www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Episcopalians and Apostolic Succession

Anyone who reads American theologians knows that ecumenism is its own religion intent upon building a new anti-Church. Unfortunately, I've to suffer through one more class on the New Faith being taught by a layman at a Jesuit college. Liberals of course cannot wrap its little head around granting orders to sects like Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Do you acknowledge the "orders" of an Adventist minister when he believes you are member of the Church of Anti-Christ?

A text assigned by the professor makes several erroneous claims. It avers that the Episcopalians and Lutherans have valid holy orders and all Protestant bodies are churches. The other various sects have orders as well, it's just that this isn't as widely known. (Liberals ignore Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, in which they are called "ecclesial communities.")

The dissenters are wrong of course and Rome has spoken definitively, but what have the Eastern Orthodox said about Lutheran and Episcopalian orders?

It would seem odd for them to claim that the head priestess of American Episcopalianism, Jefferts Schori, has orders. Have any of the jurisdictions answered this question? I remember along time ago, an Anglican minister traveling around the East trying to drum up support for intercommunion with the Orthodox, but this fell flat. This minister's name and dates escapes me now. I can't imagine any Orthodox church taking this argument seriously, but it helps me in a classroom situation to be able to demonstrate that such an opinion is foreign to both East and West by pointing to formal teaching from Orthodox bishops.

One of the reason Roman theologians are just ga-ga over claiming again and again that Episcopalians and Lutherans have orders is that it gives them a back door in which to get priestesses. If one can claim that Jefferts Schori is a priestess of Christ, then the feminists and their accomplices within the Church can claim that there is precedent and actual practice for it. Priestesses become a fact and the only question is how to sort out intercommunion between the Roman Church and the Anglicans. This is relatively easy to solve compared to the question of priestesses.

TIA

Whether some Anglicans have valid orders via the Old Catholics is immaterial. A woman is incapable of receiving the order of presbyter or bishop. That the Anglicans and Old Catholics (except the Polish and Slovak Nationals) simulate the ordination of woman to the priesthood means nothing just as the Czech bishop who simulated ordaining women during the Communist era. They will not be recognized. Catholic women who seek and accept simulated ordination at their hands are excommunicated.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thanks Father! As a side question though, wouldn't the fact that the Anglicans ordain women indicate that they've a defective understanding of priesthood, thus nullifying ALL ordinations on a different set of grounds than those outlined in Apostolicae Curae and later papal teachings?

And do the EO Churches reject Anglican ordinations simply?

when will they learn?the more foolishness they indulge in, the less chance have they reaching a rapport with either Rome or Constantinople.
Much Love,
Jonn

SultanOfSuede:

The question of Anglican orders was settled by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, as far as I've been taught, once and for all time. There are no large groups of Anglicans who want this recognition, but only a group descended from the Oxford Movement group. Most Anglicans are either Broad Church or Evangelical and they could not care less about this question.

The attempts by Anglicans to obtain lines of orders from Eastern Churches so as to get around this question has often been taken to the level of the ridiculous--sometimes obtaining multiple ordinations for the same person.

On this forum there was an excellent description of the difference in how the East views orders and how the West views orders. The East odains a man and he is a member of the clergy fo the Church in which he is ordained. But he ceases to have orders if he leaves that Church. Unlike the West that views orders as a permanent gift confered on the man and that he carries in his person throughout eternity, the East views a man who apostates to another body as someone who has lost what he has had. That's why the West gets itself into so much trouble sorting out the difference between what is valid and what is licit--because a man who is ordained but who leaves his bishop can celebrate Mass and have the gifts changed even if he has no formal authority to do so. Not so in the East's understanding.

By the way, Bishop Fulton Sheen once observed that is a parent wants his child to lose the faith, he should send him to a Catholic college. You have the same experience as my daughter: she was forced to listen to a feminist nun rant about why she felt she should be a priest during one of her mandated theology courses.

When you finish, simply burn the books you have been required to buy and try to purge your mind of the garbage that you've been forced to listen to.

No wonder why so many young Catholics are so confused about the Faith and what constitutes the Faith.

In Christ,

BOB

I'm not confused about my faith

However, I have to work a little harder to overcome the errors conveyed by the texts assigned. This is a graduate seminar, but many of the students take whatever is taught as gospel. The professors at this college are absolutely convinced that priestesses are possible and always ignored is that the Eastern and Western Churches are much closer to one another in their sacramental theology than say, I don't know, the Mormons. In other words, the big bad old white male celibate pope in Rome is not the only one who doesn't accept such a possibility. There are the other Eastern patriarchies which also are in accord with the *basic* theology of priesthood.

