The pope literally already did that. It is called the Anglican Ordinariates. Many Catholics are pretty happy about it.
Your definition of apostolic sounds like it is different from the Catholic one. I would appreciate understanding the definition of apostolic that you are using. I think it would help us understand the difference in the w…
The pope literally already did that. It is called the Anglican Ordinariates. Many Catholics are pretty happy about it.
Your definition of apostolic sounds like it is different from the Catholic one. I would appreciate understanding the definition of apostolic that you are using. I think it would help us understand the difference in the way of thinking. For us, an apostolic ordination is any ordination by a true bishop. What else is required for your definition?
Apostolic ordination, in Orthodoxy, is the same as in Catholicism--ordination by an apostolically ordained bishop from a canonical local Orthodox church.
I would commend to you, that in the West, the Anglican Ordinariates are not in the same category as the non-apostolic, non-canonical OCU who refuse to be ordained by an apostolic bishop, i.e., meaning no corrective measures to validate the OCU priesthood will be accepted. It's akin to a Calvinist Baptist without having attended a seminary being given authority to have a Catholic mass at a consecrated altar.
It sounds like the difference is "from a canonical local Orthodox church." We wouldn't have that stipulation.
So if a UOC bishop goes to Iraq and ordains a man, you would say that the ordination is not valid?
For Catholics the local part does not matter. Surely the OCU bishops were ordained by some bishop? But you are saying that the problem is that he was not from the UOC? So would you also say that the Ukrainian Catholic bishops are not apostolic?
If a UOC bishop were to seek to ordain someone in Iraq, first the UOC bishop would need permission from the local Iraqi Orthodox bishop, and, second, the person to be ordained would (likely) only be permitted to serve Ukrainians. The exception would be that the Iraqi Orthodox bishop is petitioned by the layman to have the UOC bishop perform the ordination based on a prior relationship between the two (the UOC bishop and the layman).
A bishop cannot travel into another local bishop's *territory* for the purposes of performing any Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) without the permission of the local bishop.
I won't touch the issue of the bishops of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in Ukraine; that is Rome's concern. I will say the following, if you (generally speaking) consider the UGCC bishops to be canonically & apostolically ordained & elevated to hierarchical status, why would they share an altar with the OCU?
So, yes, that is the difference. Catholics would say that a bishop cannot lose his apostolic ordination nor lose his ability to ordain apostolic bishops. For instance, when Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops, they are apostolic and validly ordained despite him not having permission to do so. This is why we recognize all the Orthodox and Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics etc as having apostolic orders despite the canonical disputes. So long as the form and matter are correct, a bishop validly ordains. Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity.
The main reason for the Catholics to be in dialogue with any Christians is to achieve what Jesus called for, "That they may be one as we are one."
"Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity." Interesting, so if the Pope were to defrock, anathematize, and laicize a bishop, that same *former bishop* could still ordain a priest?
Yes, Orthodoxy is very different. As a priest, I cannot perform the Holy Mysteries in another local Orthodox church without first getting permission from my bishop and then receiving permission from the bishop whose church I am going to visit.
Absolutely! If Mr. Theodore McCarick were to ordain his cellmate a bishop, that man would be a bishop. Sacramental authority and Canonical authority have some overlap in Catholic theology but not completely.
I do have to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in another diocese, but if I fail to get the permission, the Mass would still be valid, the bread and wine would still change.
Yes, if I were to fail to get permission, the consecration of bread and wine to body and blood would still be valid. But I would have a lot of unwanted attention from one (or two) bishops.
And the Catholic Church would also hold that a validly ordained Orthodox bishop - even if he were laicized, excommunicated, censured, etc by his patriarch or synod - could continue to perform valid ordinations or consecrations.
Really?? Does anyone wonder why folks just remove themselves from discussions like this? How did we ever get so far removed from the Last Supper? I have to believe Jesus has a great sense of humor.
Perhaps this is an appropriate forum to ask this question.
How do you consider the case of the recently erected Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in Africa, within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Alexandria? Do not the priests celebrating liturgy and sacraments not have the permission from their local authorities to do so? Or do you consider the permission to come from Moscow rather than Alexandria, as these hundred-odd priests have declared their intent to abandon submission to their Patriarch in Alexandria in favour of Moscow? Does the intent of the newly-minted Exarchate priests to serve Moscow "make valid" their offerings of liturgy and holy mysteries, despite directly rejecting their "local authorities"?
