www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anglican with Questions about Orders

Dear Marshall:

I am nothing but a man, not a prelate or Bishop, and I just expressed what I know. The Encyclicals come from the year 1922, and at that time the Anglicans only ordained normal men to priesthood, they were also in contact with Old Catholics and some Orthodox who agreed to ordain some, as posters have said. Nowadays, I just can't believe any Orthodox prelate recognizes an ordination performed by a woman, or a woman bishop, or anything like that, as a real Sacred Order. At the same time, I have been told by local orthodox priests that sacraments performed in Protestant churches must be repeated.

In the 1970's, a few priests who had been in contact with Old Catholic and Episcopal Church in Mexico, were re-ordained. I am no one to say that it's valid or not since as I said before I'm just a man. Other sources expose that some Anglican orders can be recognized if the Apostolic succession is there (although other Orthodox sources would claim that nothing outside the Church is graceful), but in modern times, how can you know if a Bishop or priest comes from a true succession?

Engolpion literally means "upon the breast" and before its episcopal connotations was a term used to describe any pectoral jewelry. It can be any icon, but as Incognitus correctly pointed out the Panagia refers specifically to an icon of the Theotokos and is also distinct from the pectoral cross (stavros).

I gather some people will jump down my throat for even asking these questions, but I�ll ask anyway (forgive me) because I really want to be enlightened on this issue.

Does the East believe there is only one Patriarchal See in the West? If so, what right does the Eastern Orthodox have to preside over the consecration of bishops in the Western Patriarchate? What canon allows for this?

If such consecration does occur (as it has) would Anglican orders be considered �valid, but not licit?�

Is not the attempt by the Eastern Orthodox to extend a possibility of communion with Western groups that are in schism with the Western Patriarch analogous to the Unia problem that the Eastern Orthodox have harbored (and still do) against the Western Patriarchate? What moral law justifies this? Granted, I realize that it is normally the Western groups in schism that have approached the Eastern Orthodox and not the other way around, but the outcome would be the same if the EO accepts the invitation. Also, I realize that such communion has not been actualized (or have they?). One can imagine the furor that would occur if the Pope even made any sort of advancements to communion with only one of the Churches in Orthodoxy, or a splinter group within a particular Orthodox Church! But the EO does not seem to be bothered if they do such �uniatizing� in the West. Once again, what moral law justifies this?

Looking forward to the answers. God bless.

Personally, I'm scandalised that this has happened at all. I can't remember if such a thing has happened in our Church; I doubt it.

But my question doesn't have to do with the matter of there being only one patriarchal see in the West (because I think it's generally agreed that there is only one such see in the West, and it is Rome), but whether or not the Pope sees himself as having jurisdiction over all Christians in the West, even those who have broken away from him and reject that authority.

I have two comments.

First for Phil.

I think the answer is yes. I come to this conclusion by the fact that any christian who enters communion with Rome must do so as a Latin Catholic unless they are originally Orthodox.

Second.

Even if the Anglican Church has valid orders I do not believe that all of the sacraments in the Anglican Church are valid. Or would they be?


David

Mor Ephrem:
But isn�t this the very reason that the wounds of the unia movement still resonate within Eastern Orthodoxy � that is, because though these particular groups have broken from them and come into communion with Rome, they STILL believe that these are RIGHTFULLY under their own jurisdictions?

Dear Francis,

My impression is that before the Unia, you could say, of course, that those people who were later to join the Unia were under Orthodox jurisdictions, and because of this, the interference of the West (seen from the Orthodox perspective has having broken away from the Church) in the life of the Orthodox (who perceive themselves to be "the Church"), and the "poaching" of members from them for the Roman communion is the main issue. As to whether the Orthodox generally see these people as under their jurisdiction still, I don't know; this may be more or less the case depending on the particular Church. But since, I think, all would be in agreement that the Eastern Catholics are not Orthodox, they do not fall under Orthodox jurisdiction now. They should be Orthodox, of course, but at present they are not, and I don't know if the Orthodox would claim jurisdiction over them in any sense now.

