Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Apostolic Succession [was: Reflections]

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John R. Shaw
    ... JRS: The difficulty here in debating with Vladimir Kozyreff is that he seems to have a different understanding of the expression Apostolic succession
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

      > >Who would believe that the day before democracy "arrived" in Russia,
      > >the MP was not the Church, and we did not have to unite with it, and
      > >since "democracy arrived", the MP all of a sudden got an apostolic
      > >sucession which did not exist before?

      Fr. Alexander Lebedeff replied:

      > When exactly do you feel did the MP lose apostolic succession?

      > Every bishop of the MP has apostolic succession from Patriarch
      > Sergius (Stragorodsky) or Patriarch Alexei I (Simanskiy) --both
      > consecrated to the episcopate before the Russian Revolution (the
      > first in 1901, and the latter in 1913).

      JRS: The difficulty here in debating with Vladimir Kozyreff is that he seems to have a different
      understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the rest of us do.

      As taught universally by the Church, "Apostolic succession" means that a given bishop was
      consecrated (ordained) by other bishops, who in turn had been consecrated by bishops
      before them, ultimately going back to the Apostles.

      The Apostles consecrated their successors, by the laying on of hands.

      Each new bishop since that time has received the laying on of hands that goes back, in
      unbroken succession, to the Apostles.

      That is why at least two bishops are supposed to consecrate any given candidate: to make
      doubly certain that the succession of laying on of hands was maintained.

      But Vladimir Kozyreff, at least in earlier debates with me, has indicated that to him,
      "Apostolic succession" means something entirely different.

      Mr Kozyreff appears to view "Apostolic succession" as meaning someone is a worthy (i.e.
      approved) spiritual heir of the Apostles, not that he has an unbroken sequence of ordination
      from the Apostles.

      But the Church does not view hierarchs in such terms at all. Who is to judge what is in
      another's heart?

      Not liking someone (perhaps without really knowing anything about them) cannot deprive
      them of Apostolic succession.

      In Christ
      Fr. John R. Shaw
    • michael nikitin
      This Apostolic succession is just a formality. Doesn t mean anything, unless it s corrected. When are we going to correct all the ordinations of the MP? Or is
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        This Apostolic succession is just a formality. Doesn't mean anything, unless it's corrected.

        When are we going to correct all the ordinations of the MP? Or is it the other way around?

        Don't forget our Synod's 1971 resolution finding the MP's Patriarch's uncanonical, without force, etc...or did they not sign it? When will Holy Chrism be Holy? Shouldn't some correction be in order, since their Patriarchate was without force. Maybe we should give them some of our own?

        Michael N

        "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:


        > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

        > >Who would believe that the day before democracy "arrived" in Russia,
        > >the MP was not the Church, and we did not have to unite with it, and
        > >since "democracy arrived", the MP all of a sudden got an apostolic
        > >sucession which did not exist before?

        Fr. Alexander Lebedeff replied:

        > When exactly do you feel did the MP lose apostolic succession?

        > Every bishop of the MP has apostolic succession from Patriarch
        > Sergius (Stragorodsky) or Patriarch Alexei I (Simanskiy) --both
        > consecrated to the episcopate before the Russian Revolution (the
        > first in 1901, and the latter in 1913).

        JRS: The difficulty here in debating with Vladimir Kozyreff is that he seems to have a different
        understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the rest of us do.

        As taught universally by the Church, "Apostolic succession" means that a given bishop was
        consecrated (ordained) by other bishops, who in turn had been consecrated by bishops
        before them, ultimately going back to the Apostles.

        The Apostles consecrated their successors, by the laying on of hands.

        Each new bishop since that time has received the laying on of hands that goes back, in
        unbroken succession, to the Apostles.

        That is why at least two bishops are supposed to consecrate any given candidate: to make
        doubly certain that the succession of laying on of hands was maintained.

        But Vladimir Kozyreff, at least in earlier debates with me, has indicated that to him,
        "Apostolic succession" means something entirely different.

        Mr Kozyreff appears to view "Apostolic succession" as meaning someone is a worthy (i.e.
        approved) spiritual heir of the Apostles, not that he has an unbroken sequence of ordination
        from the Apostles.

        But the Church does not view hierarchs in such terms at all. Who is to judge what is in
        another's heart?

