www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Apostolic Succession and Anglicanism

Dear David,

I don't know, is my short answer . . .

The West tends to look at this somewhat legalistically (with apologies to my Western Catholic friends!) in the sense that the "validity" of someone's priestly Orders would depend on the validity of the Orders of the bishop(s) that consecrated you.

The East accepts a priest or bishop as such ONLY if he (I was going to say "or she" but I stopped myself) is in actual communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church. Outside of that communion, who knows?

The Orthodox Catholic Church also applies the principle of economy in cases, but that is up to bishops to decide in individual cases.

There have been cases of rumoured "bishops" wanting to come into the RC Church and producing lists of their consecrators that are longer than they physically are.

I believe the RC Church accepts them all - into a monastery.

This is what happened to the "consecrator at large" Rene Villatte who died in a monastery as a repentant RC.

The Independent movement he founded was undaunted however and he is honoured as a saint and founder of their movement in the U.S. along with St. Aftimios Olfiesh and St. Theophane Noli.

I have read independent articles by RC priests who have offered their view that Anglican priestly orders are "probably valid" given that so many Assyrian Bishops (who have Eucharistic communion with the Anglicans? Bishop Henry Hill who lives near me and wrote "Light from the East" told me he has participated fully in their Liturgies and has even given out Communion) - given that so many Assyrian bishops are often present at Anglican episcopal consecrations.

Some have advanced the view that in the 19th century, Anglicans went into Russia and received Orthodox episcopal consecration, allowed under the principle of ekonomia, and then came out and so reestablished "Apostolic Succession" within Anglicanism.

But I suppose this is all so "iffy" that the usual practice in both RC and EO Churches is to consecrate and ordain converting clergy from Anglicanism period.

There were, and are, RC's of the TradLat variety who believe that Orthodoxy itself has no valid Succession or Orders, and vice-versa.

One edition of The Rudder I've seen argues that RC's are truly heretics, along with the Sabellians et al. and that even attending an RC saint's shrine is enough for an Orthodox to commit a grave sin, if not be liable to incur excommunication.

My view is, "Whatever!"

Alex

Alex,
I will stick by the "whatever" as it really doesn't matter to me what the answer is.

That being said I must comment on the following.

This may be true in part but I do believe that there is more to it. Isn't there something about need?

Wasn't there a bishop who ordained a bishop or two that was excommunicated, alone with these bishops, for ordaining them with out need? The SSPX I believe....

Nothing is as simple as it seems to be.

Also, you left out one of my questions.

How can one have apostolic succession when one does not hold the apostolic faith? When one believes that the Eucharist is only symbolic, when one believes that priestesses and female bishops are ok?

David

Dear Brother David,

The validity of canonical Orders is something that has not been necessarily connected with full Orthodoxy of faith - certainly every schism involves some sort of heresy, even if it is just the heresy of not being in communion with the Church.

For example, the Arians believed, as you know, that Christ was more than man, but less than God. Some Arians, like Ulfric the Goth, believed as the Mormons do (whose Christology does reflect a form of Arianism) that Jesus was God but not equal to the Father etc.

And yet the Catholic Church had no problem recognizing the validity of Arian sacraments etc.

Emperor St Constantine himself was baptized on his death-bed with "Arian sacraments and Arian consolations."

Even saints canonized by the Arians were left in the calendar after Arianism was defeated. We have a few such saints, including St Nicetas and St Sabas the Goth, St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt and others.

Arius himself was left on the calendar by an Arian scribe under the name "Artotis" for June 6th. It was only under the Bollandists that this was detected and the arch-heretic was expunged from the calendar!

The same is true about the Nestorians. Those who returned to the Church were received simply by means of a confession of true faith in the union of Christ's two Natures in His One Divine Person.

St Isaac of Nineveh, the great spiritual writer, was consecrated most certainly by the Nestorians as there were no other bishops in the area in which he lived.

Therefore, it is not impossible for the Anglicans to have valid Orders.

Certainly, from the Catholic and Orthodox point of view, the "ordination" of a woman would be invalid EVEN IF the bishop doing it had valid Orders, since the "efficacy" of the Mystery/Sacrament would involve only someone of the male gender.

King Charles I of England died on the scaffold in 1649 because he refused the Puritans' demand to cancel episcopacy in the Anglican Church.

He was convinced that the RC and Orthodox Churches were true Apostolic Churches but so was the Anglican and he believed the Anglican Church had validly consecrated bishops.

William Law, his Archbishop of Canterbury, died because he was charged for things like genuflecting in church, setting up statues of the Virgin Mary and other such similar acts of "Popery."

King Charles was loved by many Catholics on the Continent including Jesuits and he was very "Catholic" in his theological outlook. He bowed publicly whenever anyone mentioned the Names of Jesus or Mary.

And when it came time to approve episcopal consecrations for the Church of England, he asked his Archbishop to identify candidates on his lists with an "O" for "Orthodox" and a "P" for "Puritan."

