www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Episcopi Vagantes and consacrating Bishops outside the Church

Today, we have seen the proliferation of several groups who now call themselves "independent" Catholic or Orthodox, but are completely out of their mainstram communities.

There are three particular sources for these groups:

1. The sect known as "Old Catholic" invented by some lapsed Catholics in the 1800's who rejected the First Vatican Synod. They divided and divided, consacrating bishops and bishops in a way that their orders if ever valid, degradated. They held contact with Anglicans in the past century so they probably contaminated with invalid orders. There must be hundreds of "bishops" coming from this group.

2. Orthodox Bishop Aftimios, came to the continent as a Canonical Bishop. However the American liftestyle made him loose his head. He consacrated unworthy men to priesthood, including some westerners who founded their own communities. Many other "bishops" also come from the line of Bishop Aftimios.

3. Archbishop Thuc of Vietnam, a Catholic Bishop, consacrated ilegaly four men to episcopacy after he judged the Holy See to be vacant. These men consacrated other bishops and in addition to the Synod of Metropolitan Tarcisius (Pivarunas) and that of Bishop Daniel Dollan... other groups with no credibility such as that of Palmar de Troya for example, appeared.

In the last two cases we talk about two bishops who consacrated unworthy men, who did a public mockery of the Holy Orders and scandalous acts. They were probably mentaly ill when they performed the consacrations.

Do the Churches formed after these schsims posess valid orders? Do their sacraments posess the grace?

As I understand it, if they are indeed consecrated in apostolic succession [and that can get complicated in vagante lineages] and if they hold to the Apostolic Faith [and the moral teaching of the ancient Church] they would be considered as having valid sacraments.

Depends on the brand of sacramental theology one prefers. Eastern Orthodoxy normally regards such "consecrations" as empty ceremonies of a blasphemous nature and ignores the alleged clergy who result from them (thus, for example, "Living Church" ordinations have never been recognized).
Incognitus

Good evening.

There are hundreds of episcopi vagantes around these days. Terry Boyle has a great site devoted to them at:
http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Outline.html

The traditional Roman view of such consecrations is that if the matter and form of the sacrament are observed by the consecrating bishop (and presuming that he is validly consecrated), then the consecration is presumed to be valid.

The practice of the Holy See appears to be not to make a pronouncement on the validity of the consecrations of such bishops, at least not a public pronouncement. There are several good reasons not to venture into those waters, not the least of which is the practice of many episcopi vagantes of receiving and exchanging multiple consecrations, either out of a desire to possess as many lines of consecration as possible (a theological impossibility since holy orders, once received, cannot be received again - either you`re a bishop or you`re not), or due to an obsession to be absolutely certain that they possess valid orders - and if you`re not really sure that your consecrator is a valid bishop, I suppose you need to try it again ... and again ....

Having written the above, I must also say that there are undoubtedly some good and holy men who feel called to sacred orders but not within one of the canonical churches. I know a couple of them well enough to attest to their sincerity and their desire to do God`s will.

If you check out Terry Boyle`s site, you will see that there is quite a debate on the validity of the consecrations performed by Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, and some of the debate centers around his state of mind at the times he conferred them.

One of the most novel approaches to validity is that taken by "Pope" Pius XIII, a former Capuchin missionary, who wanted to have absolutely valid orders conferred by a "true" Catholic bishop. Evidently, he couldn`t find one, so he developed a theory that as pope (he was elected by a group of clergy and laity), he had the power to bestow sacred orders even though he was himself not yet a bishop. Thus, he "ordained" a member of his group a priest and "consecrated" him a bishop, created him a cardinal, and then had this man then "consecrate" him (Pius XIII) a bishop.

This is a fascinating area of research, but it does leave me with a feeling of sadness in regard to many of these men.

Peace,

Charles

See also http://www.ind-movement.org

Yes, that is a great site, probably the most complete listing anywhere of odd spins on the Christian faith. I've visited it often, with a mixture of pathos and belly laugh.
Probably my favorite is something like the "Graceland Independent Episcopal Church of Canada", run by an Elvis impersonator who calls himself "Elvis Priestly" and claims to be the Archbishop of York...

And one is right in my backyard (Cleveland) run by a former seminarian, Metropolitan-Archbishop Michael, from Ss. Cyril & Methodius!

http://www.uaoc.org/

I heard nothing but nice things about them. The people who attend feel the love of Christ.

Look for it also at: "The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the USA - Sobornopravna" in Anastasios's list at:
http://www.ind-movement.org/links_denominations.html

Joe

Dear Friends,

I once met one of these "Metropolitans" and we had lunch together!

He told me of his plans to canonize Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytsky and asked for my help in getting information for the process involved . . .

He actually wrote an internet article about this and said he hoped world Orthodoxy would acknowledge the Metropolitan as a saint - given his contributions to Orthodoxy and help to Orthodox Christians etc.

He had been, he said, welcomed formally by some of our UGCC parishes in Toronto . . .

He later resigned from his Metropolitan title and the group that instituted it (they had married bishops) and attempted to be accepted by the Kyivan Patriarchate - a move that ultimately failed, although he and some of his friends did march under the banner of the Kyivan Patriarchate during a Ukrainian Independence Day celebration.

I've lost all track of him since . . .

Alex

How about The Byzant [LIST] ine Catholic Church, Inc.? They seem to have more bishops than actual members.

Ung-Certez

Don't they all?

And they always have the obligatory link to their Apostolic Succession papers ...

Dear Cantor Joseph,

The fact is that both of us stand a better chance at being EC priests if we came in by the back-door of these "vagante" groups.

So it's not like they don't serve a purpose!

If they make me a Metropolitan, I'll be sure to make you a bishop (at least).

Alex

Alex,

I no longer have a vocation for the like or consider it. I am getting busy in other areas of my life. Thank you anyway.

Joe

As one who has been there, I have a great respect for many clergy in the so called "vagante" movement. Most of the priests and bishops I have known are doing their best to serve God in their own way. And if I were to be honest about it, there are times when the thought of going back runs through my mind. And for those who condemn or make fun of these men and women...the independent/vagante movement wouldn't exist without a reason. The mainstream canonical Churches haven't always been the best at reaching the ordinary guy on the street and maybe these independent people are? On the Last Day when we are all called to account for our lives, we aren't going to be asked if we threw the pews out of our Churches or if we held the correct view of Christology, but we will be asked if we fed the hungry, consoled the sorrowing, buried the dead, visited the sick and imprisoned, etc. Most of the priests I know in the Old Catholic, Independent, Vagante movements are doing those things. Don

A vagante priest brought me to Orthodoxy!


Christian