Talk:Leon Chechemian

Patriarch of Ancient British Church, or "British Patriarch"

I have today made a number of changes to the article "Leon Chechemian" in the hope that they are clarifications.

Specifically, I have omitted the claim that Chechemian was a British "Patriarch" (the third British patriarch). The reason I have omitted it is that I am not aware of any evidence for it being so, -- and also that if it is so there are other issues to consider as indicated below.

If Chechemian was patriarch, the numbering does not add-up ! Mar Georgius is claimed as sixth patriarch and his kinsman Mar Seraphim as seventh. Morgan was first, Stevens second (appointed 1889). Stevens died in 1917 and the succession then passed to Martin who is stated as third (1917-1919), making McLagan the fourth (1919-1928), M-Heard the fifth (1930-1945), and Georgius the sixth (1945-1979).

Prior to 2 Nov 1897, Stevens led the ABC and Stevens was its patriarch (second patriarch, from 1889). On 2 Nov 1897 the ABC and two other jurisdictions merged to form FPEC. Chechemian then led FPEC as "primus" for three years, until he resigned as primus on 30 Dec 1900. Stevens then took over as primus of FPEC and served until his own death in 1917.

However, ABC does not seem to have been completely and permanently swallowed-up in FPEC, in that in 1939/1945 ABC and FPEC start to go separate ways again, in that on 18 May 1939 M-Heard appointed Hall as primus of FPEC but on 29 Jan 1945 he appointed Mar Georgius as patriarch of ABC.

The point in question is whether Chechemian was ever "patriarch", or, in 1897 when FPEC was formed, did the patriarch title remain with Stevens who (from 1889) was second patriarch. If it did remain with Stevens between 1897 and 1900, then Stevens' successor Martin is third patriarch and the numbering works. But, if Chechemian became patriarch in 1897, then he is third patriarch, and when he resigned in 1900 the second patriarch Stevens took up the role a second time, but then Stevens' eventual successor in 1917 (Martin) would be fourth patriarch, even though he would be taking over from the second patriarch.

The fact that ABC and FPEC seemed to go separate ways in 1939/1945 tends to indicate that ABC was not fully and completely merged into FPEC in 1897 in such a way as to totally lose its identity and its "patriarch" title. In the absence of any evidence (that I am aware of) that Chechemian ever claimed or was accorded the "patriarch" title, and in view of the numbering problem that would exist if Chechamian is to be included in the list of patriarchs, I considered it safest to omit from the article any claim that Chechemian was patriarch.

Other editors may have more information, in which case do please feel free to amend/correct the text. Diakonias (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Ancient British Church#User generated text misattributed as EB1911

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ancient British Church#User generated text misattributed as EB1911. The misattributed citations are of "Block" at encyclopedia.jrank.org and are found in this article about Leon Chechemian. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources for consecration as an Armenian Catholic bishop Comment

The edits by @Diakonias: separated the content but did not clarify anything about Chechemian's alleged consecration as an Armenian Catholic bishop.

• The new "Consecration as an Armenian Catholic bishop (1879)" section lacks the {{contradiction-inline}} that I put there. The majority of sources that I read indicate that claim, that Chorchorunian consecrated Chechemian as a bishop, is doubtful. It seems to be an over-century-old pious-fraud originating from Chechemian.

• The "Ministry, 1878-1889" section was changed from:

Between 1878 and 1881 Chechemian served as an assistant bishop in his home town of Malatia.<ref name="jrank" />{{contradiction-inline}}

to:

Between 1878 and 1881 Chechemian served in a leadership role in in the Armenian Catholic Church his home town of Malatia. Initially (1878-1879), this was as a vardapet. The question of whether, in 1879, he was raised to episcopal status is discussed earlier in this article.

• The "Consecration as a bishop of the Ancient British Church (1890)" section was slightly changed and supplemented with a note:

This may have been his first episcopal consecration, or it may have been a further or subsequent consecration. The question as to whether here had been an earlier episcopal consecration is discussed earlier in this article

• The new "(A) via the Armenian Catholic Church, (from Leon Chorchorunian and Cardinal/Patriarch Antony Hassun)" section is

From the above, it can be seen that there is a line of succession from Leon Chorchorunian (lived 1822–1897) of the Armenian Catholic Church. It is certainly a presbyteral succession. Whether it is an episcopal succession is disputed as explained above.

which implies by its location in the structure of the article (being in the "Apostolic succession" section), an episcopal consecration of Chechemian by Chorchorunian.