        Not liking someone (perhaps without really knowing anything about them) cannot deprive
        them of Apostolic succession.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw


        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • gene703
        Dear Fr. John, In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic sucession could you please review the canonical legality of some bishops in
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Fr. John,

          In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic sucession could you please review the canonical legality of some "bishops" in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a "bishop" hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR lineage. In particular

          1. 7 or 8 bishops supposedly created by retired Mp. Vitaly and/or Bsp. Varnava
          2. Mp. Valentin of Suzdal and his "bishops"
          3. Brothers Alferov and catacomb church

          many thanks
          Gene T

          "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:


          > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

          > >Who would believe that the day before democracy "arrived" in Russia,
          > >the MP was not the Church, and we did not have to unite with it, and
          > >since "democracy arrived", the MP all of a sudden got an apostolic
          > >sucession which did not exist before?

          Fr. Alexander Lebedeff replied:

          > When exactly do you feel did the MP lose apostolic succession?

          > Every bishop of the MP has apostolic succession from Patriarch
          > Sergius (Stragorodsky) or Patriarch Alexei I (Simanskiy) --both
          > consecrated to the episcopate before the Russian Revolution (the
          > first in 1901, and the latter in 1913).

          JRS: The difficulty here in debating with Vladimir Kozyreff is that he seems to have a different
          understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the rest of us do.

          As taught universally by the Church, "Apostolic succession" means that a given bishop was
          consecrated (ordained) by other bishops, who in turn had been consecrated by bishops
          before them, ultimately going back to the Apostles.

          The Apostles consecrated their successors, by the laying on of hands.

          Each new bishop since that time has received the laying on of hands that goes back, in
          unbroken succession, to the Apostles.

          That is why at least two bishops are supposed to consecrate any given candidate: to make
          doubly certain that the succession of laying on of hands was maintained.

          But Vladimir Kozyreff, at least in earlier debates with me, has indicated that to him,
          "Apostolic succession" means something entirely different.

          Mr Kozyreff appears to view "Apostolic succession" as meaning someone is a worthy (i.e.
          approved) spiritual heir of the Apostles, not that he has an unbroken sequence of ordination
          from the Apostles.

          But the Church does not view hierarchs in such terms at all. Who is to judge what is in
          another's heart?

          Not liking someone (perhaps without really knowing anything about them) cannot deprive
          them of Apostolic succession.

          In Christ
          Fr. John R. Shaw





          Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod





          SPONSORED LINKS
          Jewish orthodox Orthodox Orthodox church Greek orthodox church Sect of judaism

          ---------------------------------
          YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


          Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


          ---------------------------------




          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Fr. Stephen Fraser
          ... The definition of Apostolic Succession, recently posted, is not complete. Yes, its true, Apostolic Succession is the external laying-on of hands from one
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            gene703 wrote:
            > Dear Fr. John,
            >
            > In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic
            > sucession could you please review the canonical legality of some
            > "bishops" in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a "bishop" hiding
            > under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR lineage. In particular
            >
            > 1. 7 or 8 bishops supposedly created by retired Mp. Vitaly and/or Bsp.
            > Varnava
            > 2. Mp. Valentin of Suzdal and his "bishops"
            > 3. Brothers Alferov and catacomb church
            >
            > many thanks
            > Gene T
            >

            The definition of Apostolic Succession, recently posted, is not
            complete. Yes, its true, Apostolic Succession is the external
            laying-on of hands from one bishop to another starting with
            the Apostles, however, there is a great difference between
            Apostolic Succession as an ~external act~ and Apostolic Succession
            as a mysteriological act which conveys the grace of the holy
            priesthood. Heresy stops all succession of the grace of the
            priesthood and therefore Apostolic Succession - the physical
            laying-on of hands not withstanding.

            If a Church is in heresy, such as the Roman Catholic Church,
            deemed so in one of the other recent posts on this list, then,
            there is no Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic Church,
            or in any other heretical Church.

            The Laying-on of hands + the grace of the Holy Spirit (imparted
            through the laying-on of hands) = Apostolic Succession.

            No ~Orthodox~ Church, no Apostolic Succession.


            In Christ,
            Fr. Stephen
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... review the canonical legality of some bishops in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a bishop hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Gene T wrote:

              > In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic sucession could you please
              review the canonical legality of some "bishops" in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a
              "bishop" hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR lineage. In particular
              >
              > 1. 7 or 8 bishops supposedly created by retired Mp. Vitaly and/or Bsp. Varnava
              > 2. Mp. Valentin of Suzdal and his "bishops"
              > 3. Brothers Alferov and catacomb church

              JRS: Apostolic succession is still not the same thing as Grace.

