (Orthodox bishops conscrating Anglcian bishops) comes up fairly often in discussions. I am always interested in any specifics since I am not aware of any such, except as found in the world of* vagantes* (see Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE), and Anglicans do not AKAIK, make any such claims. In 1908, 3 Old Catholic bishops consecrated Arnold H. Mathew (the Mathew line; see Anson). Then, following the formal agreements of communion between the Anglican Communion (the Agreement of Bonn, see Moss’ THE OLD CATHOLIC MOVEMENT) and the Old Catholics of Utrecht, starting in 1932, a large number of joint consecrations of Anglican bishops (and PNCC bishops, starting in 1946) took place is well documented (a list of such can be found, through about 1964, in Appendix II to Hughes’ STEWARDS OF THE LORD, a book I often recommend to folks interested in this subject). These bishops, in the course of their duties, spread these episcopal lines (valid, if illicit) throughout Anglicanism. My late rector was ordained by an Anglican bishop who was himself consecrated by an Anglican bishop who possessed such lines, from his consecration in 1962 by a PNCC bishop.

GKC
 
Madaglan said:
Not all groups that have “Orthodox” in their name are canonically Orthodox.

The following page provides numerous groups in the US that claim to be Orthodox but are in fact schismatic, heretical, etc.
aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html
Click to expand...
I needed to go to Sante Fe on business, so I went online to look for Catholic churches I might attend while there. I found the site of one that had a picture of a beautiful old Church claiming to be Catholic. Something seemed odd about it so I read through the website. It is certainly not a Catholic parish despite any claims to be Catholic and have apostolic succession legitimizing the female priestess. Orthodox have the same situation, groups claiming to be Orthodox by calling themselves so.
 
Greetings;

Perhaps a review of the site “www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org” (?) will answer the question. Review the Canons especially 18 and 19 where they state to the effect everyone may approach for communion and that literally everyone, regardless of gender, orientation or whatever shall be considered for ordination. Sounds like the Ultra-Liberal Episcopalians are at it again! Whether they have the validity of the orders might be questionable since most Protestants of the Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran confessions swear, as one of their articles, that the Eucharist is only a symbol and that the Mass, Divine Liturgy, Qaddishat Qorbono are not sacrifices. If there is no sacrifice, there is NO priesthood because there is no need for a valid priesthood without a sacrifice. If they do not believe nor intend to Consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the form of the Sacrament/Mystery does NOT exist and, therefore, they are not validly ordained to anything.

Peace,

George
 
George_Largess said:
Greetings;

Perhaps a review of the site “www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org” (?) will answer the question. Review the Canons especially 18 and 19 where they state to the effect everyone may approach for communion and that literally everyone, regardless of gender, orientation or whatever shall be considered for ordination. Sounds like the Ultra-Liberal Episcopalians are at it again! Whether they have the validity of the orders might be questionable since most Protestants of the Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran confessions swear, as one of their articles, that the Eucharist is only a symbol and that the Mass, Divine Liturgy, Qaddishat Qorbono are not sacrifices. If there is no sacrifice, there is NO priesthood because there is no need for a valid priesthood without a sacrifice. If they do not believe nor intend to Consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the form of the Sacrament/Mystery does NOT exist and, therefore, they are not validly ordained to anything.

Peace,

George
Click to expand...
Just a correction, as far as I’m aware Lutherans hold to Luthers teaching of the Real Presence. I’m not sure what the majority belief is among Anglicans though, both have been the official position at various times, and neither belief is required at present.
 
George_Largess said:
Greetings;

Perhaps a review of the site “www.orthodoxcatholicchurch.org” (?) will answer the question. Review the Canons especially 18 and 19 where they state to the effect everyone may approach for communion and that literally everyone, regardless of gender, orientation or whatever shall be considered for ordination. Sounds like the Ultra-Liberal Episcopalians are at it again! Whether they have the validity of the orders might be questionable since most Protestants of the Anglican/Episcopalian and Lutheran confessions swear, as one of their articles, that the Eucharist is only a symbol and that the Mass, Divine Liturgy, Qaddishat Qorbono are not sacrifices. If there is no sacrifice, there is NO priesthood because there is no need for a valid priesthood without a sacrifice. If they do not believe nor intend to Consecrate the bread and wine to become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the form of the Sacrament/Mystery does NOT exist and, therefore, they are not validly ordained to anything.

Peace,

George
Click to expand...
If you mean by articles the XXXIX Articles in Anglicanism, they are not binding on any, save, in an Erastian technical sense, on ordinands of the Church of England. They are an historical document that was an expression of how Elizabeth I governed the CoE, not a form of Anglican Confession, generally.

GKC
 
Greetings;

The issue of The Real Presence versus the symbolic presence must be a concern; otherwise why former Anglican and Lutheran priests are not considered ordained and therefore must be validly ordained would not be required as in the “Anglican Provisions” nor “Anglicanorum Coetibus”. The four former Anglican Bishops were ordained a few weeks ago in England as Catholic priests. This would seem to indicate theological issues with the validity of Anglican and Lutheran orders. There is still the difficulty that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer needed to be revised to be in accord with Catholic/Orthodox doctrines concerning the Eucharist.

Also, all being equal the Catechism of the Catholic Church does emphasize that Orthodox may approach for Communion but no one else unless he or she accepts the Catholic/Orthodox definition of Communion (from the Missal, usually in the back or on the back cover states this.) See especially The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1398, 1399, 1400, and 1401. If anyone wishes, I could try to include them later.