Drawing this analogy out a bit further, if you consider the Exarchate priests to be offering valid liturgies and mysteries despite their rejection of local authority, what would stop a Patriachate from establishing an Exarchate inside another's geographical boundaries? If, say, the Patriarchate of Antioch declared an Exarchate in Jerusalem and decided to grant faculties to Exarchate priests there; or if the Patriarchate of Romania decided to "colonise" its neighbour Bulgaria with Exarchate priests. Would you hold these Exarchate priests to essentially be in rebellion against their rightful local authority? Or would you consider their faculties approved by the "local authority", even if said authority was carpetbagging in from another Patriarchate?
Asking as a Roman Catholic Colombian-American from California with a particular interest in the Eastern Churches.
"Even more interesting is Kissinger’s zooming of his thinking to the Ukraine crisis of today. He points to problems in Western management of the crisis. Ukraine also demonstrates his basic concern for the tension between Western universalism and Realpolitik: “The west has defined the current issue as demonstrating to Russia that it must adhere to the Western international system. And that’s OK, for the present. But for the long term, one has to think of Russia as a huge state.” And according to Kissinger, today’s Western policy towards Ukraine and Russia opens no attractive scenarios for the West. Kissinger criticizes in the Ukraine crisis as well as in Iraq the Western effort to educate another civilization to follow its own model. He is strongly concerned about Russian and Islamic universalism, but he is not very much less concerned about American or European universalism. To put it shortly, if three or four universalistic civilizations try to fulfill their universalistic visions against each other, the result is at least thirty years of troubles or confrontations for all of them.To put this into perspective, this is not the first time Western and Russian universalisms collide with each other. The competition between the Eastern and the Western Churches in Europe was the first larger confrontation, including a large number of European crusades and defining the European borderlands, which became for centuries the battlefields of the East and the West. In the last three centuries there have been confrontations 1–3 times a century: the Great Northern War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, World War I, World War II and the Cold War. Now Ukraine crystallizes the question: Should there be for one more generation one more confrontation between these post-Roman universalistic powers, just to move their border line a few hundred miles, or to teach each other a lesson — or to waste their resources in a time when their 500 years-old global hegemony is fading anyway?" Comment. Note the last sentence.
2. The *boundaries* of the Patriarchate in Alexandria are a relatively recent innovation, since the fall of the Egyptian Moslem dynasties in 1952. There's a difference between what it claims and who it can serve. The hierarchy of the Patriarchate are faithful servants but even their ability to serve all of Africa are limited.
3. Having served as a missionary in Ghana, I know first hand that the Alexandrian Patriarchate struggles to serve its priests and their missionary efforts, educationally, monetarily, with infrastructure, texts, etc. Ghana is blessed to have its present leadership.
3. The Moscow Patriarchate was *invited* into Africa by Alexandrian priests who *rebelled at the recognition of the OCU* -- the international geo-political games played by the USG. The Russian priests serving in Africa do so under the authorities of the Moscow Patriarchate. The "newly-minted Exarchate priests" are serving validly and licitly (to use RCC terminology).
*My* conclusion. In Orthodoxy, respect for nation-state boundaries in many ways equates to respect for the *boundaries* of the state's Orthodox churches. The Ecumenical Patriarch has historically and consistently violated such local Orthodox church *territorial* boundaries, cite the OCU, Estonia, the Greek islands, etc. The *American model* for Orthodoxy which has nearly every local Orthodox church present is now (possibly and sadly) being implemented worldwide.
Comment. *Carpetbagging?* Oof! Your viewpoint received.
I think I understand. He could validly ordain a priest, but it would be against the law and so be illicit. Valid because Jesus shows up, illicit because He would not be pleased.
The pope literally already did that. It is called the Anglican Ordinariates. Many Catholics are pretty happy about it.
Your definition of apostolic sounds like it is different from the Catholic one. I would appreciate understanding the definition of apostolic that you are using. I think it would help us understand the difference in the way of thinking. For us, an apostolic ordination is any ordination by a true bishop. What else is required for your definition?
Apostolic ordination, in Orthodoxy, is the same as in Catholicism--ordination by an apostolically ordained bishop from a canonical local Orthodox church.
I would commend to you, that in the West, the Anglican Ordinariates are not in the same category as the non-apostolic, non-canonical OCU who refuse to be ordained by an apostolic bishop, i.e., meaning no corrective measures to validate the OCU priesthood will be accepted. It's akin to a Calvinist Baptist without having attended a seminary being given authority to have a Catholic mass at a consecrated altar.