However, Theophan's remarks have been very informative. I did not know that the Eastern Church viewed orders as conditional upon good standing with a lawful jurisdiction.

I think the Orthodox certitude on the very important question of whether or not ordination confers a sphragis, an indelible mark or character, is less than stated in the post. That ordination does impart a character is Catholic (in which there is no north or south or east or west) Theology.

Consider: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" spoken in prophecy of Jesus; that our priests -- the bishop, the presbyter -- function as priest after the deacon says to them "It is now the time for the Lord to act"; that the two mysteries/sacraments that Orthodox theology would/does admit/insist convey "orders," i.e. the order of the laos/people, are the mysteries of baptism and chrismation, and that they do most-likely/absolutely impart a sphragis.

I would infer, orders ---> sphragis.

And if it is so, it is so, even if it makes life difficult.

Dn. Anthony

To add to Theophan's answer...

Yes, liberal RCs pushing for women's ordination (an enthusiasm like other liberal ones that's almost unique to older people, and outside the upper middle class the issue just doesn't come up in Catholic churches) lie about/ignore Rome's ruling in 1896 about Anglican orders.

There are not only Broad (liberal, like most Episcopalians) and Low (called Evangelical in Anglicanism - conservative Protestant) Churchmen but Central Churchmen, middle-of-the-road classic Anglicans who share with Rome and Orthodoxy a high view of apostolic succession (seeing it as necessary).

AFAIK no Eastern bishop has tried to pass on 'lines of succession' to Anglicans because as Theophan said this makes no sense in Eastern theology: 'outside the church = no orders'.

Some Anglican priests have been surreptitiously reordained by vagantes like the late Joseph Vilatte, men at some time ordained as Eastern bishops (Vilatte was consecrated by the Syrian Church) but later left, or men consecrated by men consecrated by such. As Theophan explained the key here is they left those churches so that claim to orders means bubkes in the East.

And if these Anglicans convert Rome reordains them anyway.

As are the many Anglicans who claim the Dutch touch (Old Catholic lines of succession got legitimately as the Old Catholics and Anglicans are in communion).

Now regarding Anglican orders and the East, some Orthodox churches have said if the whole Anglican Communion unprotestantised and became Orthodox they'd be received in their orders; no re-ordination. Not at all the same as recognising Anglican orders as they are now, and as this conversion probably will never happen the question is moot.

I'm fairly sure the consensus of Rome and the East about Lutheran ministers is even those like the Swedes who claim apostolic-succession bishops don't really have them so there's no even conditional recognition of orders possible.

I don't call women Anglican clergy 'priestesses' because it's an insult that means 'non-Christian'. Dr Schori is fashionably (for her generation) sceptical in her belief in the creeds but those creeds are still in the Episcopal Church's Prayer Book; it is a Christian church.

Just like I'd call the local Methodist bishop that without meaning I'm in communion with him or that I see him as an apostolic bishop, 'the Episcopal priest' is fine, both non-offensive and making clear what I mean.

The fact of the matter on "validity" is that Romans are not as Augustinian and Orthodox are not as Cyprianic as they are made out to be...

Truly at some point Latins will simply say "enough is enough" no amount of pedigree documentation is going to force their hand.

Alternately, blustery talk of "he who has cleaved himself from Church is anathema and graceless" in Eastern circles sort of begins to break down when in fact reconciliation of Old Calendarist and parties that were involved in ethno-nationalist schisms experience healing...

(We won't bother with the various, sundry and disparate fashions in which Catholics - laity and clergy - are recieved into different Orthodox jurisidictions!)

At the end of the day the party line amongs both Catholics and Orthodox is once again, roughly and roundly similar! (How DOES this keep happening?!?!?) That is to say a good rule of thumb among both is "don't stray too far off the reservation!"

As much as my Serbian Orthodox buddy (who deigns to be my friend even though he has serious reservations about my connection to Rome!) insists the Macedonian Orthodox are "graceless schismatics" (Note he is just a layman... I am illustrating a radical position with that point)... when the day comes for them to be reconciled to their brother and sister Orthodox it WILL happen, and pedantic foolishness about recognition restoring grace is just silly.

