Bishop Daniel Garguillio wrote:
> My Child,
>
> Thanks for the interesting post, but I am already aware of those
> arguments. In fact, I accept the Cyprianic theory myself, hence my
> rather charitable references to "semi-Orthodox'.
>
> Our Apostolic Lineage is wholly Orthodox and rejects the schismatic
> and heretical *Romanist* proscriptions against ordination of women,
> same-sex unions, etc.
>
I find your misuse of Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions and
terminology somewhat variable for someone who espouses "Romanist"
proscriptions as heretical and schismatic. They reasons why Orthodox
consider Roman Catholicism as heterodox, the correct term, do not
include those. For example of your variable terminological confusion,
"My child" is Roman Catholic usage, not commonly what a real Orthodox
bishop would call laity.
>
Indeed what you are calling schismatic are points, although not
necessarily from the same perspective, that the two religions have in
common.
>> On Aug 1, 2:21 am, Bishop Daniel Garguillio
garguillio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> My Son,
>>>
>>> If true (though it doesn't seem to be), that explains it, as we are
>>> neither "independent" nor "vagante".
>>>
>> Dear Daniel,
>>
>> Sonmething written by a Catholic Melkite on the quite different
>> approach of Catholics and Orthodox to apostolic succession. It
>> explains why your succesion could possible be accepted by the
>> Catholics but would be quite rejected by the Orthodox. It's well
>> worth the read. In fact, it's worth filing away for any other
>> interested people
>>
>> The Orthodox (Cyprianite) and Catholic (Augustinian) Theology
>> of Sacraments and Apostolic Succession outside the Church
>>
>> by Neil Foley a Catholic Melkite
>> ________________________________________
>>
>> I apologize if the following is rambling or seen as not completely
>> relevant to the points being debated here, but I perceive the
>> arguments as going in opposing circles and ignoring several basic
>> considerations, on the part of both my Catholic and Orthodox brethren.
>> The theological praxis of Catholics and Orthodox as to the validity of
>> orders and the dependent issue of the validity of sacraments differs
>> significantly. That is fact and we can discuss, debate, and disagree
>> over whether the other's stance is or is not rational, but it won't
>> change the fact that it is what it is. The resolution of such will
>> only occur, if it ever does and hopefully it ultimately will, in
>> circles more august than this revered forum.
>>
>> There are basically two theories of apostolic succession and, in most
>> instances, the application of the theory held by a given Church
>> effectively
>> determines the validity accorded to claimed presbyteral and episcopal
>> orders and, ipso facto, the validity of sacraments administered by
>> those claiming to possess valid orders, whether presbyteral and/or
>> episcopal (putting aside issues as to form and intent, since if there
>> is no validity to the orders of the sacrament's minister, other
>> considerations are of no consequence to either Church).
>>
>> If the orders claimed to be possessed are themselves invalid, the
>> sacraments derived from him who claims to possess orders will, in
>> turn, be invalid if the sacrament is one which requires administration
>> by an ordained minister - essentially any except baptism in extremis
>> in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches and marriage in the Eastern
>> Churches, Catholic and Orthodox.
>>
>> The Augustinian theory................
>> ..................................................... effectively
>> holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character
>> that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or
>> excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason.
>> Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the
>> episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may
>> have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which
>> he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the
>> licitness of his acts.
>>
>> The Cyprianic theory..................
>> .................................................... effectively holds
>> that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or
>> heretical acts and by
>> excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason.
>> Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the
>> episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as
>> he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of
>> which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction
>> into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising
>> the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those
>> acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.
>>
>> The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox
>> Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although they have exercised
>> oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies
>> have returned to communion).
>>
>> Frankly, the Augustinian theory has been or certainly has become a
>> thorn in the side of the Catholic Church. It effectively assures that
>> all manner of independent hierarchs, both those who pursue their
>> perceived vocation with spiritual and intellectual honesty and those
>> who are episcopi vagante in the most perjorative connotation accorded
>> to the phrase, can sleep at night with at least a modicum of assurance
>> that they possess valid episcopal orders, unless form or intent are at
>> issue. The time-honored practice in the so-called "independent"
>> Catholic and Orthodox movements of garnering multiple episcopal
>> consecrations or, subsequently, being re-consecrated sub conditione is
>> effectively a means of leveraging the Augustinian theory.
>>
>> Most such hierarchs operate on the premise that "more is better" or
>> "there has to be at least one good one here somewhere". With most
>> having an episcopal genealogy that traces back through an average of
>> 30 ancestral lines of succession, from a combination of dissident
>> Latin Catholic, Eastern and Oriental Catholic, Eastern and Oriental
>> Orthodox hierarchs, they can feel reasonably secure. Those lines which
>> cannot be proven valid because there is serious doubt as to the
>> validity of one actor (e.g., the so-called Melkite-Aneed Line) can and
>> do feel comfortably buffered by Duarte and Thuc Lines.
>>
>> People sometimes point to subsequent acts by bishops of these
>> "Churches" which break faith with Catholic doctrine and erroneously
>> perceive these as breaking the line of apostolic succession. For
>> instance, no bishop, regardless of the validity of his episcopal
>> orders, can validly ordain a
>> woman. But, that he did so would not invalidate his subsequent
>> ordination of a man, with proper intent and according to proper form.
>> So, it is possible to go rather far afield theologically yet still
>> retain apostolic succession.
>>
>> None of this is to say that all such entities have valid orders or
>> sacraments, the Liberal Catholic Church is certainly suspect, but an
>> inordinate amount of effort has to be put into tracing and verifying
>> or rejecting such when presbyters or hierarchs of these Churches are
>> received into communion.
>>
>> The Orthodox Churches, relying on the canonically legal status of the
>> hierarch conferring orders (his status in communion with a recognized
>> jurisdiction to which the Church accords canonical status), have a
>> much simpler task before them in assessing validity and, since they do
>> not make the distinction of licitness, the end result is clear-cut.
>>
>> Given its historical ties to the Cyprianic theory, it stands to reason
>> that the Orthodox would not accord validity to Catholic orders or
>> sacraments and that any do so must be seen as an exercise of charity
>> on their part, applying a measure of recognition to the common
>> historical origins of
>> Catholicity and Orthodoxy. We, as Catholics, can dislike the fact that
>> all do not choose to do so, but it is not our place to impose upon
>> others our
>> theological precepts and require that they adopt them.
>>
>> The potentially most ironic consideration here is that, applying the
>> Augustinian theory, the Catholic Church would in some instances likely
>> have
>> to accept the validity of presbyteral and episcopal orders, and,
>> consequently, sacraments, of "independent Orthodox" (and by that I do
>> not mean those essentially mainstream Orthodox Churches which are
>> typically termed "non-canonical" or "of iregular status", but those of
>> the so-called
>> "independent movement") whom the Orthodox themselves would,
>> rightfully, never deem to be of their Communion, under even the most
>> liberal of interpretations.
>>
>> My apologies to those in whom I have induced narcolepsy.
>>
>
>
>