George
 
George_Largess said:
Greetings;

The issue of The Real Presence versus the symbolic presence must be a concern; otherwise why former Anglican and Lutheran priests are not considered ordained and therefore must be validly ordained would not be required as in the “Anglican Provisions” nor “Anglicanorum Coetibus”. The four former Anglican Bishops were ordained a few weeks ago in England as Catholic priests. This would seem to indicate theological issues with the validity of Anglican and Lutheran orders. There is still the difficulty that the Anglican Book of Common Prayer needed to be revised to be in accord with Catholic/Orthodox doctrines concerning the Eucharist.

Also, all being equal the Catechism of the Catholic Church does emphasize that Orthodox may approach for Communion but no one else unless he or she accepts the Catholic/Orthodox definition of Communion (from the Missal, usually in the back or on the back cover states this.) See especially The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1398, 1399, 1400, and 1401. If anyone wishes, I could try to include them later.

George
Click to expand...
But as I understand it…by doing so the Orthodox person would “excommunicate” him/herself since the Orthodox do not believe Catholics have a valid “mystery”.

Perhaps an Orthodox brother or sister will comment.
 
Publisher said:
But as I understand it…by doing so the Orthodox person would “excommunicate” him/herself since the Orthodox do not believe Catholics have a valid “mystery”.

Perhaps an Orthodox brother or sister will comment.
Click to expand...
From my experience, one will find a variety of opinions among the Orthodox with respect to whether the Catholic Church actually has valid sacraments. Also, from what I understand, not all Orthodox hierarchs would insist that Orthodox Christians who receive Communion in a Catholic Church excommunicate themselves, although I believe it is the position of most Orthodox jurisdictions.
 
Publisher said:
But as I understand it…by doing so the Orthodox person would “excommunicate” him/herself since the Orthodox do not believe Catholics have a valid “mystery”.

Perhaps an Orthodox brother or sister will comment.
Click to expand...
That is generally the position. Although in places such as the Middle East, where the lines between Orthodox and Eastern Catholic are not always so clear, some limited intercommunion does occur.
 
Publisher said:
But as I understand it…by doing so the Orthodox person would “excommunicate” him/herself since the Orthodox do not believe Catholics have a valid “mystery”.

Perhaps an Orthodox brother or sister will comment.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are not allowed by our Church, but that doesn’t mean they can’t offer.
 
Greetings;

I believe that the major issue is whether Anglican/Episcopalian or Lutheran Priests are validly ordained and I would present this answer by Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. to a “Ask a Question” Forum – not whether it is acceptable to intercommunicate, Catholic and Orthodox – especially Paragraph #2

Yesterday, 12:55 pm
Fr. Vincent Serpa
Catholic Answers Apologist Join Date: May 4, 2004
Posts: 3,315

Re: Jesus Christ as our Last High Priest?
Hi,

Hebrews states that the ideal high priest would have to be holy, innocent and uncontaminated (by sin). He would not have to offer sacrifices every day, as other (Levitical) high priests did, first for their own sins, and then for those of the people. Christ has done this once and for all by offering himself. (Heb. 7:20-28)

This is no way excludes those men he has chosen to share in his priesthood. The key to all this is the Eucharist. He deliberately shared this with his Apostles in the upper room. When the Protestants dropped the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, it quite logically became a symbolic meal and no more. Can you imagine what dropping the sacrificial aspect of Christ’s death would do to Christianity?

In that eternal moment when Jesus struggled to take his last breath and failed, he died and gave us life at the same time. All of humanity was redeemed by that moment of sacrifice. While that moment transcends all time, the Eucharist is that moment IN time. It brings the reality of that moment into our lives in a concrete, sacramental way. The Apostles were the first to be made privy to this and were actually given the power to “do this in remembrance of Me.” (Lk. 22:19)

The Eucharist completes his Incarnation. Through the Eucharist he not only joins us in our humanity, through it he concretely permeates our bodies as well as our souls, nourishing us with his divine life. If one can accept and grasp the reality of this most holy sacrament, then the priesthood of Jesus becomes quite necessary and understandable. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “It (the Eucharist) was the fulfillment of ancient figures and the greatest of all his miracles, while for those who were to experience the sorrow of his departure, it was destined to be a unique and abiding consolation.” (Opusculum 57, in festo Corporis Christi, lect. 1-4) How sad it is that so many Christians go without such a consolation!

Thank you for the honor of answering such a good question about the very core of our Faith.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Fr. Serpa seems to be stating that denial of the sacrificial aspect of The Eucharist makes the validity independent of belief if the sacrificial aspect is lacking.

Also, the Holy See has allowed Assyrian/Chaldean Catholics and Assyrian Church of the East to share both The Holy Mysteries as well as Churches due to the anti-Christian persecution, especially of Catholics and Assyrians.

I always pray for the union of all Christians (Not Uniatism!!).

In Jesus Christ, the Savior and Eternal Priest.

George Largess
 
An interesting article from a Methodist point of view can be found here.

There is also a possibility that John Wesley, Anglican priest, was ordained a bishop by an Orthodox bishop, Erasmus of Arcadia/Crete. While this is still being researched for additional historical veracity, it isn’t as big an issue to Methodism as it is to other traditions.

Wikipedia has an entry here, but remember - it’s Wikipedia. Check the sources and footnotes.

O+
 
O.S.Luke said:
An interesting article from a Methodist point of view can be found here.

There is also a possibility that John Wesley, Anglican priest, was ordained a bishop by an Orthodox bishop, Erasmus of Arcadia/Crete. While this is still being researched for additional historical veracity, it isn’t as big an issue to Methodism as it is to other traditions.

Wikipedia has an entry here, but remember - it’s Wikipedia. Check the sources and footnotes.

O+
Click to expand...
Given that for the Orthodox, one needs three bishops to consecrate a new bishop, I’m guessing that if that did happen Wesley misunderstood and it was only a blessing or something like that (there are still issues with that but it isn’t as big). Additionally Wesley saw bishops as unnecessary, even trying to get the American overseers to use a different title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top