Could someone please give me a complete list of all churches of the East (Eastern and Oriental)? I tried to obtain it through Wikipedia, but I found it confused and I think it's not updated.

Shlomo Phillippe,

Here is the list I have. Also here is a link to CNEWA [cnewacanada.ca] with the 2008 statistics.

Catholic

Albanian Greek Catholic Church
Armenian Catholic Church
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church
Bulgarian Catholic Church
Chaldean/Assyrian Catholic Church
Coptic Catholic Church
Croatian Greek Catholic Church
Ethiopian Catholic Church
Georgian Catholic Church
Greek Catholic Church
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church
Macedonian Catholic Church
Maronite Church
Melkite Catholic Church
Romanian Catholic Church
Russian Catholic Church
Ruthenian Catholic Church
Slovak Greek Catholic Church
Syriac Catholic Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

Oriental Orthodox Churches

Coptic Orthodox Church
Syriac Orthodox Church
Jacobite Syrian Christian Church (India)
Armenian Apostolic Church
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church

Antiochian Catholic Church in America
Celtic Orthodox Church
Malabar Independent Syrian Church

Church of the East

Assyrian Church of the East
Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

Eastern Orthodox Church

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
Finnish Orthodox Church
Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized)
Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Saint Catherine's Monastery in Egypt
Russian Orthodox Church
Latvian Orthodox Church (semi-autonomous)
Moldovan Orthodox Church (autonomy not universally recognized)
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)
Japanese Orthodox Church(autonomy not universally recognized)
Chinese Orthodox Church
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (semi-autonomous; not universally recognized)
Estonian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate (semi-autonomous; not universally recognized)
Serbian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Ohrid Archbishopric - Macedonian (autonomy not universally recognized)
Romanian Orthodox Church
Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church
Cypriot Orthodox Church
Church of Greece
Polish Orthodox Church
Orthodox Autocephalous Church of Albania
Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America (autocephaly not universally recognized)
Russian Orthodox Church in America (not universally recognized)

Greek Old Calendarists
Montenegrin Orthodox Church
Macedonian Orthodox Church
Russian Old Believers
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church
Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kiev Patriarchy)

I hope this has helped.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I have a list. Just let me finalize it. It is 20 pages long...

Philippe,

Although there are a few aspects of this which are outdated (principally the names of a few primatial hierarchs and the elevations in status of the principal jurisdictions in a couple of instances), it's still an essentially correct listing of the Eastern and Orthodox Catholic Churches.

Churches and Rites

Regarding Shawn's list, I would note that the Byzantine Macedonians are not a Church sui iuris as yet, albeit the separation of data on their Exarchate from that of the Croatians in the most recent edition of Annuario Pontificio may be an indication that such is coming. Also, the Georgian Byzantines are, for all intents and purposes, an extinct Church, memory eternal.

Many years,

Neil

Glory to Jesus Christ!
I would appreciate if anyone could clarify the status of the Belarussian Greek Catholic Church and the Russian Catholic Church.
I did not think they are sui iuris Churches, at least not according to the current Annuario Pontificio.
If they still have eparchies/parishes/priests in these countries, I would be grateful for an update.
Thank you,
Deacon El

Philippe,

Sorry about my link - it looks as though that thread tried to self-destruct. I'll need to do some edits to fix it.

Many years,

Neil

Deacon El,

The Belarusians have an Apostolic Visitator ad nutum Sanctae Sedis for Greek-Catholics in Belarus; their parishes there (about 15, I believe) are canonically subject to local Latin Ordinaries. There is also an Apostolic Visitator for Belarusan Greek-Catholics Outside Belarus (sited in UK); there is a single mission in the diaspora - Marian House in London. It is subject to the local Latin Ordinary. At the moment, the Belarusians would fall into a lonely niche of being a church sine episcopi - does that make them not a Church sui iuris? Matter of opinion. They have previously had a hierarchy and no one has bothered to say that they will not again.

The Russian Greek-Catholics in Russia are currently under an Ordinariate for Faithful of the Oriental Rites, a Latin Jesuit. The two Russian exarchates, Moscow and Harbin, are sede vacante but have never been formally suppressed. Same comments apply. There are, off the top of my head, about 8 parishes in Russia, 4 in the US, 1 in Australia, 1 or 2 in South America, another 2 - maybe 3 - in Europe.

The Albanians don't have a primatial hierarch per se - it's an Apostolic Administration and the Apostolic Administrator is a Byzantine, but not an Albanian and no one questions their status. As best anyone can tell, there might be 1 functional parish in Albania - none in the diaspora. The other parishes of the Apostolic Administration for Albania Meridionale, despite it being designated a Byzantine jurisdiction, are reputedly Latin.

AP does not list the Russians or Belarusians because their numbers are buried in Latin census counts and, thus, unretrievable as distinct counts.

As regards the Georgians, I believe it is safe to say that the Church no longer survives as a distinguishable entity. Its only Exarch, Father Archimandrite Shio Batmanshivili, of blessed memory, was martyred in the same era as Blessed Leonid. There is no indication that they were ever afforded a hierarch, the sole parish is now in use by (if I remember correctly) the Syriacs and their last presbyter reposed a half century ago. I doubt that there are more than a couple hundred remnant faithful, if that, and they are presumably dispersed among the Armenians of both Churches, the Georgian Orthodox, and the Latins.

Many years,

Neil

Here is my list of the Eastern Churches.

I've omitted the listing of Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, as that has already been dealt with.

I began working on this list two years ago, when I realized that not even the Catholic Bishops of the Philippines had a clear idea of the Eastern Churches. I actually began composing this list for some friends of mine in the Church, but now the list has taken a life of its own.

I. “Eastern Catholic” Communities that are not in communion with Rome. These two groups are not in communion with each other

(1) Society of St. Josaphat Kuncevyc (under the obedience of SSPX)
(2) The Pidhirtsi Fathers

UAOC Bishop Yury Yurchyk briefly converted to sedevacantist Catholicism, only to become a UOC-KP bishop. Last time he was heard from, he was said to be considering transferring to Moscow.

II. Canonical Eastern Orthodox Churches – except where noted, all of these Churches are in full communion with each other. By "Canonical Churches" I am referring to those Churches that are in communion with Constantinople, or lacking this, is in communion with its patriarchal mother church or with another canonical patriarchal church. This is not meant to be a judgment on the orthodoxy or worthiness of certain "unrecognized" Orthodox Churches. I am simply acknowledging the official usage of the Orthodox Churches themselves.

The various Autocephalous Churches are listed below. Listed under each Autocephalous Church are their Autonomous Churches and Dependencies. It should be pointed out that in most conventional listings of Orthodox Churches, the Autonomous Churches are counted separately.

While all the Autocephalous Churches are in communion with each other, there are Autonomous Churches that are not in communion or are not recognized as autonomous by other Autocephalous Churches and their dependencies. Furthermore, the various Autocephalous Churches do not always agree on which Churches are Autonomous.

