A Conversation with Bp. Joseph on Apostolic Succession
 |
| 5th Century Mosaic Apse of the Church of St. Clement, Rome, Italy, Showing Christ on the Cross as the Base of the "True Vine" Out of Which Springs the Apostolic Succession of the One, True, Holy, Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Church |
Q: Would it be right that Apostolic Succession forms the foundation for Patristic Consensus later?
A: That’s a good observation. You could argue that. It normally is argued in a “dynamic tension” model. You can know that those in apostolic succession with apostolic doctrine preserve the succession.
Those in succesion but teaching at variance with the tradition were doubtful in their origins and their succession was “regularized” even as early as the 4th century when they repented of heresy and came back to the Church.
Q: What does “dynamic tension” mean exactly?
A: This is why the Early Church wasn’t bothered by “valid but illicit” ordinations. Someone with a valid ordination who kept orthodox doctrine was valid, even if they were politically required to work out the problems of jurisdiction or submit as a chorebishop to an Archbishop with rightful (publicly recognized by the government or other ecclesiastical authorities) jurisdiction. If they held wrong doctrine, they were believed to be invalid and their orders were not able to be transmitted even if they kept the correct form. So, the “Dynamic Tension” was held between Apostolic Doctrine and Apostolic Succession.
Q: How do we handle the problem of occult heretics in the episcopate? Especially if found out much later?
A: They are self-excommunicated and their lineages aren’t reckoned to be “regular," requiring re-ordination to erase all doubt of proper confession, doctrine, and reception of orders with correct intentions.
Q: Beside obvious pragmatic concerns for such later discoveries, why do we not regularize lineages in the case of occult heretical bishops?
A: Because Gnostics and Magicians are not reckoned as Christians by the Fathers. If they hold to these doctrines, even if keeping forms of Christian Tradition, we count them as completely empty and lacking grace. Someone who comes to us from this situation would be recived as if unordained.
Q: What about those who held secretly heretical beliefs, but still have Orthodox orders and are in synod with other Orthodox bishops?
A: These would be considered valid, unless there was a fault in their continuity or form. Any deficiency would be covered by reception and “vesting” (renewal of baptismal and ordinal vows, and the reception of annointing with oil by the receiving Bishop): “Reception by Statement of Faith.”
Those from Oriental, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and Roman Orders are treated this way within canonical Orthodoxy. Many Anglicans were also favorably treated until Women’s Ordination cast doubt upon their validity and made their orders fairly "non-transferable" in the East.
Q: Because it directly assaults the understanding of what constitutes the sacrament of orders right?
A: Yes, it defiles the intention.
Q: So those orders from all of the above except Anglicans are considered valid, but illicit?
A: That’s what Rome would say, but the Orthodox Church considers them “marred by schism” and faulty due to being separated from the One, True Church.
Orthodox Fundamentalists would say that it is a complete reception of grace, via “economia” and is the same as a re-ordination. The canonists say that it is a “restoration to full unity” and a “completion of sacraments already received,” leaving the state of fullness or absence of grace up to God. When there is doubt, we re-ordain so as not to leave doubt and live in faith, nothing wavering. This more balanced position leaves open the question of the status of the sacraments they received in the other ancient churches while insisting that full unity with the unbroken Apostolic Church is with the Orthodox.
Q: Is that why the Russians rebaptize pretty much all Western Christians, while the Greeks don’t?
A: Right again. But it wasn't always like this. 200 years ago, the Greeks re-baptized and the Russians almost always Chrismated people into the Church. The difference in approach has a lot to do with attitudes towards the 1923 Pan Orthodox Conference and the 1936 Bucharest Agreement, which defined reception via Chrismation for those who followed the correct, Apostolic forms for the sacraments. These agreements have since been widely repudiated by the Slavic Churches, while remaining relevant to the Greek Church and the other Ancient Patriarchates.
Q: Do the Orthodox consider Roman and Oriental churches’ Chrismations valid?
