www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anglican Vs. Vagante groups Holy Orders

I am wondering how the Catholic Communion views the orders of Vagante groups compared to Anglican orders? Are the viewed the same? Or is one group classified differently than the other. Thanks!

Nelson

Nelson:

I think the interesting thing about this is that various vagante groups might have their orders recognized if the Augustianian approach to orders is applied. Of course, each case is examined independently, so it may vary.

Anglican order, on the other hand, were dealt with by Pope Leo's Bull: as a whole. Again, there are exceptions. Some Anglicans have obtained orders from sources that the Augustianian approach would consider valid.

So the whole picture is pretty muddy.

Bob

Hello

The Catholic Church doesn't recognize the "validity" of the vagante orders in practice.

Most vagante groups trace their orders to Duarte Costa of Brazil, the Old Catholics and Aftimios Ofiesh. While the first consecrations and ordinations performed by these bishops could be regarded as valid following an Augustinian criteria, the subsequent ordinations and consecrations from men coming from these supposed lineages are doubtful. In first place because they were performed on men who in most cases had no priestly formation and the ordinations of unfit candidates in most cases cannot be presumed valid. Secondly, because the vagantes usually commercialize their "holy orders". There's also a problem, there are so many consecrations and ordinations from thes sects that it's virtually impossible to be sure that such events really took place and that the rites were followed correctly.

In the case of Ngo Dinh Thuc, things are even more complicated because of the lack of qualified witnesses and the strange mental state of the Archbishop. He actually ordained and consecrated the worst men he could find (French homosexuals, agents from the Mexican Communist government, Spanish con artists, etc.).

In addition to all these situations, most of the men who have been ordained or consecrated as vagante clergy are people who left the Catholic Church and sought "ordination" from these sects. Even if they had been consecrated in organized religious bodies with true Apostolic Succession (let's say, the Orthodox Church), they would always be received as LAYMEN and not as priests as they had left the Catholic Church to receive ordination outside of it.

The Roman Catholic Church (at least in Mexico) treats the Thuc clergy as false priests. In most cases, people who were baptized by Thucite clergy (who are far more traditional and Catholic than the so-called "Old Catholics") are received in the Catholic Church by Baptism.

Juan, my brother,

Actually, those of the Thuc lineage are not particularly complicated - for the very reason that you cite - the concerns as to the mental state of Archbishop Thuc, which invariably result in a conclusion that he was not able to form the requisite intent in ordaining.

The Duarte-Costa lineage is, on the other hand, generally perceived to have licity, albeit validity is lacking. Now, as one traces out the lineage to its current day, there are certainly those in the D-C line who have wandered further and further from the path and whose ordinations would be questioned, but they still likely remain in the minority.

When you start to speak of Ofiesh and the others of that era - Gul, Mathew, Vilatte, Carfora, de Landes Berghes, etc, it gets very tricky. Their ecclesiastical descendents span the continuum and it is impossible to provide any broad-brush answer to the claims of licity - they have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Factoring in the participation of Old Catholic, PNCC, Oriental and Eastern hierarchs makes it all the more so. Priestly formation has never been an overriding consideration and, when particularly problematic, has been remedied by requiring a period of formation post-reception.

But, you are focusing on the idea of reception, which isn't the overriding question (there aren't lines of vagante and 'independent' clergy or hierarchs seeking reception, so it neither gets nor demands a lot of attention). The question Nelson posed was broader - how does Rome look at the orders in terms of recognition.

To that point, I'd note that the former rigid adherence to an Augustinian theory potentially gave recognition to the orders of all manner of both characters and sincere individuals. Thankfully, Rome seems to be backing off from that - albeit it certainly hasn't yet adopted a pure Cyprianic viewpoint - at least not that we are aware.

And I make that latter point because Rome doesn't tend to run around voicing opinions on validity or licity of orders, particularly as regards any corporate ecclesial entity. In an instance that demonstrates clearer thinking than is seen in some other matters, it seems to recognize that doing so has the potential to encourage the genre. So, it is rare these days for Rome to make any unnecessary pronouncements on the matter vis-a-vis the clergy or hierarchy of these churches.

Yes, when there is clear danger of the faithful being confused or scandalized, as when someone sets up shop in a diocese's geographic area and begins publicizing itself as 'Catholic' - with no qualifiers, bishops have spoken. Or, when such high profile happenings as the defection of Archbishop Milingo occur, there is no other option but to publicly address the issue.