It sounds like the difference is "from a canonical local Orthodox church." We wouldn't have that stipulation.
So if a UOC bishop goes to Iraq and ordains a man, you would say that the ordination is not valid?
For Catholics the local part does not matter. Surely the OCU bishops were ordained by some bishop? But you are saying that the problem is that he was not from the UOC? So would you also say that the Ukrainian Catholic bishops are not apostolic?
If a UOC bishop were to seek to ordain someone in Iraq, first the UOC bishop would need permission from the local Iraqi Orthodox bishop, and, second, the person to be ordained would (likely) only be permitted to serve Ukrainians. The exception would be that the Iraqi Orthodox bishop is petitioned by the layman to have the UOC bishop perform the ordination based on a prior relationship between the two (the UOC bishop and the layman).
A bishop cannot travel into another local bishop's *territory* for the purposes of performing any Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) without the permission of the local bishop.
Yes, the OCU bishops were *ordained* by a defrocked, anathematized bishop, Metropolitan Filaret - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1992/06/13/ukraines-top-cleric-defrocked/18c1fa4d-0ace-4adf-8e96-cff335e97d36/ - defrocked by Moscow, and recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch. After being defrocked, Filaret then created his own church! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Orthodox_Church_%E2%80%93_Kyiv_Patriarchate
I won't touch the issue of the bishops of Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) in Ukraine; that is Rome's concern. I will say the following, if you (generally speaking) consider the UGCC bishops to be canonically & apostolically ordained & elevated to hierarchical status, why would they share an altar with the OCU?
So, yes, that is the difference. Catholics would say that a bishop cannot lose his apostolic ordination nor lose his ability to ordain apostolic bishops. For instance, when Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops, they are apostolic and validly ordained despite him not having permission to do so. This is why we recognize all the Orthodox and Old Catholics and Polish National Catholics etc as having apostolic orders despite the canonical disputes. So long as the form and matter are correct, a bishop validly ordains. Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity.
The main reason for the Catholics to be in dialogue with any Christians is to achieve what Jesus called for, "That they may be one as we are one."
"Being defrocked by Moscow does not, according to our theology, have any effect upon his apostolicity." Interesting, so if the Pope were to defrock, anathematize, and laicize a bishop, that same *former bishop* could still ordain a priest?
Yes, Orthodoxy is very different. As a priest, I cannot perform the Holy Mysteries in another local Orthodox church without first getting permission from my bishop and then receiving permission from the bishop whose church I am going to visit.
Absolutely! If Mr. Theodore McCarick were to ordain his cellmate a bishop, that man would be a bishop. Sacramental authority and Canonical authority have some overlap in Catholic theology but not completely.
I do have to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in another diocese, but if I fail to get the permission, the Mass would still be valid, the bread and wine would still change.
Wow! No wonder there's new photos available.
Yes, if I were to fail to get permission, the consecration of bread and wine to body and blood would still be valid. But I would have a lot of unwanted attention from one (or two) bishops.
And the Catholic Church would also hold that a validly ordained Orthodox bishop - even if he were laicized, excommunicated, censured, etc by his patriarch or synod - could continue to perform valid ordinations or consecrations.
That's just fascinating.
In Orthodoxy, it is completely the opposite; the bishop, priest, or deacon would have no authorities; hence the scandal.
Really?? Does anyone wonder why folks just remove themselves from discussions like this? How did we ever get so far removed from the Last Supper? I have to believe Jesus has a great sense of humor.
Come to think of it, if you guys want Metropolitans Filaret & Epifaniy (OCU), please by all means, take them!
Perhaps this is an appropriate forum to ask this question.
How do you consider the case of the recently erected Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in Africa, within the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Alexandria? Do not the priests celebrating liturgy and sacraments not have the permission from their local authorities to do so? Or do you consider the permission to come from Moscow rather than Alexandria, as these hundred-odd priests have declared their intent to abandon submission to their Patriarch in Alexandria in favour of Moscow? Does the intent of the newly-minted Exarchate priests to serve Moscow "make valid" their offerings of liturgy and holy mysteries, despite directly rejecting their "local authorities"?