A: We would redo them both because Chrismation is the mechanism whereby our Church fully recognizes someone as a brother or sister in Christ, and is the reason that we do not extend the Holy Eucharist to those who are doctrinally or canonically at odds with the historical Orthodox Church, not as a way to deny them grace, but to protect them from taking the Eucharist unworthily and thus hurting themselves. Our closed communion is not to harm or deny their personhood, but to protect and mercifully pour the oil of reconciliation upon them first, before they receive the Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
A: That’s a good observation. You could argue that. It normally is argued in a “dynamic tension” model. You can know that those in apostolic succession with apostolic doctrine preserve the succession.
Those in succesion but teaching at variance with the tradition were doubtful in their origins and their succession was “regularized” even as early as the 4th century when they repented of heresy and came back to the Church.
Q: What does “dynamic tension” mean exactly?
A: This is why the Early Church wasn’t bothered by “valid but illicit” ordinations. Someone with a valid ordination who kept orthodox doctrine was valid, even if they were politically required to work out the problems of jurisdiction or submit as a chorebishop to an Archbishop with rightful (publicly recognized by the government or other ecclesiastical authorities) jurisdiction. If they held wrong doctrine, they were believed to be invalid and their orders were not able to be transmitted even if they kept the correct form. So, the “Dynamic Tension” was held between Apostolic Doctrine and Apostolic Succession.
Q: How do we handle the problem of occult heretics in the episcopate? Especially if found out much later?
A: They are self-excommunicated and their lineages aren’t reckoned to be “regular," requiring re-ordination to erase all doubt of proper confession, doctrine, and reception of orders with correct intentions.
Q: Beside obvious pragmatic concerns for such later discoveries, why do we not regularize lineages in the case of occult heretical bishops?
A: Because Gnostics and Magicians are not reckoned as Christians by the Fathers. If they hold to these doctrines, even if keeping forms of Christian Tradition, we count them as completely empty and lacking grace. Someone who comes to us from this situation would be recived as if unordained.
Q: What about those who held secretly heretical beliefs, but still have Orthodox orders and are in synod with other Orthodox bishops?
A: These would be considered valid, unless there was a fault in their continuity or form. Any deficiency would be covered by reception and “vesting” (renewal of baptismal and ordinal vows, and the reception of annointing with oil by the receiving Bishop): “Reception by Statement of Faith.”
Those from Oriental, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and Roman Orders are treated this way within canonical Orthodoxy. Many Anglicans were also favorably treated until Women’s Ordination cast doubt upon their validity and made their orders fairly "non-transferable" in the East.
Q: Because it directly assaults the understanding of what constitutes the sacrament of orders right?
A: Yes, it defiles the intention.
Q: So those orders from all of the above except Anglicans are considered valid, but illicit?
A: That’s what Rome would say, but the Orthodox Church considers them “marred by schism” and faulty due to being separated from the One, True Church.
Orthodox Fundamentalists would say that it is a complete reception of grace, via “economia” and is the same as a re-ordination. The canonists say that it is a “restoration to full unity” and a “completion of sacraments already received,” leaving the state of fullness or absence of grace up to God. When there is doubt, we re-ordain so as not to leave doubt and live in faith, nothing wavering. This more balanced position leaves open the question of the status of the sacraments they received in the other ancient churches while insisting that full unity with the unbroken Apostolic Church is with the Orthodox.
Q: Is that why the Russians rebaptize pretty much all Western Christians, while the Greeks don’t?
A: Right again. But it wasn't always like this. 200 years ago, the Greeks re-baptized and the Russians almost always Chrismated people into the Church. The difference in approach has a lot to do with attitudes towards the 1923 Pan Orthodox Conference and the 1936 Bucharest Agreement, which defined reception via Chrismation for those who followed the correct, Apostolic forms for the sacraments. These agreements have since been widely repudiated by the Slavic Churches, while remaining relevant to the Greek Church and the other Ancient Patriarchates.
Q: Do the Orthodox consider Roman and Oriental churches’ Chrismations valid?
A: We would redo them both because Chrismation is the mechanism whereby our Church fully recognizes someone as a brother or sister in Christ, and is the reason that we do not extend the Holy Eucharist to those who are doctrinally or canonically at odds with the historical Orthodox Church, not as a way to deny them grace, but to protect them from taking the Eucharist unworthily and thus hurting themselves. Our closed communion is not to harm or deny their personhood, but to protect and mercifully pour the oil of reconciliation upon them first, before they receive the Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Comments
Post a Comment