Conversely someone coming from the "Libearal Catholic Patriarchate of San Diego" is not going to have the doors thrown wide open for him when he pulls out a pedigree chart either.

In the end the Orthodox are NOT going to say "Well who cares about the past you are Orthodox now, come in!!!" and Catholics are NOT going to say "Well all the right people touched your episcopal heads, its all good!!!"

Past Orthodox meditations or speculations on what it would take to reconcile the Anglicans seem to be a moot point that can be filed in the "How many angels on the head of a pin" file... Worldwide, the portions of The Anglican community that most closely proximate a form of credal orthodoxy with which the Orthodox would be less uncomfortable (if not comfortable) are African and Asian factions that are largely Evangelical (Protestant) in their outlook - low church, two sacraments. Anglo Catholic parties - as Serge can tell more - are largely shrinking in TAC (going Continuing, Catholic, maybe Western Rite Orthodox) and can't be understood to have gained ascendancy anywhere so significantly that a possible inter-communion agreement would even have a chance to be put on the table.

Slava Isusu Christu!

You subject is a very important one.

In regard to women. I think although women cannot have Orders, in the sense of the tradition,--women can be ministers. Women can minister, albeit in a different ways, in Apostolic Churches. The Latin Church has opened a way for them to minister in non-traditional ways--Eastern Churches need to explore ways women can minister--besides cooking, giving birth, baking prosfora, marrying deacons and priests, cleaning and organizing fund raisers. When we consider the serious nature of the Virgin Mary's apostolate and those of the women of the early communities of the Church--we must take women ministry seriously. I think it is good to be in dialogue with women. They are the other half of humanity--how can we not try to assist them in serving Christ is authentic ways--besides cultural and traditional gender roles--although these are valuable.

In the ecumenical dimension--since Protestant and Anglican Churches--do not have Orders in the sense of the Apostolic Churches--their ecclesial life is basically an association of lay Christians. Their trinitarian baptism places them in the Church--which makes them Catholic Christians--who because of historical reasons have drifted from the Institutional Church, but are part of the Mystical Body. So even though the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is a woman, we are to respect her role as head of a group of lay Christians as we should any association of Christians. Perhaps like an Abbess, who has canonical authority over a Convent, she likewise has such authority over her subjects. There are many ways to see the tradition--however, instead of criticizing other Christians for having "defects" in their forms of ministry--we as members of Apostolic Churches can see them as Christians, like us, who are on our way to God who is incomprehensible in God's Essense.

Why do Eastern Christians feel the necessity to assert our superiority over other Christians. We may have all of the criteria or marks of the Church, but we somtimes lack the ethics of Jesus--probably more important than having all of our Institutional ducks in a row.

In Christ,

Robert

Dear Robert (and anyone else who reads this),

You write that "Eastern Churches need to explore ways women can minister--besides cooking, giving birth, baking prosfora, marrying deacons and priests, cleaning and organizing fund raisers." I'm not aware that anyone has ever taught that these are the only possibilities for women to serve God and the Church!

[To offer a nit-picking point: women cannot marry deacons or priests, because deacons and priests cannot become married - a woman may marry a man who is to become a deacon, and perhaps a priest as well.]

More seriously, using the verb "minister" concerning women in the Church is a problem: partly because the Church does not usually include that word in our vocabulary at all, and partly because in English if the word is used in a church-related sense (as distinct from, say, "the ministry of foreign affairs") it is understood to be directly connected to ordination.

Certainly women can and must serve Christ in authentic ways - have you noticed that the majority of canonized saints are women? You don't mention some important sorts of service, first of which is, of course, maternity - and I don't just mean in the sense of giving birth. Next there is monasticism, and paramonastic "religious life". Anyone who might think that an Abbess is some sort of shrinking violet has never known an Abbess! But the paramonastic communities of women were opening certain fields to women long before "feminism" was ever heard of: these communities ran (and often founded) hospitals, schools, and other sorts of institutions for the public good, and the women themselves administered all these works and more - which meant that such women often had the primary responsibility for large sums of money, at a time and in places where even wealthy women were expected to have no more than a couple of dollars in their purses for carfare or candy (check Clarence Day's delightful book Life With Mother.

In connection with the Church's worship, for many centuries women have written liturgical texts (and at least sometimes liturgical music), and this continues to the present day; a Russian Orthodox laywoman in New York for much of the twentieth century devoted herself to writing services for various Saints who were rather little-known and in whom she took and interest. Her texts are used, and translated into other languages as well. You did not mention the service of women in organizing and leading choirs for singing the divine services; I have known quite a few who have done and still do outstanding work.

