> 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.