              As for the first two you mention (ROCiE and ROAC), a good case coould be made for their
              being "graceless", since they were founded by clergy who had been defrocked by ROCOR.

              To be honest, I don't know much about the Alferov brothers, and there are many catacomb
              churches, each of which would have to be studied as a separate case.

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            • michael nikitin
              Holy Metr.Philaret wrote: In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Holy Metr.Philaret wrote:

                In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the
                principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones
                possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to
                recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and
                repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy
                there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.


                We are told the MP, "the church of the evil-doers", we in ROCOR cannot
                recognize as having grace.

                Michael N


                "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                Gene T wrote:

                > In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic sucession could you please
                review the canonical legality of some "bishops" in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a
                "bishop" hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR lineage. In particular
                >
                > 1. 7 or 8 bishops supposedly created by retired Mp. Vitaly and/or Bsp. Varnava
                > 2. Mp. Valentin of Suzdal and his "bishops"
                > 3. Brothers Alferov and catacomb church

                JRS: Apostolic succession is still not the same thing as Grace.

                As for the first two you mention (ROCiE and ROAC), a good case coould be made for their
                being "graceless", since they were founded by clergy who had been defrocked by ROCOR.

                To be honest, I don't know much about the Alferov brothers, and there are many catacomb
                churches, each of which would have to be studied as a separate case.

                In Christ
                Fr. John R. Shaw



                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • vkozyreff
                Dear Father John, bless. You write: ...Vladimir Kozyreff...seems to have a different understanding of the expression Apostolic succession than the rest of
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Father John, bless.

                  You write: "...Vladimir Kozyreff...seems to have a different
                  understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the rest
                  of us do". And you go on, defining apostolic succession as a formal
                  and mechanical thing.

                  Your understanding of apostolic succession is an oversimplification.
                  This oversimplification is needed to those who claim the MP has
                  apostolic succession.

                  Please see comments below. I suppose you will appreciate their origin.

                  In God,

                  Vladimir Kozyreff

                  The Church understands Apostolic succession not merely as an external
                  mechanical transfer of the very act of ordination but also the faith
                  connected with this act namely the preservation of the Apostolic
                  teaching on the grace of priesthood within a given group.

                  This doesn't tie in too well with the view being analyzed. To receive
                  an empty form lacking in grace, and at the same time to believe, in
                  accordance with the Apostolic teaching, that one is receiving Divine
                  grace, and to experience with this the appropriate thoughts and
                  feelings, would be a self-delusion or, in theological language, a
                  novelty.

                  Novelties are not to be indulged in but should be fought with all
                  available means. It would appear that in this case the Church somehow
                  is attempting to keep the person undisturbed in his novelty, as if it
                  is afraid to disturb the person's false convictions that he received
                  effective grace in his heterodox ordination. Leaving aside the need
                  for an Orthodox ordination the Church invents a special order for
                  reception, that through the Mystery of repentance to convey
                  implicite, and imperceptibly to the recipient, the grace of
                  priesthood.

                  Thus it would be closer to the truth and to the teaching of the
                  Church to assume that where, outside the Church, the Apostolic
                  succession, i.e. the Apostolic form of ordination and the Apostolic
                  teaching about the grace of the priesthood has been preserved, there
                  in the mind of the Church, ordination is not simply a form without
                  grace and thus is not repeated in receiving such clerics into the
                  Orthodox priesthood.