The King only advanced the "O" candidates . . .

The King's favourite refuge was at Little Gidding where they prayed 12 Psalms at the turn of every hour. He told his RC wife, Queen Henrietta, that the LIttle Gidding Community "outdid the strictest RC Order in their religious observance."

Much can be forgiven such a Church with such holy members!

Alex

Alex,
While this might be true, I believe that this happened before the council met that finally called Arianism a heresy.

Just as there are Saints that denied the Immaculate Conception.... As they lived before the time it was Dogmatized. I hightly doubt that anyone who denies the Immaculat Conception after it was proclaimed would ever be made a saint.

As for this comment,

I don't know, as the opposite, Much can be condemned such a Church with shuch unholy members could be used to describe the scandal today....

I just don't know.

I still seem to feel that full Orthodoxy of faith is necessary, otherwise how can you have valid sacraments? This is a sticking point for me right now.

David

Dear David,

Actually, you're wrong on the first point - Arianism, like Nestorianism and Eutychianism, were not like other theological opinions like Origen's view of universal salvation or "apocatastatis" etc.

Arianism and the denial of Christ's full divinity were always recognized as a serious heresy that, ultimately, took about two-thirds of the Church, leaving someone like St Athanasius of Alexandria to "face the world alone" with his "On the Incarnation."

The Church allowed for the continued veneration of local Arian saints et al on economic grounds - but it expunged Arius and a number of the more vocal Arian heretical founders, as it did with the founders of other heretical movements.

As for Anglicanism, your comments could, today, apply equally to the Catholic Church where scandal is concerned and I don't want to get into that whole mess.

Suffice it to say that I, for one, can attest to the great personal holiness of the Anglican servants of God, their missionaries, martyrs, teachers etc.

Charles the Martyr, William Laud, William Law, Lancelot Andrewes, Charles Simeon, Nicholas Ferrar, George Herbert, Edward King of Lincoln, John Mason Neale, Henry Martyn (buried by the Armenians as one of their own bishops) James Hannington the Martyr, John Coleridge Patteson of Melanesia, Bernard Mizeki and Arthur Cripps of Africa and many others - great men of God and their lives are a worthy addition to Christendom's world hagiography.

In the U.S., you have the Shrine of Blessed James DeKoven, an Episcopal priest who was Catholic in all but formality.

He promoted devotion to the Virgin Mary, to the Blessed Sacrament etc.

The "last straw" against him came when he proposed the formal removal of "Protestant" from the title of the "Protestant Episcopal Church."

Alex

He incurred

Alex,

You speak with the reasoning of an Orthodox Christian. Are you sure you are Catholic?

Axios

Dear Axios,

I'm an Orthodox Catholic!

Thank you for the compliment!!

Alex

Why would the Russian Orthodox ordain Anglicans that came to Russia? I don't understand why they would choose to do such a thing.

No one is denying that the Anglican Communion claims many holy people, but this doesn't reflect it's canonical validity. And even if it did, you'd have to add to the list of Anglicans those like that sad "Bishop" Spong. On beliefnet, an Anglican once said he enjoyed being Anglican because "you can believe whatever you want." Obviously an inaccurate view of Anglicanis, but needless to say I was stunned speechless.

ChristTeen287

If I'm not mistaken the Roman Church denied the validity of the Anglican Orders which were done with the Eduardine Rite of Ordination, which was seen as an invalid rite in terms of latin legalism because it didn't work ex opera operandi (I wonder what would those Popes think about the present rite of ordination used by the modern Catholic Church), but the other Bishops and priests ordained with the Roman Rite were seen as valid.

It was until Leo XIII when the Roman Church (because it was hard to find who was a true Bishop and who was a layman in priestly vestments) cut all opinions and declared that all Anglican orders were nule and void. (he might have been in a bad mood that day )

The circunstances have changed a lot after Leo XIII, I'm sure that few Catholic theologists and Bishops would see the Eduardine Rite as an invalid rite if the modern catholic rite is indeed valid.

I'm not sure if the principle of Ekonomia does work in the Latin Church as it is seen by the Eastern Church. It sure works in the last case. For example, when the Greek catholic Church was supressed in Romania and other countries and a union with the local Orthodox Church was signed, no member of that Church was re-chrismated or re-baptized.

Remie,

I would understand your post better if I knew what "Eduardine rite" meant. Can you specify please? I haven't heard the term before. Thanks.

ChristTeen287

The rite of Ordination according to the Prayer Book published under the authority of King Edward. The Papal Bull Apostolica Curae declared Anglican Orders null and void based on the defects of the this rite. Some of the matters that raised concern are now part of the post-Vaticna II Roman Ordinal. Other deficits cited were not actually in the Ordinal.

While Catholic scholars differ as to the validity of Anglican Orders, few currently defend the particular reasoning in A.C.

The Pope has called the Anglican Communion " a means of grace", whatever significance that has. Orthodoxy has no formal, universal opinon on Anglican Orders.

Axios