Autocephalous Churches

A. Patriarchal Churches (listed by precedence)

1. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople
a. Orthodox Church of Finland
b. Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church – not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church and all its dependencies

Non-Greek Canonical Churches under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. A unique institution of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is that it has, under its direct jurisdiction, non-Autonomous local Orthodox Churches in the “diaspora” that historically belonged to other Autocephalous Churches, but which have sought Constantinople’s oversight for various political, historical and cultural reasons.

i. Exarchate of Churches of the Russian Tradition in Western Europe / The Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe (note: sometimes classified as Autonomous)
ii. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA and Diaspora (UOCOFUSA)
iii.The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada (UOCC)
iv.Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America
v.Belarusian Council of Orthodox Churches in North America
vi.American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD)

(Note: The Ecumenical Patriarchate has authority over the entire Greek Orthodox diaspora, although Jerusalem has often disputed this right. In addition, within Greece itself it retains direct authority over Crete, Athos and the Dodecanese islands. The Church in Crete has many of the rights and privileges of an autonomous Church. Of the 81 dioceses of the autocephalous State Church of Greece, the 36 dioceses located in the “New Lands” remain nominally under Constantinople, whilst being de facto governed by Athens)

2. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria

3. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch / Antiochian Orthodox (formerly known as Syrian Orthodox)
a. Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (not in communion with Jerusalem Patriarchate parishes in USA)

(Note: Antioch has established a large presence in the Philippines, under the authority of Met. Paul Saliba, which is distinguished by its use of the 1970 liturgical books of the Roman Catholic Church with standard Filipino liturgical abuses. It has been denounced by Constantinople as uncanonical and un-Orthodox and its chrismations judged invalid by the Greek Orthodox Metropolis in Southeast Asia)

4. Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem (note: is currently divided into two factions. All hierarchs and most priests support Patriarch Theophilos III while some priests support the deposed Patriarch Irineos)

a. Greek Orthodox Church of Sinai – considers itself as autocephalous, but generally considered as autonomous and dependent on the Patriarch of Jerusalem

(Note: Jerusalem has many parishes and monasteries in the US. These have been ostensibly transferred to Constantinople, but not one of these parishes and monasteries have recognized their own “transfer” and continue to commemorate the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Some of these parishes and monasteries are former ROCOR)

5. Patriarchate of Moscow and All Russia (Russian Orthodox Church) (note: not in communion with the Estonians under Constantinople and the Romanian Metropolia of Bessarabia)

a.Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP)
b.Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) – (dependency of Moscow since May, 2007)
i.The “Indonesian Orthodox Church”, despite its autonomous-sounding name, is part of a ROCOR diocese.
c.Orthodox Church of Japan
d.Orthodox Church of China (destroyed by Maoists in the 1960’s, last priest died recently. It is currently made up only of lay faithful. Moscow has vowed to revive its clergy and is beginning to train priests)
e.Moldovan Orthodox Church
f.Latvian Orthodox Church
g.Estonian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate

(See also “Abkhazian Orthodox Church” in the Non-Canonical Churches section)

6. Patriarchate of Georgia (Georgian Orthodox Church)

7. Patriarchate of Serbia (Serbian Orthodox Church)
a.Archbishopric of Ohrid

(note: there is a Romanian Orthodox presence in Serbia whose canonical status is a matter of dispute between the Serbian and Romanian Patriarchates)

8. Patriarchate of Romania (Romanian Orthodox Church)
a.Metropolia of Bessarabia (not in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church and its dependencies)

The L’ECOF (Catholic-Orthodox Church of France) was under Romania until 1993. Prior to being under Romania it was successively under Moscow then ROCOR. Since 1993, most of L’ECOF has been “vagante”, but a deanery of ECOF parishes has remained under Romania. See L’ECOF under the “non-canonical” Churches.

9. Patriarchate of Bulgaria (Bulgarian Orthodox Church)

(Note: the Patriarchal Bulgarian diocese in North America has some parishes and monasteries of Russian Orthodox heritage, coming from ROCOR)

B. Autocephalous Metropolitanates / Archbishoprics

1.Orthodox Church of Cyprus

2.Church of Greece (under Archbishop of Athens) -- see note in the entry for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, regarding the division of authority in Greece.

3.Orthodox Church of Albania

4.Orthodox Church of Poland
a.Autonomous Orthodox Church of Portugal (and Brazil) / Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal (and Brazil) (currently divided into two groups: one – the bishops and priests in Brazil and a few priests in Portugal -- in communion with the Polish Orthodox Church; and another -- the bishops and most priests in Portugal -- in schism from the Poles since 2000)

5.Orthodox Church of Czech and Slovak Lands

6.Orthodox Church of America (OCA) – (In communion with all autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Is considered as autocephalous by Russia, Poland, Georgia, Czech and Slovak Lands and Bulgaria and their dependencies. All other autocephalous Orthodox Churches and their dependencies consider it as merely autonomous. Nevertheless, OCA has maintained communion and concelebration with all autocephalous Orthodox Churches)

A unique institution of the OCA are the “ethnic dioceses”, three US dioceses that split from their mother autocephalous Orthodox Churches during the Cold War for political / anti-communist reasons, and which sought canonical refuge under OCA. These are fully functioning dioceses of the OCA but have some of the characteristics of autonomy:

-- Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America (ROEA)
-- Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America
-- Bulgarian Diocese of the OCA

Note on “National Churches” (which national terms are given to what churches)

As can be seen from the above listing, there is often an overlap among national terms as applied to Churches, and the actual jurisdictions. This is true of the Romanian, Greeks, Albanian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian and – most of all – the Russian Orthodox.

These overlaps can be listed as follows (only “canonical jurisdictions’” listed):

The term “Russian Orthodox” is popularly given to the following:

(1) The Moscow Patriarchate or, simply, the “Russian Orthodox Church” without qualification. Aside from ROCOR, all of Moscow’s other dependencies may be called “Russian Orthodox” with some necessary qualifications (especially with regards to the Japanese Orthodox and the UOC-MP)

(2) Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) – autonomous under MP

(3) The “Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe” under the Ecumenical Patriarchate

(4) The Orthodox Church of America – does not as a whole define itself as Russian Orthodox, but its Alaskan diocese and many parishes monasteries, cathedrals, clerics and lay faithful still do so, and OCA continues to have a “Russian Orthodox” ethos. For this reason OCA is still often called or classified as “Russian Orthodox”. OCA is, in fact, the old “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia” in North America, which was granted autocephaly by Moscow in 1970. For this reason it continues to be popularly called “Russian Orthodox”

The term “Greek Orthodox” is given to the following:

1) The Patriarchate of Constantinople, However, the non-ethnic Greek canonical Churches under Constantinople are not so considered.
2) The Patriarchate of Alexandria
3) The Patriarchate of Jerusalem (the latter including Sinai).
4) The Orthodox Church of Greece
5) The Orthodox Church of Cyprus

Note: the Patriarchate of Antioch continues to employ the term “Greek Orthodox” in its official title, but has an Arab identity, and is generally no longer considered as “Greek Orthodox” in reality.

The term “Ukrainian Orthodox” is given to the following canonical Churches:

(1)Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP)
(2)Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (and Diaspora) under the Ecumenical Patriarchate (UOCOFUSA)
(3) Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada under the Ecumenical Patriarchate (UOCC)

The term “Albanian Orthodox” is given to the following:

(1) Orthodox Church of Albania
(2) Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese in America (under OCA)
(3) Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America (under Ecumenical Patriarchate)

The term “Romanian Orthodox” and “Bulgarian Orthodox” are each applied to two distinct entities: the Patriarchates that respectively use the name, and the OCA dioceses that respectively call themselves by these terms.

I will be posting my list of the "non-Canonical" Orthodox next.

I find the state of Russian Catholicism (Byzantine Rite) to be really sad.

Australian Russian Catholics once had 3 priests; now they have but one. After Fr. Lawrence Cross... what?

Of the 4 parishes in the US, only two have their own (tiny) chapels. a third community shares a building with the Melkites and the last group is basically the community that attends the Sunday Divine Liturgy of Fr. Chrysostom Frank, who otherwise functions as a Latin-Rite priest and serves in a Latin parish.

Argentina has one mission and one small monastery with two clerics -- perhaps the only male Russian Catholic monastery left in the whole world, since Chevetogne (with 27 monks, of whom about half function according to the Byzantine Rite) normally isn't counted as a "Russian Catholic" institution.

Brazil has one chapel.

France has two parishes -- the one in Paris is now run by the Argentine priest Fr. Gabriel Diaz Patri, who is also known for his work in Spanish-speaking circles on behalf of the Traditional Roman Liturgy.