                  http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/succession-1.html


                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                  <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                  >
                  > > >Who would believe that the day before democracy "arrived" in
                  Russia,
                  > > >the MP was not the Church, and we did not have to unite with it,
                  and
                  > > >since "democracy arrived", the MP all of a sudden got an
                  apostolic
                  > > >sucession which did not exist before?
                  >
                  > Fr. Alexander Lebedeff replied:
                  >
                  > > When exactly do you feel did the MP lose apostolic succession?
                  >
                  > > Every bishop of the MP has apostolic succession from Patriarch
                  > > Sergius (Stragorodsky) or Patriarch Alexei I (Simanskiy) --both
                  > > consecrated to the episcopate before the Russian Revolution (the
                  > > first in 1901, and the latter in 1913).
                  >
                  > JRS: The difficulty here in debating with Vladimir Kozyreff is that
                  he seems to have a different
                  > understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the
                  rest of us do.
                  >
                  > As taught universally by the Church, "Apostolic succession" means
                  that a given bishop was
                  > consecrated (ordained) by other bishops, who in turn had been
                  consecrated by bishops
                  > before them, ultimately going back to the Apostles.
                  >
                  > The Apostles consecrated their successors, by the laying on of
                  hands.
                  >
                  > Each new bishop since that time has received the laying on of hands
                  that goes back, in
                  > unbroken succession, to the Apostles.
                  >
                  > That is why at least two bishops are supposed to consecrate any
                  given candidate: to make
                  > doubly certain that the succession of laying on of hands was
                  maintained.
                  >
                  > But Vladimir Kozyreff, at least in earlier debates with me, has
                  indicated that to him,
                  > "Apostolic succession" means something entirely different.
                  >
                  > Mr Kozyreff appears to view "Apostolic succession" as meaning
                  someone is a worthy (i.e.
                  > approved) spiritual heir of the Apostles, not that he has an
                  unbroken sequence of ordination
                  > from the Apostles.
                  >
                  > But the Church does not view hierarchs in such terms at all. Who is
                  to judge what is in
                  > another's heart?
                  >
                  > Not liking someone (perhaps without really knowing anything about
                  them) cannot deprive
                  > them of Apostolic succession.
                  >
                  > In Christ
                  > Fr. John R. Shaw
                  >
                • orthodoxchurch_sg
                  ... anything, unless it s corrected. ... it the other way around? ... Patriarch s uncanonical, without force, etc...or did they not sign it? Evlogeite! The
                  Message 8 of 9 , Nov 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
                    <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
                    >
                    > This Apostolic succession is just a formality. Doesn't mean
                    anything, unless it's corrected.
                    >
                    > When are we going to correct all the ordinations of the MP? Or is
                    it the other way around?
                    >
                    > Don't forget our Synod's 1971 resolution finding the MP's
                    Patriarch's uncanonical, without force, etc...or did they not sign
                    it?

                    Evlogeite!
                    The ROCOR Synod said that the Election was uncanonical. All
                    jurisdictions - as far as I am aware - have done things which are
                    uncanonical, but this doesnt deprive them of Grace automatically.
                    There are canonical ages for ordination to priesthood and episcopacy,
                    for example. The Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions have in most cases
                    ordained men below this canonical age. When I was a member of ROCOR
                    in the 1980s one of the clergy used to arrive in church in blazer and
                    boater and change for the services; the services were truncated
                    horribly; the services were in a language hardly anybody understood;
                    people paid for Confession. All of these things are uncanonical, are
                    they not?
                    Canonically we are forbidden to marry our godparents yet I know of at
                    least one Traditional Orthodox who has done this. Canonically we are
                    excommunicated if we do not attend Church for three weeks. When was
                    the last time this actually occured? Retired Bishops are not allowed
                    to have jurisdiction, yet ROCiE's Ruling Hierarch is retired.
                    Yes, the election of the Patriarch in 1971 was uncanonical - there
                    was secular interference, as there was with the election of every
                    Metropolitan between the reigns of Peter the Great and S. Nicolas II.
                    Was the taking of S. John of Shanghai to court canonical?
                    Even in Texas they dont give the death penalty for every crime.
                    God bless / Fr Daniel
                  • michael nikitin
                    orthodoxchurch_sg wrote: Even in Texas they dont give the death penalty for every crime. God bless / Fr Daniel Exactly
                    Message 9 of 9 , Nov 7, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...> wrote:
                      "Even in Texas they dont give the death penalty for every crime."
                      God bless / Fr Daniel

                      Exactly Fr.Daniel. There are different canons. Some are more strictly followed
                      than others. You're trying to justify something you are not familiar with. Whoever told you that doesn't understand the canons well either.

                      The Synod proclaimed the Resolution of 1971. Fr. John claims one has to be taken
                      to court and judged...well, the MP were and were found guilty. The sentence was that the hierarch's are uncanonical and have no force. If they have no force, they
                      cannot bestow grace upon anything they do. They are nothing but laypeople posing as hierarch's. The Church cannot have any dialogue with this kind.

                      Michael N




                      ---------------------------------
                      Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.