However, there are a number of Churches with archdioceses in the US which are of an 'Old-Catholic type', are highly reputable, and which function day-to-day in the shadow of Latin jurisdictions without ever raising any comment from Rome or its constituent hierarchs. Several of these have hierarchies whose orders would likely be affirmed as licit were the occasion to arise that they needed to be examined. But, these are not vagante in the sense of the term as now used - which is almost universally pejorative.

The sole instance to come to mind in recent years (the TAC situation aside) was the acknowledgement of the PNCC's orders, and consequently, its mysteries, as licit - something Rome had not previously implicitly done in any case except that of our sister Apostolic Churches of the East. And, remember, the PNCC's episcopal orders are of the Old Catholics originally; Archbishop Geraldus Gul of Utrecht was the principal episcopal consecrator of Bishop Francis Hodur, a Latin Catholic priest, who went on to serve almost a half-century as the Prime Bishop of the PNCC.

Nelson, if there are specific vagante or 'independents' whom you have in mind, I'll offer an opinion - which is generally the best one can get on the matter. (Not that my opinion is the best, just that opinions are the best that can be had in most instances).

You can also do a search on vagante; we've certainly had a fair number of threads about the topic in years past. (There is a remarkable level of interest in the topic, both here and on Orthodox fora, considering that there aren't a lot of out-and-out Eastern vagante, tho a lot of lines claim derivation from EC/EO and OC/OO hierarchs and any number of them try to incorporate our liturgy, vesture, terminology, etc into a mix-and-match praxis.)

Many years,

Neil

I found this website tonight. I was wondering if this is a vagante group? The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America? I know there are various groups within the Ukrainian Church but some how I don't remember this group.

http://www.uaocamerica.net/

Also, per other posts-How do Anglican orders compare to these Vagante groups?
Since historically one can argue that Anglican bishops were Latin bishops whom left the communion of the Catholic Church. Wouldn't that be the same? Or am I missing something? I know the ordaining of woman effects the answer but don't some vagante groups ordain woman as well? Forgive me, I am not up to date with the legal side of the Roman Church in regards to various groups.

Nelson,

Took me forever to track down this thread. It's a bit dated, but it will provide you with some history on the UAOCA or AUOCA or UAOC, which I think is their present preference, as well as any number of other Ukrainian ecclesia.

I don't know that I'd term it vagante. It is certainly 'non-canonical' as such is defined by our Orthodox brethren.

To the list on that old thread, I'd add UAOC-USA [diocesepacificnw.com] - The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the USA, The Autonomous Diocese of the Pacific Northwest (Ohijchuk succession) - which I believe represents a break from the UOCA-U and which I don't think is in communion with or affiliated with anyone else.

As you can see from the list (and, last I checked, most of the (several) fringe bodies there are still functional on some level - I did a quick check of weblinks and only had to update 1 - didn't find any dead links).

Ukrainian Orthodoxy has - for some reason that I've not been able to discern - become a modern-day magnet for folks wanting to create their own eparchy, metropolia, or patriarchate. Not to deny that all the rest of us have similar folk lurking in the shadows - but the Ukrainians appear to have the corner on the market right now. Better than half of those listed are probably vagante as the term is popularly applied, a few hanging by threads to episcopal genealogies that are wearing thin in their claim to validity even by Augustinian standards.

A comment, that I once made elsewhere, is still true:


----------------



The Anglicans lost their claim to validity of succession through defects of intent and form. Whatever subsequent claims of validity might be had, individually, come about through the participation by Old Catholic (and, in very occasional instances, by renegade Catholic, Eastern, or Oriental Orthodox) hierarchs, at various times, in Anglican episcopal ordinations.

That's the principal difference, whereas many vagante and 'independent' ecclesia actively strove to assure themselves of garnering episcopal lines of succession that would be acknowledged as having some claim to validity by Rome and/or by Oriental Orthodox Churches (which were not as strictly Cyprianic in their views as the Eastern Orthodox) or which might be considered by the Eastern Orthodox under ekonomia (which has certainly happened in some instances).

The ordination of women is not a factor per se as regards a church being vagante. Certainly, once such a body begins to ordain women as bishops and those women bishops participate, in turn, in presbyteral ordinations and episcopal ordinations, the question of continued succession becomes moot, as the line is broken - at least as to those ordinations in which the women hierarchs participated. However, arguably, a bishop who himself has valid, though illict, episcopal orders can ordain a woman priest or bishop today - an act which confers no orders - and ordain a man as priest or bishop tomorrow - and confer valid, albeit illicit, orders on the man, provided that he adhered to the requirements of matter, form, and intent in the act. Under that argument, the two being separate acts, the former does not invalidate the latter - the first being meritless in and of itself, the latter having to be considered on its own merits.