Germany has two communities, plus an Augustinian monastery with monthly Sunday Divine Liturgy (is this still continued?). There are also a number of ecumenical study centers (which, strictly speaking, are not really Russian Catholic).

Italy, in addition to the Russicum and the Uspenskij monastery, has an institution in Milan where the Divine Liturgy is celebrated once a month according to the Russian tradition. (Not exactly a parish or community...)

One thing that has struck me is that the "Russian Greek Catholic Church" outside Russia is no longer ethnically Russian at all. My question is, where are the descendants of the Russian Catholic diaspora? Where have they vanished to?

Do the following Russian Catholic institutions that are mentioned in the St. Michael's Russian Catholic parish website, still function?

1) The Ecumenical Chapel of SS. Peter and Paul in Finland
2) The church in Karaganda, Kazakhstan (I think this is UGCC, not Russian)
3) The "Pokroff" Journal and Russian Catholic center in the Hague, once under the Capuchins (by 1999 this had Divine Liturgy only on two Sundays a month)
4) The Istina center in France (I heard that it's still open but the Russian ORTHODOX are the ones who liturgize there)
5) Жизнь с Богом in Belgium


So why designate it a Byzantine jurisdiction?

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

Here is the information that I can get about the Albanian Greek Catholic Church from NationMaster.com [nationmaster.com] .

The Apostolic Administratorship of Southern Albania has 3,200 Catholics in 9 parishes, with 11 churches, and is served by 4 diocesan and 10 religious priests, 10 male and 97 female religious, who administer 10 schools and 20 charitable institutions.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Archimandrite George in Melbourne is not dead just yet. You dont mention that the Abbey of Niederaltaich has a Byzantine sub community. The foundation Russian Communities are themselves a mix of many ethnic groups, which include Russians. The Melbourne Centre included people of Russian, Belorussian, Polish, Georgian, Ossetian, Korean, Jewish, Italian (South Russian minority!) Anglo/Celtic, Slavic Macedonian, Bulgarian (New Russian region of today's Ukraine), Spanish (via Argentina) and Indian/SE Asian ethnicities. Put that lot together and things get interesting. Oh it got interesting also to work out who is in fact Catholic and who is actually Orthodox. Numbers would swell on certain feasts, as the Russian community did the rounds of the various churches to mark the feasts. As the services were idential (only the mention of the Pope and the RC Archbishop of Melbourne were different) and the lay out of the church was the same (no pews), as all the other Russian Churchs.

St Andrew's belongs to the Russians. That we have a mission there is because the priest, Father Archimandrite Alexei (Smith), was ordained by our Eparch, Archbishop Joseph, of blessed memory, to the service of the Russians and is incardinated to our Eparchy.

As to the others, I don't know enough about the community in Denver to comment, but the Latin Archbishop there is very supportive of its existence and has entrusted it to the spiritual omophor of the Romanian Eparchy last I knew. St. Michael's, tiny chapel aside, is a vibrant parish community, presently served by a priest of the Melkite Eparchy, Father Economos Roman (Russo).


Philippe may be able to tell us whether or not this community is presently being pastorally served. Last year, the 4th anniversary Divine Liturgy for Father Joann Stoisser, a Jesuit who served the Brazilian Russian community for a number of years, was served by a priest from Argentina.


More than one parish has had its beginnings in Divine Liturgies served once monthly. Try to be more positive.


The communities are inter-mingled, but the (now 7, I believe) parish communities are in the care of the Ukrainians. See Грекокатолическая Церковь в Казахстане [catholic-kazakhstan.org] - Link to an English language "History of the Greek Catholic Church in Kazakhstan" - left side, just above the first horizontal divider.

Btw, Bishop Joseph Wirth, SJ, of the Ordinariate for Faithful of the Oriental Rites in Russia, was raised among this exile community.


The Center [dominicains.fr] is operated by the Dominicans, together with St Basil's College. It continues its ecumenical activity.



That decision is Rome's, not mine. When it was initially so designated Albanian Meridionale was primarily Byzantine; it no longer is. Shenjtë Virgjër Meri Shqip Grek-Katolik at Elbasan is the sole Byzantine parish remaining.

Many years,

Neil

Shawn,

Unfortunately, according to the information that I have been able to gather, only 1 of the parishes (and one small community of nuns) is Byzantine (see my post above). The remainder are Latin.

From Father Ron Roberson's material at CNEWA on the Albanians:



Many years,

Neil

However, Istina seems to be attended by Orthodox seminarians studying in Paris, and the liturgy is served by Orthodox priests and hierarchs.

Here is the second installment of my list of Orthodox Churches.

This is a list of "Non-Canonical but Historically Orthodox Churches". By "historically Orthodox" I mean that a given Church, even though unrecognized by any of the nine Patriarchates, continues to follow the liturgical and canonical traditions and the theological teachings characteristic of Eastern Orthodoxy. Furthermore, there has to be a demonstrably unbroken succession -- by episcopal consecration -- to at least one of the Patriarchates. (Obviously, I'm writing as a Roman Catholic).

Here goes:

Six Categories:

1. Popovtsy Old Believers / Old Ritualists
2. Unrecognized Patriarchates / National Churches
3. Greek / Balkan Old Calendarist Churches
4. Russian "True Orthodox" Churches
5. Western-Rite Orthodox Churches
6. Other independent jurisdictions



I. Popovstsy Old Believer / Old Rite Orthodox / Russian Orthodox Old Rite

1. Belokrinitskaya Hierarchy / Belokrinitskoe soglasie – tracing its roots to St. Ambrose of Sarajevo in 1846, comprised of two churches in communion with each other:

i. Russian Orthodox Old Rite Church – based in Moscow
ii. Lipovan Orthodox Old – Rite Church– based in Romania


2. Novozybkovskaya hierarchy / Russian Old Orthodox Church / Old Believer “Patriarchate of Moscow” (tracing its roots to Nikola of Saratov in 1923)

3. Slavo-Georgian (Iberian) Old-Orthodox Church (break-away from the Russian Old Orthodox Church)

4. Old Orthodox Church of Russia (break-away from the Russian Old Orthodox Church)

5. “Clementite” Old Believers (of doubtful apostolicity and probably no longer in existence)


II. Unrecognized Patriarchates / “National Churches” claiming Autocephaly / Autonomy

A. Claimants for Ukrainian Autocephaly

Two major claimants:

1. Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP)
2. Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church (UAOC) – Met. Mefodiy

Other, minor groups. The last two are active mainly in the diaspora.

3. UAOC Eparchies (Ihor Isichenko of Kharkiv and Poltava, etc.) that do not recognize Met. Mefodiy and commemorate Met. Constantine of the UOCOFUSA

4. Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church – Canonical / Sobrapovorna (breakaway from UAOC) under “Patriarch Moisey” (Oleh Kulik). – Despite its name, it is notorious for its canonical infractions and heresies. In 2008 its “Metropolia of France” together with several of its bishops, seceded and joined a truly vagante organization, the “American Orthodox Catholic Church”

5. (Autonomous) Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America (breakaway from UAOC, formerly formed one group with “Sobrapovorna” group)

Note: AUOCA has a Russian Orthodox Archdiocese of its own in addition to the Russian “True Orthodox” with which it is in communion

B. Other Unrecognized Patriarchates & National Churches

1. Macedonian Orthodox Church
2. Montenegrin Orthodox Church
3. Alternative Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
4. Orthodox Church of Italy (under the late Metropolitan Antonio (Rossi))
5. Abkhazian Orthodox Church (breakaway from Georgian Patriarchate; currently has no hierarch, and is now seeking entrance into the Moscow Patriarchate as an Autonomous Church)
6. Autonomous Orthodox Catholic Church of Portugal (Portuguese bishops and most priests in schism from Poland since 2000)
7. Belarusan Autocephalous Orthodox Church (Met. Iziaslau)
8. Italo-Greek Orthodox Church (entirely US-based)

(note: the UOC-KP or Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyivan Patriarchate is in communion with the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church of Italy, and the Alternative Bulgarian Synod. They all were apparently in communion with the Montenegrin Orthodox Church until recently, when communion was broken due to certain allegedly uncanonical acts of the latter)

III. Greek Orthodox “Old Calendarist” Churches -- Paleoimerologites

A. Florinites -- via the Synods of Akakios and Auxentios

“Strict Ecclesiologists” / “Closed Communion” Groups

Note: All of these use the name "Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece" or "True Orthodox Church of Greece"

1.Synod of Chrysostomos (Kiousis) / Chrysostomites / Kiousites -- by far the largest Old Calendarist Synod, reputedly followed by 70% of all Old Calendarists.
a. Serbian True Orthodox Church -- no hierarch of its own; under the oversight of the Kiousite Synod.

