Re: Apostolic Succession [was: Reflections]
- 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
Please see comments below. I suppose you will appreciate their origin.
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
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
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
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
> > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
> > >Who would believe that the day before democracy "arrived" in
> > >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 anapostolic
> > >sucession which did not exist before?he seems to have a different
> 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
> understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than therest of us do.
>that a given bishop was
> As taught universally by the Church, "Apostolic succession" means
> consecrated (ordained) by other bishops, who in turn had beenconsecrated by bishops
> before them, ultimately going back to the Apostles.hands.
> The Apostles consecrated their successors, by the laying on of
>that goes back, in
> Each new bishop since that time has received the laying on of hands
> unbroken succession, to the Apostles.given candidate: to make
> That is why at least two bishops are supposed to consecrate any
> doubly certain that the succession of laying on of hands wasmaintained.
>indicated that to him,
> But Vladimir Kozyreff, at least in earlier debates with me, has
> "Apostolic succession" means something entirely different.someone is a worthy (i.e.
> Mr Kozyreff appears to view "Apostolic succession" as meaning
> approved) spiritual heir of the Apostles, not that he has anunbroken sequence of ordination
> from the Apostles.to judge what is in
> But the Church does not view hierarchs in such terms at all. Who is
> another's heart?them) cannot deprive
> Not liking someone (perhaps without really knowing anything about
> them of Apostolic succession.
> In Christ
> Fr. John R. Shaw
- --- In email@example.com, michael nikitin
>anything, unless it's corrected.
> This Apostolic succession is just a formality. Doesn't mean
>it the other way around?
> When are we going to correct all the ordinations of the MP? Or is
>Patriarch's uncanonical, without force, etc...or did they not sign
> Don't forget our Synod's 1971 resolution finding the MP's
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
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
- 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.
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]