If you're asking when a vagante body ceases to be that and becomes so disassociated as to be in another category, there is no hard and fast answer, because there is no formal definition or category titled 'vagante'. It has long since become a loose term for churches marked by certain characteristics.

Some potential hallmarks of vagante, in no particular order, are that:

• their hierarchs bear grandiose titles (e.g., patriarchs, primates, supreme archbishops, and similar styling abounds among the genre);
• their hierarchs and sometimes even their presbyters are vested in liturgical finery that would be the envy of a member of the papal court in its hour of greatest opulence;
• their hierarchs are surrounded by a small cadre of clerics with equally important titles, including sometimes multiple bishops, each of whom has been accorded a piece of the universe as their episcopal jurisdiction;
• they post elaborate hierarchical genealogies on their websites or in their publications, purporting to prove their Apostolic Succession;
• they offer the opportunity for ordination to the priesthood, and perhaps even to the episcopacy, to those who apply by e-mail or letter outlining appropriate credentials for same or who indicate a willingness to undertake a course of study (for a fee);
• their hierarchs and clergy 'float' from one 'Church' to another, as there are splits in their ranks, frequently as a consequence of in-fighting among the leadership as to who will be top dog;
• the name of the 'Church' will frequently include terms like "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Apostolic", often combined in imaginative ways;
• the name of their 'Church' often suggests that it is a jurisdiction of, a branch of, or otherwise connected with an established mainstream Church or that it is a free-standing canonical jurisdiction (e.g., a patriarchate, an archdiocese, a primature, a diocese);
• the name of their 'Church' suggests an ethnicity of origin that is belied by the appearance or surnames of the hierarchs and/or by lack of any apparent connection with a mainstream Church of similar ethnicity or national origin;
• their 'Churches' frequently are 'in communion' with other 'Churches' which display much the same characteristics as themselves;
• their 'Church' consists of a single edifice, a storefront, an altar in their garage or family rec room, or lacks any street address, apparently existing only in the ethereal plane;
• those whose 'Churches' have 'parishes' will sometimes be shown (e.g., on websites) to each worship according to different rubrics and to even express different theological tenets;
• their 'Churches' may mix theological doctrine with New Age, Eastern, spiritualistic, psychological, even alternative and holistic health concepts;
• they use obscure, sometimes historical, sometimes apocryphal, liturgies in their worship.

True vagante have to be distinguished from those who have broken from their parent Churches, but have established an actual ecclesial entity, schismatic and/or heretical in the eyes of the parent, but with a level of respectability not usually accorded to those labeled vagante. To be fair, some of what are now considered mainstream, though schismatic, heretical, or non-canonical, Churches would, at their inception, have been deemed the product of an episcopus vagante.

In the modern age, websites allow these bodies to maintain an existence much longer, and much more impressively, than was the case in earlier times - without ever erecting edifices of brick and mortar. It's hard to imagine what the result would have been had the internet existed in the days of those early, often very charismatic, hierarchs who brought Old Catholicism out of continental Europe (men like Mathew, Vilatte, Gul, Carfora, and de Landes Berghes, among others). There are almost no figures in the vagante or 'independent' movements today who have the visibility, the drive, or the dedication to their cause that they had.

Many years,

Neil

A good place to start to determine the status of an "Orthodox" church is SCOBA (Standing Conference of Canonical Bishops in the Americas) http://www.scoba.us. The Ukrainian jurisdiction in SCOBA is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA http://uocofusa.org/. Unfortunately, there are 24 possible combinations of those four words and if you allow the substitution America for USA, you 48 possible combination then if you allow the use of United States you get 72 and so forth. I think there might be one of two possible combinations that have not been used yet but the number still available is not large.

ISTM the more respectable vagantes are treated like the Eastern churches and the PNCC: for example Bishop Salomão Ferraz from Duarte Costa's church, whom John XXIII allowed to be received into the RCC in his orders. And he was married. (But very old. I think the question remains if that ever happens again with a younger man if he and his wife would be allowed to live as husband and wife.)

The rest and the Anglicans, even the Anglicans who claim a line of succession from the Old Catholics, are not received in their orders. The rest probably aren't fit for the priesthood anyway; the Anglican priests are reordained.