2. Synod of Makarios / Lamian Synod / Lamians -- broke away from the Synod of Chrysostomos in the early 2000's

3. Bishop Niphon and another bishop -- broke away from Lamians in 2006

4. Synod of Maximos of Athens / Auxentites -- a tiny group, made up of the clergy and bishops who had remained loyal to the late Archbishop Auxentios of Athens after most of the Auxentite Synod ousted Auxentios and proclaimed Chrysostom Kiousis as Archbishop of Athens in 1986.

5. Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston (HOMB) formerly known as HOCNA (Holy Orthodox Church of North America). Known also as “Bostonites” and is classified as “Greek Orthodox Old Calendarist” but has a large “Russian True Orthodox” following and is actually in its origins a ROCOR break-away group. Following this group's schism from ROCOR in 1986 it went under Archbishop Auxentios's Synod, later headed by Archbishop Maximos. A few years later, following Auxientios' repose, the bishops of what became HOCNA broke away from the Synod of Maximos.

a. Georgian True Orthodox Church (no hierarch of its own, and is under HOMB)

Note: None of these five "Closed Communion" Old Calendarist groups are in communion with each other or with any other Church

B. Moderate / “Open Communion” Groups

1. Synod of Cyprian / Cyprianites / Synod in Resistance (includes the Diocese of Alania, which religiously dominates South Ossetia) -- is in communion with the Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists (see below).

2. Holy Synod of Milan (Russian character)
a. Orthodox Church of Spain – actually a diocese of the Holy Synod of Milan

3. Metropolia of Avlon (Angelos) / Synod of Angelos of Avlon – broke away from Lamians then went into communion with Milan

Note: All these three groups trace their origins to the Florinite Synod of Auxentios. Milan and Avlon are in communion with each other

B. Matthewites

1. Synod of Nicholas
2. Synod of Gregory
3. Synod of Kyrikos (in communion with a splinter Romanian Orthodox Old Calendar group that traces its orders to ROCOR)
4. Faction of Chrysostomos of Salonika

(The Cypriot Old Calendarists are mostly Matthewites, splintered into supporters of Nicholas and – mostly -- Kyrikos)

C. Other Old Calendarist Churches

3. Old Calendar Church of Romania (in communion with Synod of Cyprian)
4. Old Calendar Church of Bulgaria (in communion with Synod of Cyprian)



IV. Russian “True Orthodox” Churches

A. Breakaways from ROCOR (see also “HOCNA” above)

1. Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) under Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal

2. Russian True Orthodox Church (RTOC) under Metropolitan Tikhon / Russian Catacomb Church / Tikhonites / Lazarites (after the late Lazar Zhurbenko)


3. ROCOR-PSCA – Agafangel (in communion with the Synod in Resistance and the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendarists)


4. Synod of Archbishop Gregory of Denver (breakaway from ROAC)

The following four churches are the splinters of the ROCOR-V that formed in 2001 around the late Metropolitan Vitaly.

5. ROCIE (former ROCOR-V) under Vladimir, Bartholomew (too sick to function) and Anastassy of Vladivostok
6. ROCOR-A or ROCIE-A (Anthony Orlov and Victor Pivovarov)
7. Breakaway from ROCOR-A group of Damascene (Balabanov) and Ioann (Zinoviev) of “Russian Orthodox Church-Archierarchical Synod”
8. ROCIE – Anthony of Belstk and Moldova and single-handed consecrations (allegedly with ROCOR-V Bartholomew’s consent)

B. Other Russian "True Orthodox" Churches

1. Russian True Orthodox Church – Metropolia of Moscow (under Metropolitan Vyacheslav and in communion with and originating from the UAOC of Met. Mefodiy)
2. Russian True Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Rafail
3. Russian Catacomb Church under Bishop Ambrose von Sievers / “Andrewites” (note: of doubtful apostolic succession)
4. Rusyn True Orthodox Church -- in western Ukraine
5. The small group of deposed MP Bishop Diomid of Chukotka

(There are many others)

Note: The Greek Old Calendarist Orthodox Synods of Chrysostomos, Makarios, Kyrikos and the HOMB have “Russian True Orthodox” parishes in the Russian diaspora. Makarios and Kyrikos have their own Russian dioceses.

The Synod of Milan and the Synod of Gregory of Denver, although generally classified as Greek Orthodox Old Calendarist, are actually Russian in origin.

The Synod of Cyprian has a few Russian parishes and monasteries in the USA

V. Western Orthodox Churches

1. The Communion of Western Orthodox Churches, made up of the following Churches:

a. Celtic Orthodox Church of Bishop Maelruain
b. French Orthodox Church
c. Orthodox Church of the Gauls

2. L’ECOF (Catholic-Orthodox Church of France) – (originally canonical under the Russians then under Romania, became “vagante” in the 1990’s)

3. Lusitanian Orthodox Church
4. Milanese Apostolic Catholic Church


VI. Other Independent Jurisdictions

1. Former Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Alexandria in the USA
2. Apostolic Orthodox Church -- a small Russian group in communion with UAOC (very liberal)

Alternative Orthodox Structures: An Overview

As already seen, all canonical Orthodox Churches are in full or at least partial communion with each other. In competition or in parallel with this worldwide structure, some non-canonical Orthodox Churches have established their own intercommunion structures, as follows:

1)The UOC-Kyiv Patriarchate has been vigorously seeking intercommunion with as many other “non-canonical” Orthodox Churches as possible. At present, it is in communion with the following:

• Alternative Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
• Macedonian Orthodox Church
• Orthodox Church of Italy

2) The UAOC – Met. Mefodiy is in communion with the Russian True Orthodox Church under Met. Vyacheslav as well as with the tiny “Apostolic Orthodox Church” of Fr. Gleb Yakunin in Russia.

3) The (Autonomous) Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America is in communion with the Russian True Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Rafail

4) Old Calendarist Inter-Communion

a) The Synod of Cyprian and the Old Calendar Churches of Romania and Bulgaria as well as ROCOR-PSCA are in communion with each other

b)The Holy Synod of Milan is in communion with the Synod of Avlon


5) Italo-Greek Orthodox, Milanese Apostolic Catholic Church and Lusitanian Orthodox Church are all in communion with each other (all use the Old Calendar but are not considered as part of the Old Calendarist – TOC movement)

Dont forget the Turkish Orthodox Church.

It doesn't even have clergy.

Yes, Istina is attended by both Orthodox and Catholic seminarians - that is in line with its avowed mission of ecumenism. Attendance by seminarians of either Church at various seminaries and other theological institutes belonging to the other is hardly new. There are a not insignificant number of Orthodox clergy educated at Rome, including several who are now hierarchs. Catholic seminarians - both Eastern and Latin have attended individual courses and entire academic years at Holy Cross GO Seminary in Brookline, MA since the days of Cardinal Cushing and His Beatitude Iakovos, both of blessed memory.