But I am not an expert on the Unia movement as it relates to Eastern (Byzantine) Orthodoxy and the Slavic Churches where I think it ruffled the most feathers. You'd have to ask them (the Byzantine Orthodox) why they had/have a problem with it, or you'd have to ask Greek Catholics knowledgeable about the subject. I am Indian Orthodox; we have our own reasons for not trusting Rome. :p

David,

I've heard that line of reasoning before, and it makes sense. I can understand the feeling that Protestants, because they are Western Christians, when reunited with the Catholic Church, should be under the Latin Church, but I presumed this had to do with spiritual/liturgical/theological reasons, and not merely with jurisdiction. I didn't know that was the way it was for everyone unless they were cradle Orthodox. I would've presumed that Protestant converts to Orthodoxy would be allowed to enter the Catholic Church via the appropriate Eastern Catholic Church. I would've thought that Protestants entering the Catholic Church could choose where they wanted to be. Is there any place where I can read the definitive guidelines for this stuff?

It has been very long since we talked; I hope all is well with you. God bless!

I don't think that the situation would be completely analogous to the Unia, but Fr. Schemann in his aryicle regarding Western Rite Orthodox, he does say that the comparisson is unavoidable.

According to my personal point of view, it's different because in the case of the Unia, it was about Orthodox Christians in Communion with Orthodox Churches and members of Orthodox nations, who were transfered to Rome's jurisdiction because of political reasons and Western influence in a movement where RC secular and religious authorities had a predominant role.

The case of the WR Orthodox is different, their groups separated from Rome without Eastern intervention and did so by their own will. Then they seek Orthodox consacrations to re-legitimate their identity as a matter of sincere conversion, but sometimes they just do so in order to validate their sacred orders and as a matter of mere Oportunism (if their orders were so valid why did they seek Orthodox and Catholic consacrations? Bishop Aftimios' "vagantes", for example).

Slava Isusu Christu!

To the Byzantine mindset this whole discussion is rather disturbing. The first criteria for priesthood to have Grace is that this Mystery be performed by a bishop of the Orthodox Catholic Faith in other words a hierarch who is in THE CHURCH. Mysteries perfomed "outside" the Church, in the Eastern consciousness, are always questionable and it is up to the Eparch to use either economia or strictness in regard to reception.

Historically the Anglican Church has had good relations with Orthodoxy as we all know. But the Anglican Communion is now having to think through the problem of not having unity of faith. Unity isn't founded on having quaint rituals or ceremonies or a "prayerbook", or being in "communion" with a Primus who claims an empty and useless Primacy of Honor. We can all remember the teaching of the Church on Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. This is basic Catholic teaching. The Church that Jesus Christ established has ALL of these marks not two or even three of them, but ALL.

From the Catholic POV the Anglican "Church" must be reconciled with Rome and all of their bishops must receive Ordination and most of their worthy male priests as well. This is essential so that there can be no questions as to the continuation of Holy Orders through these men.

If the Anglican Communion decided to enter Orthodoxy; it would become an Orthodox Church; Whether is would remain a Western Rite Church would be up to a Synod. I am sure economia would be used, but I don't think Vesting would be used (As an extreme example of ecomonia), probably conditional ordination.

The gist is the Anglican Church as a corporate body must return to the Orthodox Catholic Church whether it be under the Pontiff or the seperated Eastern Churches. In order to heal what is lacking in Grace et al. this must be done.

Now if I was Anglican and I had no concern for the Catholic and Orthodox teaching regarding Holy Orders I would proceed with my plans with Ordination as a non-sacrificing Protestant cleric. However, if I knew the Truth I would leave the Anglican Church and come home to THE CHURCH and pursue my vocation. The teaching of the Church is that if you KNOW the truth of the Catholic Faith and do not come out of error you are rejecting Christ and His Church. Arguing for the Apostolicity of the Anglican Church is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's an old horse that died when the Anglican Church decided to move away from what it had in common with the genuine Apostolic Churches. Now because you live in the "hold-out" Diocese in ECUSA does not excuse you from coming into the Catholic or Orthodox Church. Since these "orthodox" dioceses in ECUSA are in communion with what they term heretics they share not only in their error, but also in their condemnation by the witness of Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture, until as such time as they reconciled and have their Orders healed by an Apostolic Church and seperate from ECUSA and the Anglican Communion. You cannot be Orthodox and be in communion with heretics.

Nuff said.

God bless you on your journey,

In Christ,

Rob

Dear Marshall:

My prayer for you is that you will lead whatever portion of the Lord's flock your bishop assigns you to with true concern for their souls. May you live and teach the Faith as you have received it and compromise nothing.

That having been said, I have always wondered at the Anglican determination to seek Orders from the Orthodox or whoever might wish to confer them on their clergy. And the debate goes on as to whether this makes Anglican Orders valid.

