A question on Vatican Catholics accepting the Old Catholic's orders as valid

[ps139]

PS,

While I'd agree with virtually everything else that you said, the participation of Orthodox hierarchs in Anglican ordinations is the ecclesiastical equivalent of an urban legend. Neither any canonically recognized Orthodox hierarch, nor any from the mainstream but "non-canonical" Churches in schism from canonical Orthodoxy, has been documented as participating in an Anglican ordination, presbyteral or episcopal.

Many years,

Neil

Neil, I think you're right on with your other statements, but I seriously doubt this urban legend business!

 

[Father Rick]

I can't speak for the AC... but as for OC's, Orthodox co-consecrated some of our first bishops. There have also been periodic OC co-consecrations by (what are probably non-canonical) EO's. Therefore, since OC's have shared in consecrating bishops with the AC, at least some AC bishops have Orthodox lines of succession.

 

[Irish Melkite]

Neil, I think you're right on with your other statements, but I seriously doubt this urban legend business!

PS,

One very basic problem is that under Orthodox theological praxis as to the validity of orders and Apostolic Succession, the ordaining prelate would be deprived of the authority and grace to confer orders by participating in such.

The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs significantly.

There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church effectively determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other considerations are of no consequence to either Church).

If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis in either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Latin Church, which deems the couple to be the ministers and the presbyter to be a witness.

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although the latter have been known to exercise oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent" Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.

Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte Lines and, wrongly, by Thuc Lines, which are almost invariably ruled invalid by Rome due to questions of intent arising from Archbishop Thuc's questioned mental status during much, if not all, of the period during which he was ordaining on demand.

People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal orders, can validly ordain a woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form. So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still retain apostolic succession.

None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or sacraments. As an example, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are received into communion.

The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.

Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity or oekonomia on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common historical origins of Catholicity and Orthodoxy.

The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church in some instances could likely find itself in the position of accepting the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and, consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of the so-called "independent movements") whom the Orthodox themselves would, rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most liberal of interpretations.

Many years,

Neil

 

[PaladinValer]

Not a moderator myself, but shouldn't this new question about the EO be somewhere else?

 

[Irish Melkite]

I can't speak for the AC... but as for OC's, Orthodox co-consecrated some of our first bishops. There have also been periodic OC co-consecrations by (what are probably non-canonical) EO's. Therefore, since OC's have shared in consecrating bishops with the AC, at least some AC bishops have Orthodox lines of succession.

Father Rick,

I would agree that there are definitely AC hierarchs with OC lines. The issue of validity of OC ordinations by Orthodox is one in dispute and, frankly, the OC does better with their own lines from Archbishop Varlet and his successors, the likes of Archbishop Gul, and the lines of Archbishops Mathew, Carfora, and a few others of that ilk than it does with the renegade Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic lines.

For instance, the episcopal ordination of Mar Timotheos by an independent (non-canonical and/or schismatic) Syrian Jacobite prelate has been rejected as invalid by the Syrian Jacobites, who deny both the authority of Mar Julius to have done so and his own episcopal orders. Aftimios Ofiesh, although seemingly being accorded rehabiltation in recent times by some in the Orthodox community, is still generally perceived to have lacked episcopal authority once he broke with the Church to marry. Antoine Aneed, the Melkite Catholic who was involved in many such ordinations was not a hierarch except in his own mind, holding the title of Exarch only as an honorific - not as a hierarchical prescript.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Father Rick]

Father Rick,

I would agree that there are definitely AC hierarchs with OC lines. The issue of validity of OC ordinations by Orthodox is one in dispute and, frankly, the OC does better with their own lines from Archbishop Varlet and his successors, the likes of Archbishop Gul, and the lines of Archbishops Mathew, Carfora, and a few others of that ilk than it does with the renegade Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic lines.

For instance, the episcopal ordination of Mar Timotheos by an independent (non-canonical and/or schismatic) Syrian Jacobite prelate has been rejected as invalid by the Syrian Jacobites, who deny both the authority of Mar Julius to have done so and his own episcopal orders. Aftimios Ofiesh, although seemingly being accorded rehabiltation in recent times by some in the Orthodox community, is still generally perceived to have lacked episcopal authority once he broke with the Church to marry. Antoine Aneed, the Melkite Catholic who was involved in many such ordinations was not a hierarch except in his own mind, holding the title of Exarch only as an honorific - not as a hierarchical prescript.

Many years,

Neil

I would need to pull my files (and as I am not on my home computer at the moment-- the files are not here to pull), but the first OC synods had Russian Orthodox bishops present and I believe they participated in the consecrations of clergy at that time. I do not remember off-hand who those EO were to know if they were canonical or not.

 

[ps139]

Wow thanks for that info Neil.