As to who serves the Divine Liturgy there, I don't know. I haven't read the Center's material in quite some time but, last I knew, there were biritual Dominicans among others serving it.

The Utica-based Italo-Greek "Orthodox Church" is in communion with no one (except in the mind of "Metropolitan" Stephen - if anyone else is acknowledging a tie to them, then he's done an excellent sales/snow job on them as regards what he represents).

It is a vagante ecclesia of the first order. Last time I swung by the "cathedral", it looked to be ready for a demolition crew - or that one had been there and left after finishing half the job.

I have never been able to track any of the dozen or so purported 'parishes' - none of which had street addresses the last time I looked. The original version of this entity actually did exist, having been established in Philadelphia back at the turn of the 20th century - about the same time that OLOG was coming into being in NYC and during a high point in Italian immigration from Sicily and the Greco-Italian regions.

There are some indications that their presbyter was ordained in Orthodoxy, but had schismed from his jurisdiction, and may have developed ties, albeit briefly, to the Old Catholics. The community did not survive long, but was followed up by a daughter mission in Utica, where there was a strong Italian presence - that foundation was of more dubious orders and not long-lived. The present entity is one of those reincarnations that so often arise in vagante circles, decades later, wherein some enterprising individual declares himself the legitimate successor to those who themselves were of questionable legitimacy.

Many years,

Neil

And the Lusitanians are not significantly closer to canonicity. You'd be hard-pressed to find any serious discussion of them as a viable ecclesial entity since a time in the '60s when the Episcopalians were reaching out to establish communion with the Old Catholics, the PNCC, and anyone else who looked "high-church".

I have a vague recollection that the Lusitanians were among those bandied about at the time as a prospective party to whatever ecumenical venture was being suggested.

Many years,

Neil

Interesting topic.

As I've written here [angelfire.com] there are Byzantine churches out of communion with Orthodoxy but are still in the family and thus whose orders are in practice recognised. As asianpilgrim well put it:


These come in two versions, hard-line true-believer splits (the Old Believers and Old Calendarists) and nationalist ones (the Kyiv Patriarchate). All that's missing is communion with Orthodoxy.

Not to be confused with a vagante church that claims to be at least somewhat Eastern because of one or more 'lines of succession' to an Eastern church with which it is not in communion (which ISTM shows an ignorance of the Christian East).

I'm fairly sure the Antiochian Catholic Church in America is vagante, not really in the Oriental Orthodox communion. I know an independent-sacramental-church priest who read for orders at its seminary.

I don't know of a Lusitanian Orthodox Church, either actually Orthodox or extramural, or of any Episcopalian tie to them. There is a Lusitanian Church in Portugal as there is a Spanish Reformed Episcopal Church, members of the Anglican Communion which began in the 1800s as missions by very Protestant-minded Anglicans to a few receptive ex-RCs. The Spanish website [anglicanos.org] looks like what you'd expect: Iberian anglophiles.

It's true that the Episcopalians and some other Anglicans - the Church of England's leaders - reached out to non-papal Catholic churches (churches that 'looked high-church') such as, at the time, the Old Catholics (Utrecht) including at the time the Polish National Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern churches as the Anglo-Catholic movement peaked in Anglicanism around the 1920s. Back then there were even the Malines conversations with Rome.

The Russian and Byelorussian Greek Catholic churches are still stand-alone canonical churches of the Roman communion but without bishops (or as one Russian Catholic puts it, 'we have bishops' - meaning the Russian Orthodox hierarchy - 'only they're not Catholic'). I understand the Byelorussian one in Byelorussia is a spontaneous small development of people converting on their own unsolicited by Rome (much like the Russian Greek Catholics' origins in late tsarist times). As in Russia this isn't pushed by the local RCs - they don't want to anger the Orthodox or the government.

You're absolutely correct on that count. The ACCA was birthed from Herman Adrian Spruit's Catholic Apostolic Church of Antioch - Malalbar Rite (which was neither Catholic, Apostolic, Antiochian, nor Malabarese] and, relying on those origins, lays claim to apostolic succession through both Rene Joseph Vilatte's Syriac lines and Arnold Harris Mathew's Old Catholic lines. It ordains women to both the presbyterate and episcopacy. Their geographic focus is in TN, KY, and the Carolinas, where they have a few small congregations. To their credit, one of those (in Knoxville, I think) operates a small food bank and meals program for the homeless and needy. I wasn't aware that they had a functional seminary.


The group has styled itself variously through the years. Last I knew, they were reportedly serving according to the Bragan Rite. I don't believe that they ever formalized any ties with the Episcopalians, but they were among those (also including the Spanish Episcopalians) to whom a tentative outreach was being considered in the early '60s. A quick web search just now turned up this Time magazine piece [time.com] from 1961.

Many years,

Neil

Thanks for the confirmation on the ACCA; that's what I thought I remembered. Their seminary AFAIK is not accredited but it exists or used to.

(To be fair, do you need accreditation for an in-house clergy-training scheme? Even an accredited M.Div. I understand is useless outside of church jobs. The Metropolia/OCA did fine at St Tikhon's without accreditation for years.)

Yes, 1961, about when Anglo-Catholicism, though still a minority, peaked in the Episcopal Church and was a spanner in the works of reaching the goal of one mainline Protestant mush (wanting to identify with those 'déclassé' Romans and Orthodox instead; how dare they). The Lusitanian Church referred to are the what are now the Portuguese Episcopalians, who were admitted to the Anglican Communion later.

I think the Celtic Orthodox Church is vagante as well; the British Orthodox Church (the name of a denomination, not Britons who are Eastern Orthodox) started off that way (claiming succession from the Syrians via Jules Ferrette) but is now in the Coptic Church (but is not Coptic Rite; I think they kept their home-grown one).

It is certainly "uncanonical", but has been trying to garner respectability under their current bishop, Mael or Maelruain. At the very least it seems to be striving for theological and liturgical "seriousness". If only for that reason I put it on my list. It certainly isn't going around ordaining bishops everywhere, and some of their clergy and monastics have been accepted into canonical Orthodox Churches. (The "British Orthodox" have a common history with the Celtic Orthodox)

Curently the Celtic Orthodox Church is one of the three churches comprising the "Communion of Western Orthodox Churches".

Now, as for the so many other "Celtic" Churches, I think none of them have any serious claims to be considered as "part of the family" of churches with genuine apostolic succession.

Mael's Celtic Orthodox Church is effectively a remnant of the larger body that was received into the Coptic Patriarchate and is now styled as the British Orthodox Church. Some of the original body chose not to accept the decision to come under Alexandria's omophor; others did so initially but, in time, became disaffected for reasons which I never saw explained and drifted back to what was, by then, the Celtic Orthodox Church.

I'm not sure what numbers are currently being bandied about, but my recollection is that Mael's is the smallest of the 3 (the other 2 being the French Orthodox Church and the Gaulish Orthodox Churches, neither of which is itself of much size) that comprise the Western Orthodox Church (L'Eglise Orthodoxe Occidentale).

As AP notes, the other "Celtic Orthodox" and "Celtic Catholic" Churches, the majority of which are headquartered in the US, are unquestionably vagante. Is Mael's ecclesia as well? A matter of opinion, I suppose.

They are usually spoken of as being of the "Independent Movement" - although I doubt they would accept that styling or so describe themselves. But, that "movement" is primarily a homegrown American phenomena (understanding "American" in this instance as spanning "the Americas"). However, it has reached out to the Philippines, to a lesser extent Australia, and to African nations - with many such posting photos of their resident hierarchs in the latter as proof of their globalized mission. In truth, it most proves that one needn't be a Midwestern American with a hankering to play dress-up in clerical vesture, or have a Lazy-Bob recliner as a cathedra to call oneself 'bishop', 'archbishop'. 'prinmate' or 'metropolitan'.

