www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall False Churches masquerating as Catholic-Orthodox

Dear Dr. John,

Good to see you!

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Vilatte was an Anglican who was a missionary in India way back when, and converted to Indian Orthodoxy under Saint Gregorios the Wonderworker of Parumala. Later, Saint Gregorios consecrated him as a Metropolitan (in Sri Lanka, I think) and sent him to America to be a missionary for the Orthodox Church. So he was a legitimate bishop and a member of the Holy Synod. But only God knows what he did when he got here, seeing as how so many people trace themselves back to him. As I've heard it, he had some success in his original mission, but after he died, the churches under him sorta died slowly after that. But apparently, he either ordained a lot of people, or those he ordained ordained a lot of people, or something. Now there's all sorts of groups tracing themselves back to India in some way, but with no ties whatsoever to the Mother Church. Oh well. It's all interesting, but it gets annoying when, no matter what they call themselves, they tie themselves to India in some way...like that "Byzantine Catholic" guy named "Mar Markus"...that's a Syrian name, and it's misspelled!

Actually, Vilatte never was an Anglican, he was ordained a priest by the Swiss Old Catholic and worked with with Belgian immigrants in Wisconsin. He did work closely with the Episcopal Church for a time and was even listed as one of their clergy, but when they tried to assume control over his parishes he broke off relations with them. He tried to get episcopal orders in many places....the European Old Catholics, Episcopalians, even Russian Orthodox...but was refused by all. So decided to look for valid orders elsewhere...and ended up in India. Yes, he did consecrate many bishops for the Independent movement and his lines of Apostolic Succession are very common. He returned to union with the Roman Church before he died and ended his days in a Cistercian monastery in France. His episcopal orders were recognized by Rome as being valid, but illicit. His was a fascinating life. Don

The problem is that some of this "Churches" may cause confusion among the faithful, and they do cause confussion! specially in countries where Orthodoxy, for example, is not well known and the missions are still new.

For example, in the State of Veracruz (Mex), the (true)Orthodox Church has a mission that woks very well, but then... a so-called "inclusive Orthodox Church" came, and now they even have "parishes" in the cities. That "Church" (a sect based in Hawaii) has practicing gay clergy, the "bishops" have roman mitters, celebrate the liturgy of St John C. (but they also have "western rites"), and their vicariate is the "Vicariate of Our Lady of Guadalupe".
It's not hard to get confused and to be seduced by those groups if you're not very well informed.

That "Byzantine Catholic Church" under Mar Markus (the patriarch in blue?) has a parish in Tijuana and a "bishop" for Hispanic affairs.
When I first saw both sites I thought it was joke.

Dr. John wrote: "In a fit of lunacy a while back, I went through Melton's book to list out the "Eastern" jurisdictions and to trace who consecrated whom, in what year, and how their affiliations came and went. I realized that I would need a piece of paper the size of my living room wall to fill in the little boxes and draw the arrows."

Greetings, fellow lunatic!

I did the same, but with CAD and for Western independent churches. My "paper" was any size I wanted it to be. Yet, like you, I gave up when I realized "apostolic lineage" looked more like entangled pasta.

There was a website that had found four 'fonts' or willing bishops to ordain and multiply the Western heirarchs of these independent churches, which made the attempt to untangle the apostolic lineage pasta much easier, but I still gave up. Apostolic lineage is one thing, but cross-ordaining is another.

Joe Thur

The Spirit is at the heart of canonicity. Canons were enacted for the benefit and order of the Church. Remember St Paul's words to the Church at Corinth regarding the charismatic gifts and their operation in the Church, "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (1 Cor 14:33). Although there might be those who are outside the visible structure of Christ's Church, this is not the way the Lord calls people. We see this in the example of Paul's own conversion. Although the Lord could have certainly set up Paul as an apostle outside the nascent Church community because of Paul's history as a persecutor, the Lord chose to work through the established Church and have Paul received by Ananias into the Church of Damascus. (Acts 9:1-18). Even when he first tried to meet with disciples in Jerusalem, Paul was rebuffed. He later met with the apostles and on a later trip to Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul submits to the authority of James (Acts 21:17-25).

The issue here is not "canonical" versus the Spirit, but an issue of pride. These so-called ministers chose to break communion becuase they think Christ is not working in His Church or his legitimate vicars. Rather than working for reform within the Church, like Francis of Assisi, they would much rather do things their own way. This of course leads to confusion and disorder of the faithful.

John

John,

This reminds me of those church groups that thought the Holy Spirit went on vacation for fifteen centuries waiting for them to bring back the true church.