If I understand you correctly:

Rome holds to the Augustinian theory, which says that ordination effects an indelible mark on the soul, and even if the priest is in the worst heresy, he can never be "unordained."

EOs hold to Cyprian theory, which states that valid orders can become invalid as a result of herest or schism?

Therefore no bishop holding to the Cyprian theory would ordain a man he believed was out of Communion with the Apostolic Church?

This does make sense. Although still, in Rome's eyes, an EO bishop's participation at an ordination could make it valid, even if the EO bishop didn't believe so. Which makes me wonder why an EO bishop would attend, if he believed the Cyprian theory? Presumably he wouldn't. But I have heard from many trusted friends that this does in fact happen.

Neil, you have given me something interesting to think about. Thanks .

 

[Father Rick]

Wow thanks for that info Neil.

If I understand you correctly:

Rome holds to the Augustinian theory, which says that ordination effects an indelible mark on the soul, and even if the priest is in the worst heresy, he can never be "unordained."

EOs hold to Cyprian theory, which states that valid orders can become invalid as a result of herest or schism?

Therefore no bishop holding to the Cyprian theory would ordain a man he believed was out of Communion with the Apostolic Church?

This does make sense. Although still, in Rome's eyes, an EO bishop's participation at an ordination could make it valid, even if the EO bishop didn't believe so. Which makes me wonder why an EO bishop would attend, if he believed the Cyprian theory? Presumably he wouldn't. But I have heard from many trusted friends that this does in fact happen.

Neil, you have given me something interesting to think about. Thanks .

ps...

You got it exactly correct regarding the difference in theories and who holds to what...

And yes-- it does make the whole situation 'as clear as mud' when it comes to determining who is/is not valid.

 

[Irish Melkite]

And yes-- it does make the whole situation 'as clear as mud' when it comes to determining who is/is not valid.

Father Rick,

You could not have said truer words -

It is, quite frankly, why Rome never makes blanket statements, but views each on a case by case basis - and never without the need to do so, because that encourages others to pursue whatever course got blessed that week.

PS,

You're absolutely correct. Rome could (and undoubtedly has) accorded validity to instances in which the parent Church of a renegade ordaining hierarch would never do so. There has been a move afoot to consider other Churches which are deemed to have validity of Succession and orders to be the best judge of their own house - i.e., take the stand that if that Church doesn't accord validity, we won't do so. From what I know, no formal decision has been made - but it isn't something that will be broadcast from the rooftops. Of that, one can be sure.

As to why a bishop whose Church holds to the Cyprianic theory would ordain even though his Church wouldn't recognize it, you have to stop and consider that few if any renegade hierarchs, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Old Catholic (yes, they have them too), Lutheran, or whatever believe that they are subject to anyone other than themselves once they take that step.

- Father Rick, would you not agree?

Many years,

Neil

 

[Brian Augustyn]

With respect, why is it so all fired important that the Vatican "approve" our orders? Not caring what the Vatican says is the cornerstone of the reformation. We all may not see ourselves as protestant, but we all belong to a church that rejected the hierarchy of the pope 400 years ago. Why sweat what he thinks of Anglicans now?

Are we secretly worried that if the Vatican says our orders are invalid that they might be right? If so, that's nonsense. We know our orders and sacraments and worship are all good and acceptable before God. No one else, especially not a rival organization, gets to say otherwise.

Do the Roman Catholics give out Good House-of-God-keeping Seals of Approval? Really, this "Second Class" mentality is distressing.

How needy are we that the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of another church body--a completely separate church body--is so worthy of "investigations" and loop-hole searches (what if we bank the ordination off the OCC bumper, can we sink it in with RCC approval then?)?

Really, why care what the Roman Catholic Church says or rules about us? They're not the boss of us and that's how we want it. Does it matter as much what the Baptists or Presbyterians think of us? Do Methodists think our Eucharist is valid? Should we worry if we're right with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (we aren't, by the way)? The Mormons think we're apostate, in case that matters.

I'm betting that Jews, Budhists, Muslims and Hindus are all pretty much indifferent, at best, about us. Should we investigate?

Seriously, if being in good standing with any church not your own is so important, maybe you aren't in the right church. Finding orders and sacraments that the RCC approves of completely pretty much requires joining an RC church. And, from what I hear, the modern RCC is probably not nearly high church enough for some folks on this side of things.

I say all of this with all due respect to the Roman Catholics, who rightly don't care if we approve their orders. And that's perfectly the way it should be. I also respect all of my Anglican brothers and sisters, many of whom really need to lighten up some on this.

Repeat with me and Stuart Smalley: "We're just as good as everyone else. There's no reason to be embarrassed about the things we do; that's what makes us us. We're smart, caring, fully vested with Apostollic Succession and doggonit, people like us!"


Brian