Many years,

Neil

Were this matter to be considered in a traditional debating society, one might phrase the topic for debate as 'held: that an ecclesia must, at some time, have been "canonical" to subsequently be deemed "uncanonical"'.

I've never given it any thought until now, but is any entity that has no valid or licit historical claim to canonicity anything other than an interloper, unless or until some canonical body acknowledges it?

Many years,

Neil

What makes a Church "vagante"? What is the criteria that should be used in discerning between merely "uncanonical" Churches, and vagante ones?

Here is an incomplete, arbitrary and very provisional list of criteria that I use:

A Church can be defined as vagante if:

1) Its orders are not specifically recognized as theoretically valid, and treated as valid in practice, either by the Roman Catholic Church, or by at least one of the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Patriarchates. (This proviso saves the Polish National Catholics, the Utrecht Union Old Catholics, the Catholic Apostolic Church of Brazil and its Worldwide Communion, the Eglise Sainte Marie, and the main group of Mariavites from "vagante" status. As to why I specified that the Orders should not only be recognized as valid, but should be actually treated as such, I made this criteria in order to account for the fact that while Constantinople and some other Orthodox patriarchates give theoretical recognition to Anglican Orders, none of these have actually applied their theoretical approval of Anglican orders into practice!)

1) It traces its origins to any of the following:

a) A.H. Mathew
b) Joseph Rene Villate
c) Aftimios Ofiesh
d) A. J. Aneed

The extreme disorder that characterize the "episcopal succession" from these bishops is such as to cast doubt on the validity of those consecrated in their line. It is telling that Villate's consecrations of other bishops were apparently considered as of doubtful validity by the Holy See, while Mathew was buried as an Anglican layman.

3) If it claims to be Eastern Rite or "Orthodox" but allows for married bishops and women clergy.

4) It has no apparent discipline in conferring sacred orders, and makes little attempt to observe the relevant canons concerning the proper elevation of men to the sacerdotal and episcopal state

5) It likes to change its name once every few years

6) Its website details elaborate "lines of succession" from bishop X and Y

Regarding messy lines of succession: The convoluted lines of apostolic succession from Pierre Ngo Dinh Thuc -- from whom many sedevacantist Traditionalists derive their orders -- are more difficult to judge. I am of the opinion that the strictly Traditionalist Catholic line of succession that began with the Thucite consecrations of 1982 should not be considered as vagante, given that the Traditionalist bishops who flow from these ordinations are a relatively disciplined lot and strictly adhere to pre-1962 Catholic doctrine and liturgy. On the other hand, the vast majority of Thucite "churches" that trace their "succession" to consecrations performed by Thuc between 1977 and 1982, are most doubtful (and in any case most of these consecrations are not properly documented -- unlike the 1976 and 1982 consecrations).

The Palmar De Troya consecrations of Ngo Dinh Thuc in 1976 are tacitly recognized as valid by the Holy See -- at least one of those ordained as a priest then as a bishop at that time, was received into the Catholic Church a few years ago as a priest -- but the Palmar De Troya sect of today has become such a deranged and lunatic cult that it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a real Church! Its sacraments seem to have lost validity as well due to their liturgical reforms c. 1980 and their outlandish theology (e.g. the Real Presence of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Holy Eucharist).

The "Old Roman Catholics" who trace their orders to A.H. Mathew also seem to be worth re-evaluating, given their theological and liturgical conservatism and the modicum of ecclesiastical order that they have tried to maintain in the century since Mathew.

There are many "Catholic Apostolic Churches" floating around, but not all of them are recognized by the mother-Church in Brazil (which certainly has valid orders and is a real church, with real congregations). The mother Church itself, while maintaining a steady existence in Brazil, has had a turbulent and confusing relationship with its supposed daughter churches all over the world.

The Liberal Catholics -- who dabble in theosophy and Gnosticism -- are reputed to be very strict in transmitting the apostolic succession according to orthodox Catholic doctrine, but their strange liturgy and doctrine cannot but raise a thousand questions about the continuing legitimacy of their orders.

Very helpful, asianpilgrim. Thanks.

I’ll add that independent anglican (although they are not Anglican, which means being recognised as such by Lambeth) and small unofficial episcopal Lutheran churches are not necessarily vagantes (a phenomenon that’s been on the fringes of Anglicanism for about 150 years — opportunistic crossover with Anglo-Catholicism). You can argue that the real and respected Maronite Church (under Rome since the Middle Ages) started off as vagantes from the Syrian Church. If something has a consistent doctrine and practice, even if I don’t agree with them, and a real ministry (people actually going to church) I tend not to call it that.

... you can't have it both ways. One cannot label, as vagante, all Churches claiming apostolic succession from Arnold Harris Mathew and then grant an exception in favor of the "Old Roman Catholics" because of "their theological and liturgical conservatism and the modicum of ecclesiastical order that they have tried to maintain". Mathew himself had his episcopal orders from Archbishop Gerardus Gul, a man whose own orders are generally not deemed in question, and Prince de Landas Berges and Carmel Henry Carfora, his successors in according orders to the Old Roman Catholics are unquestionably generally perceived as spiritual men who adhered to traditional Catholic belief as they saw it. But, who are their legitimate non-vagante descendents and by what measure are other descendent bodies from Mathew's laying-on-of-hands to be labeled vagante or not?

"Old Roman Catholics" itself is ill-defined. It was the original styling of Mathew's mission effort directed to the US, but to which body is it now being applied - The Old Roman Catholic Church in North America (ORCCNA) (Archbishop Facione) only or equally to the other ecclesiae which evolved subsequent to the repose of Archbishop Carfora?

These were initially 5 in number, but formation of The Council of Old Roman Catholic Bishops in North America purports to have brought them together in some sort of common structure that could eventually lead to reunion. Understanding what stage they are at in the process is muddied by the Council's description of itself as being comprised of 3 dioceses. Yet, 2 of the 3, ORCCNA and The North American Old Roman Catholic Church (NAORCC)(Archbishop Ford), appear to be more than dioceses, having a distinct ecclesial identity and presiding hierarch. And what of The Old Catholic Church of America (OCCA)(Archbishop Bostwick) and The North American Old Roman Catholic Church (Utrecht Succession) (NAORC) (Archbishop Vellone)?

The Liberal Catholic Church, in all of its variant incarnations claim succession from (again) Mathew (who, as a progenitor, you early on disclaimed) through Willoughby, Wedgewood, and Leadbeatter. None - none - of these can seriously be said to adhere to any stringency in transmission of apostolic succession. A review of their ritual books offers no prospect of any of their "sacraments" retaining validity or licity. Keep in mind also, that it was from this base that Spruit's Church (and its myriad daughters) derive in one fashion or another.

As to Anthony Aneed, he had no episcopal orders to impart. He was likely afforded the honorific dignity of exarch by a Melkite hierarch to whom he was related and who made a pastoral visit to the US early in the 20th century. Aneed, in his own mind, translated the honorific to an office and set out to establish his own Church. One supposes that it was a good thing that he decided to go to the West coast to do so, rather than to corral any of the existing Melkite parishes and missions into his fold.

Aftimios Ofiesh presents all manner of issues. He was, without question, a legitimately ordained bishop , albeit once he broke with his Church, by the Orthodox view he no longer was able to exercise episcopal authority. The question has never been quite so clear-cut when looked at from the Catholic perspective, given the long-standing adherence to an Augustinian theory of apostolic succession versus the Cyprianic theory of the Orthodox. On the Catholic side, recent attitudes toward episcopal ordinations by renegade hierarchs within the Catholic Church suggest that there is a considerably more conservative approach being taken - or at least considered. Are many of Ofiesh's ecclesial offspring vagante? Without question, but vagante ecclesiae and their attendant vagante episcopi do not, in themselves, translate into a lack of apostolic succession.