Like my brother under the name "Mexican," I am neither a theologian, clergyman, or anyone who speaks for the Church. But I have turned the question around and find no one who can answer it. If Orthodox, Old Catholic, or others are willing to confer Orders on Anglican clergy, are they also willing to have Anglican clergy participate in their ordinations of new clergy? In other words, when has an Anglican bishop been invited to participate as a co-consecrator of an Orthodox bishop, an Assyrian bishop, or another in the recognized Apostolic Churches? It seems to me, in all charity, that that would be the test of whether Anglican Orders were truly recognized by others.

The other test would be whether those who participated in Anglican ordinations of bishops did so in their own Church's liturgical tradition or whether they did so within the usage of the Book of Common Prayer. Much of the objection to the recognition of Anglican Orders seems to me to stem from perceived deficiencies in that theological and ritual usage. Some other objections seem to stem from the idea that Orders must be conferred within the Church, from the Eastern point of view and using the Book of Common Pryaer puts the bishop participating outside his own Church and therefore outside the ability to confer Orders.

But I do not post to raise doubts in your mind. I just post because I have read these debates for many years, have friends within the Anglican Communion, and wish we could find some way to resolve the many theological, historical, and other hurdles that stand in the way of the faithful who wish to fulfill the Lord's prayer "that all may be one."

May the Lord bless you for following His call within the faith community in which he placed you.

In Christ,

BOB

Slava Isusu Christu!

Theo:

Nice post. I must say however that if an Orthodox bishop did act as co-consecrator he would put himself outside of the Orthodox Church, because Anglicans are heretics. It boggles my mind how an Orthodox prelate would EVER participate in a Anglican Service of Ordination. These fairy tales about canonical Orthodox bishops participating in the Laying on of Hands in an Anglican Ordination are outrageous at best.

Another comment I might make is that it is morally wrong to encourage someone in their erroneous opinions or path. Encouraging someone to stay Anglican, and therefore outside of the Church, is un-Catholic, un-Orthodox and frankly very mis-guided. Evangelization is not about letting people remain spiritually sick. From the Eastern perspective heresy is a spiritual disease. A father does not give his son a stone for bread. A physician who does not offer a cure when one is available is guilty of murder. It is not spiritual arrogance to assert the fullness of the Catholic and Orthodox Church; it is the Truth.
Truth like surgery roots out all infection and cancer. I think the Eastern usage of the medicinal in its theology-speak is very appropriate and necessary to avoid sounding purely juridical and full of "judgement." A sick person is not guily of being sick, but must seek the remedy, which is available. The Church as Christ's Body is the Medicine of Immortality.

The Anglican Church has led many to Christ and has provided the Sacrament of Baptism to many for that I am sure the Lord is grateful. And most Anglicans would never be guilty of the sin of schism because they never were Orthodox Catholics to begin with. But once we find the Truth we must turn away from all error and come to our Holy Mother, the Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Let us pray for our seperated Protestant friend that he come home and be healed. Amen.

In Christ the Healer,


Robert

Also:

The whole problem here is with the Western/Latin theological formulation regarding the Sacramental Mystery of Holy Orders. The Eastern point of view does not guarantee validity to the Mystery outside of the confines of the Church of Jesus Christ: the Orthodox Catholic Church. Because the Church like the Sun having rays or Mysteries, cannot have any other Light then Her own. Being that there is one Church there can only be true and Grace-filled Mysteries flowing from Her. The Latin perspective is that performed with correct matter, form, intention, and intention of rite: the Sacrament of Holy Orders can be confected even outside of the bounds of the Church by schismatics and/or heretics. Because of Latin influence this notion has crept into the modern Orthodox pastoral view regarding the Mysteries, but the rule in Orthodoxy, and our shared Eastern theological tradition, is still that it IS the Church and there can be no guarantee of Grace outside of Her; And we all know the censures the Holy Fathers had for heretics and their "Mysteries." We are much more charitable than they

The Early Church fathers dealt with these very issues and often had divergent pastoral practices, but the consensus patrum, for the most part, was that no Mystery performed outside of the one and only Church has the Grace of the All-Holy Trinity or can be guaranteed to be Grace-Filled and Divine.

The key theological issue behind this confusion really is whether or not Grace is created or uncreated; which we Eastern Christians believe it is uncreated, but that is another topic. Scholasticism had its merits, but re-configuring Patristic sacramental theology was probably its worst project.