There are also women Saints who have the title of "Equal to the Apostles", and there is nothing to say that there cannot be more of them.

I could continue almost endlessly, but I trust my point is made: before pronouncing that "Eastern Churches need to explore ways women can minister--besides cooking, giving birth, baking prosfora, marrying deacons and priests, cleaning and organizing fund raisers", it would be well to explore the ways in which women can and do serve today and in the history of the Church.

Fr. Serge

The term "defective" comes from papal usage. If you prefer, we may use Leo's description of "utterly null and void" in reference to Anglican orders, but this is more verbose. Describing the Protestant understanding of priesthood as "defective" is not a sign that one lacks Jesus' ethics. Imputing this motive to those who defend the sacrament of orders, however, might just be a sign of misunderstanding and presumption. One might interpret such an opinion as arising from an ecumenist mindset.

And yes, the traditional things you describe women as doing are important. Giving birth to children and raising them is important, more so than just about anything I can think of. To maintain family life is important.

While this would be a fascinating topic -- to explore what men think are loftier things for women than motherhood, family and parish life -- it might perhaps be served better in a separate thread.

Never said women can be priests, never said Anglican orders were valid.

It's easy for a man to keep a woman on her back isn't it?

I think your attitude about women is horrible.

Women can be ministers, not priests, all people by their baptism are ministers--not an ecumenist statement.

I think your masogyny is "utterly null and void." And Jesus never had to defend his positions, instead he fed the poor, made sick people well, defended the dignity of the poor, raised the status of women and lepers, and taught the common people the word of God.

This arrogance of male-dominated theological discourse, sometimes makes me ashamed being a Eastern Christian.

I mean just because someone has male genitalia--that makes them more an ikon of Christ--nonsense!

I have had it.

Again, maybe this would be a fascinating opinion to discuss in another thread.

I'll just say, I lament the loss of the few gender-specific words of the English language in these, our halcyon days of liberty, fraternity and equality. It used to be that we referred to actresses, poetesses, etc. Not anymore. (I work in tv entertainment; I never hear actress used on shows or in industry papers.)

Priestess is accurate. Your assertion is that -- mere assertion.

The Old Testament is littered with references to female fertility cults, temple prostitutes, priestesses, etc. and they never come off in a good light. In the early Christian age, the problem is compounded again because of the proliferation of mystery-sex cults based on female worship and priestesses in the Mediterranean world (think Isis/Astarte; Isis worship didn't really end until sometime in the 600s). The early Church had to contend with these. It would be interesting to see what role the early feminist religions played in exciting persecutions of Christians. All this by way of saying: I understand your angst over seeing a female priest called a "priestess." It suggests precisely what it signifies.

However, I think if one looks very closely at the sensualism, loose sexual morals and priestesses that accompany the worship of the feminine/Gaia, you might conclude that modernity is re-experiencing the old paganism in Christian vestments. I mean, I can't help but notice that female religions tend to promote polygamy, fornication, and are hostile to the two-parent heterosexual home. Is it any accident that we find that the Episcopalians have embraced a "bishop" who abandoned his wife and lives now openly in the sin of sodomy? And that they elected a woman as their head? I've been told that the Episcopal Church accepts fornication now under the rubric of a "committed relationship." No thought given to the offspring, assuming that there are any.

What feminist does not find a natural ally in homosexuals? Immerse thyself in the wonders of feminist literature and find out!

But as I said, this is really a separate thread.

Belief in an infallible church is shared by the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches, distinguishing them from high-church Protestantism, and in no way means thinking one personally is better than other Christians!

ASimpleSinner, you're right but cases like the Macedonian church are internal matters: they're outside of Orthodoxy but obviously 'still in the family' (Western liberal vagantes pretending to be Orthodox obviously aren't) and thus could be reconciled with the great Orthodox family without reordinations.

If by TAC you mean the Anglican Communion, yes, Anglo-Catholics are vanishing. They certainly have no future in the Episcopal Church. They're more of a presence in England (something like 15 per cent of the Church of England, often papalist in belief and copying RC practice including using the current Roman Rite) but as has been written elsewhere their back was broken by the Church of England approving the ordination of women priests in the 1990s as happened in the Episcopal Church in the 1970s.