The vast majority - if not all - episcopal ordinations by Thuc are unlikely to be deemed valid or licit, as his state of mind in the last decade of his life is itself in question and leaves open the question of his ability to form the proper intent. The resultant ecclesiae, in this instance, are almost assuredly both vagante and without claim to apostolic succession.

As to the Mariavites, they may not fit the mold typically associated with vagante, but their apostolic succession, barring what they might have garnered through Utrecht, is very much in question.

Many years,

Neil

I would agree that, at the time of Carfora's death, the Old Roman Catholics were a respectable Church, "part of the family". It is the situation after Carfora that greatly muddled everything, which is why I DIDN'T say that the Old Roman Catholics of today are definitely worthy of being removed from the "vagante" list; I merely said that perhaps the current ORCCNA claimants could be re-evaluated.



Glad to be corrected then. I swear I've read some old Catholic reference works that referred to the Liberal Catholics as jealously guarding the apostolic succession.


Perhaps, but the history of Ofieshite jurisdictions is so muddled and riddled with contradictory accounts that I do not see any possibility of Ofieshite clergy being accepted into either canonical Orthodoxy or Catholicism without any conditional ordinations, at the very least.


I wouldn't be so hasty. While Thuc had a very bizarre career, the fact that a theologian of Guerard des Laurier's stature and learning -- a master of scholastic hairsplitting if ever there was one -- would seek episcopal consecration from him, still gives me pause. The sedevacantists, in my opinion, are guilty of excessive rigor, not laxity, when it comes to judging the validity of the sacraments (see for example the writings of Anthony Cekada). That alone is enough for me not to immediately discount the validity of Thucite ordinations / consecrations. These are simply not the kind of people who'll take episcopal consecration from anybody.

Marcel Lefebvre accepted at least one Thuc-ordained priest into the SSPX without conditional ordination of any sort.

As for the argument from dementia, I find it unconvincing. The fact that the Holy See excommunicated him by name twice (after learning of the 1976 and 1981 consecrations respectively) tells me that the Holy See considered him to have been sufficiently in possession of his faculties to deserve the harshest possible penalty.



It is my understanding that the Catholic Church still treats Mariavite orders as valid. Yes, they did get their orders from Utrecht.

Pilgrim,

In re-reading your posts and my own I think the issue is something that hit me near the end of my last own - I alluded to it, but didn't go into depth.

The discussion is mixing apostolic succession and vagantism. Having apostolic succession does not, in and of itself, take a church (or a hierarch) out of the realm of being vagante; conversely, being unquestionably vagante does not preclude a church (or its hierarchs) having apostolic succession.

Labeling (correctly) a church or hierarch as vagante invariably leads to derisive commentary about synods that are larger in number than the entire body of faithful, about cathedrals in recreation rooms or garages, about cathedra recliners covered with the afghan that was inherited from grandma, about vesture that most resembles parlor drapes and episcopal staffs that were previously the rod for those same drapes, about congregations consisting of the bishop's spouse - a neighbor who wishes he had as nice a cope and mitre - and two passerby who wandered in to see whether there was a yard sale underway. Now, most of the time, there will be no vestige of apostolic succession lurking about in these circumstances, but ... the scary thing is that there can indeed be. Without tracing the episcopal genealogy of an individual to the point where there is a clear break, the question remains open - at least under the Augustinian theory, not so under the Cyprianic theory.

On the obverse side, one can build or purchase an impressive church ediface, gather a substantial congregation, erect religious orders, and create sufficient other functional parishes that it is not realistic to apply the classic definition of a vagante to the body. It doesn't, however, guarantee apostolic succession; it means that someone has formed a Church (or denomination or sect, whatever one chooses to call it) that has as much right to label itself such as any Protestant or non-Christian group. It might also mean that the folks involved with it truly believe that they are doing God's work and that they may succeed in leading some otherwise unchurched folks to God.

The Old Roman Catholics whom you referenced and those whom I added to the discussion are not vagante by any realistic application of that term. Whether they, all or some, can claim apostolic succession is a more open question that requires some detailed review.

Ofiesh's descendents are a mixed bag as to apostolic succession - but only to Catholics - to the Orthodox, barring application of economia, they are without apostolic succession. As regards the question of being vagante, they are an equally mixed bag - although the majority fit the mold.

Vilatte's descendents, those of Thuc, some of Duarte's who strayed afield in later years, some descendents of Mathew who broke from the ORCs, also present those same questions on both counts. Aneed's are all without succession and most are vagante, although there may be a non-apostolic church or two out there.

There are also another dozen or so lesser known "lines", (Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, Syriac, Assyrian and others) that present the same questions.

Btw, a great list of things to look out for in deciding whether a "Church" is vagante appears on the site of an Orthodox (EP, I believe) parish in the Philippines. I can't find the link right this minute, but it's worth a read.

Many years,

Neil

The Philippines has an awful problem with vagantism that probably rivals the extent of the problem in the USA. In fact, just today I got a query from a friend who had run into the "Nicean Catholic Church." There are literally hundreds of vagante Churches, mostly "Western Orthodox" wannabes with married episcopates, obvious frauds that claim to trace their consecration to St. John of Shanghai, or to Mar Dinkha IV, etc.

My own interest in "vagante" Churches comes from the fact that there are so many such "churches" in the Philippines and even the Catholic hierarchy here has great difficulty in distinguishing between Churches that have valid apostolic succession (and which, therefore, should be shown some respect) and those that are mere vagante fakeries (and "priets" judged to be mere fakes can get jailed in this country!). What makes it worse is that the spirit of false ecumenism sometimes leads some overworked Filipino Roman Catholic priests to refer their flock to the ministries of "independent Catholic" priests who, they think, have apostolic succession anyway. (Chances are, these independents don't!).

The EP's Philippine Exarchate's interest in distinguishing vagante churches comes from the following:

1) The Philippine media -- which doesn't know any better -- sometimes features vagante Churches as "Orthodox".

2) Last year, Metropolitan Paul Saliba of Australia and New Zealand hastily received a large number of vagante priests and small-time Protestant ministers into the Antiochian Orthodox Patriarchate, thus establishing an Antiochian presence in the Philippines. Mass ordinations into the priesthood and mass chrismations followed. Problem is, the new Antiochian jurisdiction in the Philippines uses the Novus Ordo (ad populum) with all the typical Filipino liturgical abuses, which is the same modus operandi as that of the vagante "Orthodox" in this country -- aside from the fact that it makes the Antiochenes indistingushable from the Roman Catholic Church! The Patriarchate of Constantinople has made its displeasure very clear, and to my knowledge has refused to recognize the Antiochene faithful in the Philippines as Orthodox (mainly due to the uncanonical "chrismations")

I will elaborate more on the situation in Latin America.

The one you mentioned as "Former Exarchate of the Patriarchate of alexandria" is actually a vagante group that traces its origin in Aftimios Ofiesh, Christopher Conteogeorge, Joachim Souris. They're related to a a body formerly led by Timotheos Athanasiou called "Synod of Hellas and the Diaspora Patrou" (also known as Genuine Orthodox Christians, Hellenic Traditional Church). They even present themselves as Old Calendarists but have nothing to do with the real Old Calendarists of Europe. The different "bishops" (ioannis de Santa catarina, Kyrillos do Ceará, Metropolitan Osios) separated and formed their own groups existing mainly on the Internet (they're really vagante and do not have a good reputation).