The Mystery of Orders is not a magicical rite from some ancient Roman Mystery cult. Reducing the Mystery to issues of matter, form, intention et al is a dangerous game which has resulted in groups thinking they can just get hands laid on them, by a Grace-Filled Hierarch and voila we have valid Priesthood, but we stil teach heresy and desire to remain in schism and seperate from the Body Catholic whilst wallowing in self-deception believing some lie that the Body of Christ is a tree with many branches, each branch being one of the many countless denominations and sects in Christendom. Just because a lie is believed to be true and made popular doesn't make it so.

The heart of the issue is what good is a Mystery outside of the Church to begin with. All Christian Mysteries are relevant only in the Church Christ established, whether they are Graced outside of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity is outside of our knowledge as Eastern Christians, but this we KNOW that within the Church they are efficacious and contain the pleroma of the Uncreated Divine Energy of the Trinity and in the case of the Eucharist the fullness of both natures of Christ when the Holy Spirit transformes the Bread and Wine during the Divine Liturgy into His Body and Blood.

Discussions like this always flow from how one defines the "Church." Some take the persective of the new Catechism that there are grades of Church from fulness to emptyness. Some the Trenten view that the Church of Rome is THE Church and the Mother of all Churches. Some the Orthodox view that only within the Bosom of the Orthodox Catholic Church of the East is there the opportunity to achieve deification and on and on. We all don't agree on "what" Church is. My view has somewhat changed over time from one extreme to the other. Now I take the position that the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churches who have a line to the Apostles and have maintained the Faith and Order of the Early Church are THE CHURCH. The Churches created after such as the Anglican Church et al have lost all Apostolic connection and can only be restored through coming into one of the three above bodies.

But that is my view. It is a more ecumenical view, but one that as an Eastern Catholic I feel is appropriate from where I stand in the Church Catholic.

I will however add our Anglican friend to my prayer list if he will add me to his:)

In Christ,


Robby the Christian of the Byzantine-Slavonic Rite:)

Dear Robert Horvath,

The Orthodox Church has sometimes allowed for consecration on the basis of "economia" - I would have hoped that you knew that.

And the Anglicans are not a monolithic, homogeneous group. Marshall does not belong to an Anglican Church that ordains women etc.

Many Anglican parishes in England today refuse to allow their own Archbishop of Canterbury to celebrate the Divine Liturgy in their parishes because of his stand on women priests.

And Anglican bishops for whom canonical consecration is an issue can EASILY produce their list of "who consecrated whom and by whom" to show their descent from Assyrian and Polish National Catholic Churches.

I also think what you said about Anglicanism, insofar as it was addressed to Marshall or involved Marshall, was uncharitable.

You may be a Catholic, but it is clear that you are outside the ecumenical thought and spirit of Vatican II.

Alex

Dear Friends:

I think that Robert's answer is full of Christian charity.

I do respect the Episcopalians, near my house there's a very lovely Episcopal Parish, with beautiful images and statues, where services are celebrated much more respectfuly than in any local Roman parish, and the pity and devotion of the people is an example for Orthodox parishes I've attended. I've spoken to Mexican and British ministers who share and teach traditional values and have great knowledge of history.

This is why it's so hard for me to understand why being so orthodox in their faith, insist in remaining part of a Church which is hostile to them, and holds the most liberal and Protestant errors. I truly believe this is a no-sense.

Telling them that it's ok for them to remain in communion with those who attack them and who make fun of Christianity, just to be in line with any "Ecumenical spirit" is an enormous lack of charity, encouraging people to remain in error.

Both Catholics and Orthodox believe that we are the true Church of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I do believe that even when we're nothing but laymen, it's our duty to be honest when someone asks us about an issue that is so important even when it's in an Internet forum. It's about a future priest who would be an outstanding and wonderful witness to Orthodoxy or Catholicism that we would be loosing for our communities.

Alex,

Please don't get me wrong; you're ecumenical and friendly spirit is great and much appreciated. However, I think invoking Vatican II and it's "ecumenical spirit" is really loaded. What does this cliche mean? What if there's another Ecumenical Council (woops, general council! ) in the next few years which encourages us to rabidly convert people, which you seem to think is the exact antithesis to what Vatican II is asking us to do. Somehow I'm not certain you'd fully support such a stance, council or no council. There's got to be some kind of constant that you aren't seeing or aren't acknowledging. We are always called to evangelize and to provide the Truth. Robert Horvath's and Mexican's comments couldn't make this clearer, IMHO.

Logos Teen