Drawing this analogy out a bit further, if you consider the Exarchate priests to be offering valid liturgies and mysteries despite their rejection of local authority, what would stop a Patriachate from establishing an Exarchate inside another's geographical boundaries? If, say, the Patriarchate of Antioch declared an Exarchate in Jerusalem and decided to grant faculties to Exarchate priests there; or if the Patriarchate of Romania decided to "colonise" its neighbour Bulgaria with Exarchate priests. Would you hold these Exarchate priests to essentially be in rebellion against their rightful local authority? Or would you consider their faculties approved by the "local authority", even if said authority was carpetbagging in from another Patriarchate?
Asking as a Roman Catholic Colombian-American from California with a particular interest in the Eastern Churches.
Jeanatan, you've posed excellent questions.
1. Sadly, with regard to Africa, the current situation begins with the Ukrainian matter. https://orthochristian.com/144060.html
a. Nation-State politics abound as historical games are undertaken to break up the Orthodox churches https://orthochristian.com/136386.html
b. Even Henry Kissinger, who is not necessarily a friend of Orthodoxy - see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1991/02/09/the-conscience-of-the-church/eeb56a39-2008-4c8d-8a6f-d0403350e12d/ - recognizes the differing world views colliding. The following was written in 2014 https://www.academia.edu/8954040/Henry_Kissingers_World_Order_as_an_Insight_to_understand_our_Age
"Even more interesting is Kissinger’s zooming of his thinking to the Ukraine crisis of today. He points to problems in Western management of the crisis. Ukraine also demonstrates his basic concern for the tension between Western universalism and Realpolitik: “The west has defined the current issue as demonstrating to Russia that it must adhere to the Western international system. And that’s OK, for the present. But for the long term, one has to think of Russia as a huge state.” And according to Kissinger, today’s Western policy towards Ukraine and Russia opens no attractive scenarios for the West. Kissinger criticizes in the Ukraine crisis as well as in Iraq the Western effort to educate another civilization to follow its own model. He is strongly concerned about Russian and Islamic universalism, but he is not very much less concerned about American or European universalism. To put it shortly, if three or four universalistic civilizations try to fulfill their universalistic visions against each other, the result is at least thirty years of troubles or confrontations for all of them.To put this into perspective, this is not the first time Western and Russian universalisms collide with each other. The competition between the Eastern and the Western Churches in Europe was the first larger confrontation, including a large number of European crusades and defining the European borderlands, which became for centuries the battlefields of the East and the West. In the last three centuries there have been confrontations 1–3 times a century: the Great Northern War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, World War I, World War II and the Cold War. Now Ukraine crystallizes the question: Should there be for one more generation one more confrontation between these post-Roman universalistic powers, just to move their border line a few hundred miles, or to teach each other a lesson — or to waste their resources in a time when their 500 years-old global hegemony is fading anyway?" Comment. Note the last sentence.
2. The *boundaries* of the Patriarchate in Alexandria are a relatively recent innovation, since the fall of the Egyptian Moslem dynasties in 1952. There's a difference between what it claims and who it can serve. The hierarchy of the Patriarchate are faithful servants but even their ability to serve all of Africa are limited.
3. Having served as a missionary in Ghana, I know first hand that the Alexandrian Patriarchate struggles to serve its priests and their missionary efforts, educationally, monetarily, with infrastructure, texts, etc. Ghana is blessed to have its present leadership.
3. The Moscow Patriarchate was *invited* into Africa by Alexandrian priests who *rebelled at the recognition of the OCU* -- the international geo-political games played by the USG. The Russian priests serving in Africa do so under the authorities of the Moscow Patriarchate. The "newly-minted Exarchate priests" are serving validly and licitly (to use RCC terminology).
4. Your example of Antioch going into Jerusalem is a valid question, but it happened the other way around. https://orthochristian.com/70416.html https://orthochristian.com/80640.html
*My* conclusion. In Orthodoxy, respect for nation-state boundaries in many ways equates to respect for the *boundaries* of the state's Orthodox churches. The Ecumenical Patriarch has historically and consistently violated such local Orthodox church *territorial* boundaries, cite the OCU, Estonia, the Greek islands, etc. The *American model* for Orthodoxy which has nearly every local Orthodox church present is now (possibly and sadly) being implemented worldwide.
Comment. *Carpetbagging?* Oof! Your viewpoint received.
I think I understand. He could validly ordain a priest, but it would be against the law and so be illicit. Valid because Jesus shows up, illicit because He would not be pleased.
I don't want to make Jesus mad.