www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Invalidly ordained Orthodox bishops and priests

Hello

I came across this site about a bi-ritual Catholic community that celebrates both the Byzantine and Modern-Latin Rites:

http://www.milesjesu.com/about/about-biritual.html

The author mentions that in Ukraine, there are bishops from the Orthodox Church who want to join the Catholic Church but who are not accepted because they were not validly ordained, and that some priests are re-ordained conditionaly.

I have some theories:

1. They come from groups of the Old-Believers whose orders originated in Metropolitan Ambrosius who was the sole consecrator of that hierarchy (instead of two as mandated by the canons). I understand that the presence of two consecrators and priests is mandated to give dignity to the ocasion and its absence does not invalidate the consecration. Doubts might arise because of the lack of documents and witnesses and all this, or because of the probable invalidity of the priests who were later consecrated among the Old Believers.

2. They come from the UAOCA-Ioan or from Moisey Kulyk's group (or even the UAOC-Mefodiy), which accepted many priests in the West coming from shady "Old-Catholic" vagant groups, the "Brazilian Church" and others. The Western Church treats all these orders as invalid because they have involved ignorant and unprepared candidates.

3. They believed what the Moscow Patriarchate said about the Kievan Patriarchate and other groups not posessing the grace because they separated from the Moscow Church and broke with World Orthodoxy. I would say that this is very relative, as these accusations have been made before by the Serbian Church to a disident group that later unified with the Patriarchate without problems.

Otherwise what would that be?

The criteria by which the Catholic Church determines the validity of Holy Orders which others might call into question are not particularly arcane.

1) "in Ukraine, there are bishops from the Orthodox Church who want to join the Catholic Church but who are not accepted because they were not validly ordained, and that some priests are re-ordained conditionaly"

This is possible only if such clerics were ordained, not in the Orthodox Church, but in some sect which is dishonestly calling itself the "Orthodox Church".

2) In the time of Metropolitan (now Saint) Ambrose of Bielaia Krinitsa, there was no doubt whatever of his own ordination, nor of the "matter, form, and intention" which he used in ordaining clergy. Metropolitan Andrew (Sheptytsky) obtained recognition of the validity of the ordination of Father Eustachios Susalev, who had been ordained by a bishop who himself derived his ordination from Saint Ambrose. There is no reason to believe that the Catholic Church would retract this decision. The Bielaia Krinitsa soglasie (the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church) is by far the largest Old Rite Popovtsy group. A few other, much smaller groups, might be questionable.

3. "The Western Church treats all these orders as invalid because they have involved ignorant and unprepared candidates." Ignorance and lack of preparation are not in themselves sufficient reason to regard ordinations as invalid, although they might well be sufficient reason for the Church to forbid such clerics to exercise their ordination in any way.

4. Rome does not hold that a group which breaks with its presumed canonical superior thereby loses the grace of Holy Orders. If Philaret of Kyiv was a real bishop in 1970, then he is a real bishop today. This is without prejudice to the possibility of his legitimate superior forbidding him to exercise the sacred ministry.

It would be child's play to criticize the statement of the Father General of Miles Iesu, so I won't bother. I have had some contact with this community both in Ukraine and in Ireland and I find their authentic knowledge of Greek-Catholicism (let alone Eastern Orthodoxy) sadly lacking.

Fr. Serge