Or those who refuse to communicate in church because of their perceived view that their pastor is a sinner and that his sins affect the validity or reality of the Eucharist and not the presence of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot but help notice how the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church in this country was a former seminarian of ours. I wasn't invited to his consecration, but several members of my parish were and mentioned that they communicated there. I was just wondering.

I still won't put them on my map.

Dear John,

I'm not denying the Spirit is not at the heart of canonicity.

But where our sinful humanity colours the Church's outreach on too high a level, that is where the Spirit sometimes goes beyond our categories to reach out and touch people.

I think that, in keeping with the Beatitudes, it is possible for someone to oppose an injustice in the Church and incur excommunication without leaving the love of God.

Pride is also something church leadership can be guilty of.

Alex

Dear Qathuliqa,

Don is more than correct about Rene Villatte.

Some of the independent Churches founded by him have now canonized him a saint and invoke him as a "father of the independent Orthodox movement" along with Aftimios Ofiesh and Theophane Noli.

At one point, he bore the title, "Catholicos" (like you! ).

His name comes up frequently owing precisely, as you said, to the large number of bishops and churches he founded.

Alex

Dear Father Don,

Could you give us an overview of the Old Roman Catholic Church? How is it different from the Old Catholic Churches?

Also, have they canonized their own saints?

Alex

Fr. Don said

"I spent 9 years in the active ministry as a priest in the Old Roman Catholic Church English Rite."

English Rite?

It would be interesting to know about this Church, as Alex said-. I am sure that there are a lot of people that would be excellent priests in the mainstram Churches and great servants of the Lord, even in some of these Churches that hold scarce credibility.

My question is about the Apostolic Succession. I've seen that many of these groups have "abused" this Succession.
How "valid" or true can be this "Apostolic Succesion" which is so diluted? (Bishops "consacrating" and "consacrating" their friends without any acceptable reason.

I mean, can a man who has been consacrated by a "bishop" of the "Christ Catholic Church", be a true Bishop with the Apostolic Succession. These groups seem to see the A. S. as an "autonomous" thing, a supreme thing, independent of the Church, the faith and the sacraments.
Are they real Bishops?

I really think that we all need to grow up a little bit and recognise that very often the term canonical is used to designate the 'official' Orthodox Churches. It DOES NOT mean that these Churches are loyal to the canons, the councils and the Fathers. Some of the 'uncanonical' groups mentioned are not only venerable, but often truer to the canons than the official Churches of 'World Orthodoxy'. Our modern naive ideas would place St Maximos the Confessor outside 'the Church' because he broke off from 'official Orthodoxy'. Was he a rebelious schismatic or was he a conscientious Orthodox Christian who divided himself from the dogmatic wolves who called themselves the Church of Christ?

S Bogom -
Mark, unworthy monk.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark!

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head, once again!

Did not our Lord, in the Beatitudes, praise those who would suffer excommunication for His Sake?

What is the patristic interpretation of that?

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

Father, bless!

You are absolutely right and have come to the heart of the matter. It is the "canonical" Orthodox churches who established the SCOBA and essentially defined what "canonical" meant. They set the goalposts where they wanted to.

Some of the better current liturgical translations into English come from these "non-canonicals" such as the ROCOR, the Old Ritualists and the Old Calendar Greeks.

Dear Father:

You're absolutely right, I think that the site is very helpful when they list all the false groups that call tehmselves Orthodox, but I am sure that the Old Calendar jurisdictions, The Synod of Milan, the ROCOR, the Macedonian Church are venerable and traditional Churches and should not be put together with all the other false groups who have nothing to do with Orthodoxy.

Dear Friends in Christ!

Canonical v Official: I think some of us will continue for ever to debate this issue. ROCOR for example, is canonical but regarded as not 'official' by SCOBA. But ROCOR is recognized by Jerusalem, Serbia and Moscow. Also in the article by Schemann,, the point is made that one's canonicity does not depend on one's relationship with Constantinople! It would seem that Mr Green has not comprehended what Fr Alexander is saying. My question: What is the difference between the Anglo-Orthodoxy Eparchy of Timbuctu with its evangelical witness and the Assemblies of God or the First/Last Convent Churches? Do not Buddhists do the work of Christ when they show compassion?

While 'official' is a western political term borrowed by Orthodox Churches, canonicity is of the Church. To believe in Christ and to seek to do His will (as all Christian groups claim) is not the same as being in Christ; i.e. being a member of His Mystical Body, the Church. Membership is not based on desire or pious opinion but by an ontological reality given to us through Baptism. Yes there are good atheists as well as sectarions out there. The image of God is still to be found outside the walls of the Church and of course the Holy Spirit works externally to call us to the fold. But the devil works too and
the way things are going in our current climate, advocates of peace and tolerance will establish a universal religion (sanctioned by the UN) to accommodate all of us. That gives me some concern.

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim