A question regarding the participation of Eastern Orthodox Bishops in the consecration of Anglican Bishops:
The Episcopal Church Annual 1959 states that on 29 September 1953 Bishop William S. Thomas was consecrated Bishop Suffragan of Pittsburgh, the 523rd Bishop of the American Succession. Amongst his consecrators was one identified as Metropolitan John of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It would appear that an Orthodox Eastern Bishop has indeed consecrated an Anglican prelate in the past, thus introducing the Eastern succession into the Anglican.
Was Metropolitan John a Bishop of a canonical Orthodox jurisdiction? Does anyone know of his identity and origin?
To follow an excellent thread on Anglo-Catholicism: go to http://all2common.classicalanglican.net/?p=204
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reflection: The 2024 APA Clergy Retreat on G3 Unity
Reflection: The 2024 APA Clergy Retreat on G3 Unity
-
Following on the intriguing discussion at The Continuum , below is the carefully-researched essay by Father John Jay Hughes found in his 197... -
First this ... His Beatitude Jonah, the Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada of the Orthodox Church in America (...
-
Being a Tractarian, ressourcement, patristically-minded, first millennial, conciliarist, philorthodox kind of Anglo-Catholic, I have always ...
4 comments:
I think the giveaway here, Father, is that the prelate was from one of the denominations called 'Ukrainian Orthodox', none of which were canonical in 1953. One group, based in the unlikely-sounding South Bound Brook, NJ, is now under Constantinople. Long story short, he wasn't really an Orthodox bishop but part of a nationalist schism from the Russian Orthodox.
An Orthodox bishop co-consecrating a non-Orthodox makes no sense from the Orthodox POV, which seeing being in the communion of the church first and 'lines of succession' second, so even if such did happen the Orthodox wouldn't recognise the Anglican bishop's orders.
Looking at the metropolitan's name I remember that one of the Ukrainian groups was headed by a man called John Theodorovich, who never really became a bishop! They couldn't get any Orthodox bishops to consecrate him (for the reasons I gave above - they wouldn't participate in schism) so they took the relic of a bishop saint's hand and the hands of a group of priests and 'consecrated' him. This group was called the 'dead-hand' group by detractors for that reason.
P.S. I see in the discussion in All Too Common that William Tighe described John (Theodorovich) and said that some people who claimed to be Orthodox bishops consecrated him in 1949. But he still wasn't a canonical Orthodox bishop AFAIK.
The contention that the Sacrament of Holy Orders cannot be transmitted outside the communion of the canonical Constantinopolitan Orthodox is certainly the traditional Eastern Cyprianic view of the Sacrament, but does not affect the Western view that holds that Orders are indelible and can be conferred even in heresy or in schism.
From the Western Augustinian perspective, should an Orthodox bishop consecrate an Anglican to the episcopate, it would be undoubtedly valid (graced) so long as proper matter, form, minister, subject and intention are present.
Please know Catholic Anglicans most certainly do not see themselves or their tradition merely as 'anti-Papist non-Orthodox.' Such language is needlessly pejorative and negative. We contend that we are as orthodox as any Church that has ever existed. As Archbishop William Laud (d. 1645) says, 'the Church of England is nearest of any Church now in being to the Primitive Church.'
God bless you!
The entire concept of "introducing the lines of succession into..." is totally foreign to Orthodoxy. It is SO foreign to Orthodoxy, that, when an Orthodox person who understands this sees these explanations by vagantes that "Yes,our Church has the lines of succession from the West by this and that Roman Catholic Bishop, and Eastern Orthodox lines from the Russian Church and the Antiochian Church, and Oriental Orthodox lines from ....," it is actually humorous-like the punchline of a joke-or, if you prefer-complete and utter fantasy!
Post a Comment