All I can add is if it's true those baptised by the Thuc priests are rebaptised in Mexico, that's a mistake! The church teaches a layman, indeed a non-Christian, may baptise in an emergency. No need for a valid priest. No doubt the Thuc priests use valid matter and form.

Jim,

The permutations are endless and the imagination is boundless. I've been a serious student of the phenomenon for decades and still shake my head at some of the new variations that folks manage to formulate.


Serge,

I'd differ as to whether true vagante, as the term is now used - invariably as a pejorative, ever rise to the level of 'respectable' in the minds of most. And, for that reason, I think the point you are trying to make uses vagante too broadly.

There is a distinction in the minds of most these days between vagante and 'independent' (the latter being somewhat akin to what the Orthodox would term 'non-canonical'), albeit those that the mainstream Apostolic Churches would call vagante are quick to appropriate the term 'independent' to themselves, to garner a sense of respectability. It would take considerably less space to list those terming themselves 'independents' who are not vagante than the opposite.

However, there is also an ever-growing body in the middle of the continuum, increasingly diverging from the status of being able to claim Apostolic Succession - generally by acceptance of same-sex marriage or ordaining women - who are not vagante, but can't any longer be seen as 'non-catholic ministers in whose Churches (the) sacraments are valid' (to use the terminology of the Canons). While not technically Protestant, as the term is commonly defined, such occupy much the same status vis-a-vis the Catholic perception of them.


A younger man exercising episcopal orders in such a situation, if received in orders, would - in almost all certainty - be received only as a presbyter. I haven't really looked at the Duarte-Costa hierarchs from that standpoint, but it certainly would offer a potential stumbling block to corporate reunion with the PNCC, which has historically had married hierarchs.


I'm not sure to whom 'The rest probably ...' refers, but it's not a particularly charitable observation and generalities have the unfortunate habit of coming back to bite. If the reference is to those whom I've labeled 'true vagante', I'd note that - even among those, there are individuals, misguided as they might be, who evince a strong Christian ethic and a spirituality that is surprising and would shame some clergy of mainstream Churches. If the term was meant to encompass any wider body of clergy than vagante, it is truly off the mark, inappropriate, uncharitable, and indefensible.


Here, we can agree. I made a similar point some time ago when Juan raised this same point.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Friends

Concerning the "Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America", they are an off shot of the American branch of the "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church" (a non-Canonical Church led by Metropolitan Mefodiy of Kiev).

The story is a little bit complicated. The Ukrainian UAOC for reasons of "ecclesial charity" established links with an obscure American group now led by Michael Javchak Champion (and formerly led by Stephan Petrovich).

Eventhough Champion appeared to be subject to Mefodiy (Mefodiy partially recognized him as the American group was useful in case visas were needed for Ukrainian clergy coming to the USA), he and Petrovich at some point consecrated Oleh Kulyk (who was actually maried) to the episcopacy.

Oleh Kulyk rapidly forgot about Champion and left for Ukraine, where he established a new Church he named "Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church - Canonical". He gained the support of some serious clergy but mostly of episcopi vagantes from the United States and other countries. Soon after his Church was formed, he proclaimed himself "Patriarch Moisey of Ukraine".

Moisey's weird behaviour caused a scandal. Some months after his proclamation as Patriarch, many of his bishops and priests (those who were more Orthodox looking and less vagante) left him and founded the "Autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America".

While those who stayed with Moisey can really be clasified as vagante (they have no followers, exist only on the Internet, use bogus titles, celebrate strange liturgies and so on), the AUOCA is more Orthodox and serious, from what I have seen.

Bishop Chrysostom of Ecuador (AUOCA) is truly Orthodox and traditional, he has many parishes and there are many Orthodox converts in ecuador and South America. I hope he's soon recognized as a Canonical bishop.

Juan,

Nice job of summarizing the whole Mefodiy/Moisey scenario - I hadn't the patience to rehash that again. Anyone wanting to know more details on that situation, I suggest searching on either name Mefodiy or Moisey and setting the search parameter initially as 'more than 3 years'. If that doesn't produce, up the years in 1 year increments.

Many years,

Neil

Neil

I appreciate your mentioning the need for charity in the posts. While I greatly enjoy reading this forum I am not infrequently put off by the lack of civility exhibited by a few of the posts. That includes attacks on other posts as well as harsh comments about other churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church. I read many Orthodox fora and also listen to a lot of their podcasts so I am used to a certain level of hostile polemic including one podcast in which the commentator blamed the rise of the most excessive forms of evangelicalism on the use in the Roman Catholic Church of the filioque.

Thanks
Jim