In Colombia, there are actually several different groups claiming to be Orthodox:

- One of them led by Odon Abad (who got his "orders" from the Duarte Costa "Brazilian Church") and part of Michael Champion of the USA Sobornopravna Church.
- A Church affiliated with Moisey's Church that formed around a former Catholic nun who's regarded as phony by most Orthodox there. The bishop is a former Old Catholic with Brazilian orders.
- A mission of the AUOCA under Archbishop Chrysostomos whose Diocese (in spite of not being canonical) is very serious and not vagante.
- A group led by a former EP priest affiliated with the totally vagante American Orthodox Church.
- Another group that uses the Western Rite (Anglican version) formerly Old catholic and in communion with a vagante American jurisdiction Russian Orthodox Church in America (however, much more serious than the American Orthodox Church).

In Mexico, you can find, in addition to the Antiochian, EP, MP and OCA churches, a Ukrainian Church affiliated with Moisey, led by Bishop Daniel (who seems to be quite Orthodox in his practice and teachings and I don't understand why he would want to remain part of Moisey's sect).

You can also find real vagantes who ordain gays and women, and those "Churches" registered in the government by people who pose as Roman priests and do business offering marriages and baptisms.

I'd like to know if there is any truth to their story that they used to be affiliated with Alexandria under the late Patriarch Nicholas VI


Michael Champion is with the UAOC of Metropolitan Mefodiy. I think he's a former Roman Catholic.



Moisey's Church is the "Sobornopravna" one. I checked their website recently and Moisey's Church seems to have Latin America as its main base of support. The Colombians under him seem to be a very active lot.



The AUOCA broke away from Moisey, who himself broke away from UAOC. However, the AUOCA broke away from Moisey precisely because they wanted to be more observant of the Orthodox canons. I wonder why the AUOCA doesn't want to reconcile either with the UAOC or with the UOCOFUSA of the EP.




-- I guess you are referring to former members of Moisey's group who broke away last year along with Moisey's "Metropolia of France", and joined the AOC. The AOC is vagante but the Metropolia of France strikes me as being somewhat more serious.


Ofieshites! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!


We have them in the Philippines too!

One bit of lore I've picked up online about these groups is those in Carfora's tradition (like Facione's little church) are more likely to be real churches with trained clergy whilst those in Vilatte's tend to be the ones that give vagantes a bad name: people with no training and no real ministry who are wannabe clergy.

I know an independent bishop (in one of the Thuc lines FWIW) and two priests in his church. They're much like Episcopalians: credally orthodox, good liturgical taste, liberal on social issues. The bishop essentially is a pastor of a small congregation. He's honest and has no delusions of grandeur (and is very smart: master's from Harvard and knows Hebrew): his is a niche ministry that doesn't compete with the big churches.

Hello

Regarding the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, it is my understanding that in the 1930's some clergy in the US attempted to associate with the Alexandrian Patriarchate. However, it's not clear to me if the Exarchate ever reached canonical recognition. The claim that the Alexandrian Patriarchate proclaimed the autocephaly of the group is not very credible.

Metropolitan Michael Champion's group was accepted because of "apostolic charity" and is tolerated by Mefodiy because it provides visa invitations for Ukrainian priests of the UAOC who sent to the USA. However the UAOC- has sometimes denied that Champion is part of their Church. It was actually Champion (and Petrovich) who consecrated and sent Moisey to Ukraine as a direct rival to Metropolitan Mefodiy. Once Moisey started to cause problems in Ukraine, Champion's group ceased to support him and recognized Mefodiy as head of the Church.

Regarding the Colombian group, it formed around a former RC nun who received some form of revelation and vision from heaven and from the face of Jesus Christ (very bizarre, actually). They wanted to join an Orthodox Church so they asked Archbishop Chrysostomos of Ecuador (AUOCA) to receive them. He tried to make them more Orthodox and to ban weird practices (strange "healing" rituals) but the group became increasingly bizarre and Archbishop Chrysostomos excommunicated them.

After that, they associated again with Moisey's Church and one of their priests was consecrated bishop. The consecrators were Daniel of Mexico (whose "lines of succession" come from the Ukrainian Church) and Iurii (Jorge Rodriguez Villa) of Colombia who's probably not a real bishop (he was head of a sect in Colombia which sometimes presented itself as Old catholic, sometimes as Anglican, etc.). They continue to practice weird healing rituals and non Orthodox liturgical usages:

http://iglesiacatolicaortodoxa.blogspot.com/

In Colombia, there is another group, affiliated with the vagante "American Orthodox Church" which is led by a former priest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who was unfairly removed from the EP. They were not part of Moisey's Church. I don't understand why such an inteligent person as this priest (who taught Greek)could join a group that is so deficient (having married episcopacy, etc.).

Regarding the AUOCA, some bishops are serious and Orthodox in their faith and religious praxis, they have Orthodox lines of succession and wish to reconcile with canonical Orthodoxy. However, other bishops do not come from an Orthodox background and continue to behave like vagantes (mixing Western and Eastern rites, venerating non-Orthodox saints, etc.). This makes things complicated.

Sometimes, good elements are part of these groups because Canonical Orthodoxy did not offer a place for them and was not welcoming toward people who do not come from Orthodox nations. Now, only the OCA Exarchate in Mexico can be called a National Orthodox Church, governed by Mexicans. this is because of the labour of Archbishop Dmitri who was brave enough to receive an independent group as part of the Orthodox Church. The results were very positive. All the other Churches in Latin America continue to be very ethnic.

Where did they get all those nice churches?

Fascinating. Not an imaginary church: a decent-sized following and yes, nice churches. I can see the average Westerner without much knowledge of the Christian East assuming they're Orthodox. They look almost so. But those who know can tell they're not, from the picture of the bishop with the (I'm guessing) uncanonical icon of St Joseph on the iconostasis (IIRC from Fr Serge, according to the rules of iconography this, really a Western Catholic picture, is saying that St Joseph was Jesus' father!), to First Communions (although of course ACROD did that for decades and in the same period Russian Metropolia parishes had 'Solemn First Communions' for the kids) to that nun's прелесть (delusion)-looking and scary-looking vision. High-church charismatic ex-RCs.

I was reading a PDF copy of William Macomber's History of the Chaldean Mass, and it refers to a splinter Assyrian Church in Baghdad that accepts the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church, but not its liturgy or hierarchical authority.

Could this be a remnant of the Assyrians of Urmia who united with the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 19th century?

Yes. If you do a search here, there are a couple of earlier threads on the subject. Search Bishop John of Urmia.

Many years,

Neil

Perhaps, being in Mexico, you might be able to assit me: we have in the United States a group of religious who maintain a traditionalist stance, but at the same time, are connected by episcopal consecration to a group that I find very little information about in english. It was involved with some controversy about an alleged "miracle" that took place in the "Sanctuario de Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe" and the parish priest (Jose Camargo Melo) it seems was excommunicated. He latter got himself involved with "Bishop Eduardo Davila de la Garza" of the Mexican National Catholic Church, which appears to have been the "left over" from the Masonic "Catholic" splinter the Mexican government encouraged, around the time of the Cristero revolt.

I read on the Archdiocese of Mexico (City) that the Sacraments of the Camargo Melo group were not considered valid. no reason is given, which i can't understand. At any rate, I was wondering if this is a "traditional" Church, or just your typical type of "Old Catholic" group? On "You Tube" Camargo Melo appears with many of his "miracles" etc. I would appreciate any help on this. My email is paxetbonum@catholic.org

I would like to correct the following portion of my list:


I was wrong to have listed the Churches of Moldova, Latvia, Estonia and ROCOR as "autonomous". Instead, as I learned from a recent post on the orthodox-rocor list, these four are "self-governing" but not autonomous.

UOC-MP is self-governing but with some (not all) the marks of autonomy.

Only the Orthodox Churches of Japan and China (the latter is nearly non-existent) are properly "autonomous".