No new facts or references were added. No listing of Chechemian as a bishop is not found in the standard sources published by the Catholic Church or in online databases such as Catholic-Hierarchy.org. Anson, in Bishops at large, a standard source about this subculture (112 hits on Google Scholar), states about Chechemian's April 1887 autobiographical sketch in Bulwark that "Nowhere in these memories did Chechemian claim to have been raised to the episcopate. He recorded how he was ordained a priest, and was made a vartapet," (p. 218). —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BoBoMisiu. It's only today that I have seen your comments. I'm not sure why you didn't yourself make changes to my section "(A) via the Armenian...". However, having regard to your comments, I have today made some slight further changes which I hope you may regard as appropriate. If not, do please feel quite free to delete or amend them. One such change is that in deference to your comment that locating a statement within a section titled "Apostolic succession" implies an episcopal line of succession (as distinct from a merely presbyteral line), I have re-titled the section in question. The expression "apostolic succession" can bear a number of different meanings, but in the context (which is that of an article about churches that are episcopal in their Order and within a listing of person-to-person succession by laying-on of hands) you are correct in what you say it implies. I have also re-worded the actual text so as hopefully to give a more appropriate emphasis. Your comment about the 1887 ed of "Bulwark" is interesting and informative. Unless I have missed noticing it, I don't think this info appears within the wiki article. Perhaps, you may consider inserting it. K rgds, Diakonias (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again User:BoBoMisiu. In your 27 Apr 2015 remarks, you commented that I had omitted a "contradiction" inline citation. I want to say that I did think carefully before I omitted that citation. The contradiction inline citation was stated as being a contradiction ABOUT A DATE (i.e. the date 23 Apr 1878) !! The reason I omitted the citation was that I had removed the contradiction. The reason stated for the "contradiction" inline citation was that the 23 Apr 1878 date was the date on which LC was made a vardapet (as stated earlier in the article), --- and therefore 23 Apr 1878 would not be also his date of consecration as a bishop. There are on the Web several references to LC having been consecrated a bishop on 23 Apr 1879 (this would be precisely 12 months after he was blessed as a vardapet on 23 Apr 1878). You can see these 1879 dates for yourself if you "google" on "Leon Chechemain 23 April 1879". They may be correct, or they may not. They may be merely a result of someone at some time having accidentally mis-typed 1878 as 1879 combined with not being aware that there is a distinction between vardapet and bishop. I did not have enough confidence in this 1879 date to include it in the wiki-article, so I therefore avoided giving any specific date for the (disputed) consecration. But, I did consider that by omitting the reference to a consecration date of 23 Apr 1878 I had removed the contradiction and that it was therefore entirely appropriate that I should remove the inline citation. I also considered, at the time, that the changes I made in Apr 2015 adequately recognised the fact that there are differing views as to whether LC was ever consecrated an actual bishop within the Armenian Cath Ch. K rgds, Diakonias (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Googling Chechemain generally yields sites within the subculture that repeat their belief about him and are not WP:RELIABLE to evaluative controversial claims. Although others may not have been aware, he was "aware that there is a distinction between vardapet and bishop" and perpetuated his pious fraud. There is no way to know why he did, but he did do it. I would like to read that series of article about him in Bulwark but I don't have access to them. It would give a fuller picture than the quotes included by Anson in Bishops at large.

I'm sure it is a sensitive subject within that subculture. Having views that differ from the documented facts implies over a century of gullibility or coverup within that subculture. I say subculture because its not just one group that this affects. Over emphisizing the content that "recognised the fact that there are differing views" is, in my opinion, just pour salt into that subculture's metaphorical wound. I consider it a WP:NFRINGE that originated as Chechemian's pious fraud. After reading about him, I honestly feel sad for the cascade of his victims who believed they received valid sacraments through a bishop consecrated in the Armenian Catholic Church.

It is analogous, for me, to saying a deputy sheriff performed a sheriff's acts – when clearly a deputy sheriff is not a sheriff but a deputy of a sheriff who is authorized to act by authority invested in the sheriff. That is the same kind of equivocating of a vartapet and a bishop. His claim lacks veracity; the standard reference works, published by the Catholic Church, used to identify bishops do not include him. A vartapet is not a subtype of bishop; a vartapet is a subtype of monk. These are categorically different. Chechemain should be pruned from every line of apostolic succession. But that will not happen because it implies that souls were harmed by what Chechemian did.

I think retitling the section is a start, but looking at similar biographies (in and out of wikipedia) shows that "apostolic succession" is used by this subculture only in the episcopal sense (as much as I searched). The subculture does not emphasize the ordinations and reordinations of those priests in the way this article does. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:BoBoMisiu for your further comments (16 May 2015). I have today tinkered yet again with the title and text of the Armenian Catholic bishop (disputed) section on LC's wikipage in the hope of more clearly and fairly stating the matter. I hope you may agree that it is improved somewhat. There is certainly more than enough said now for anyone reading the LC wikipage to be alerted that there are very serious issues/questions hanging over LC's alleged episcopal status. Thank you for raising your concerns. I consider my present knowledge or expertise/experience are not such that I can take matters much further at this time.

As regards validity of the sacraments: For a person to consider that he (she) has received an invalid sacrament due to Chechemian being only a varadet, if I may presume to say so, I think that (a) there would need to be no valid parallel lines of succession (many bishops deriving from Chechemian also have claim to multiple lines, for example through conditional consecrations), and (b) he (she) (i.e. the recipient of the sacrament) would need to hold to a theory that sacraments are valid only if administered by a person who is ordained/consecrated by a bishop in unbroken line of episcopal succession. There are of course believers who hold to that theory. However, there are also believers who regard the historic succession as an honour, privilege and heritage but who would accept the authenticity of sacraments administered by ministers who are ordained by presbyters. Some would accept that a gathered congregation of 'lay' people can conduct an authentic ordination. Some would accept sacraments celebrated by un-ordained Christians as valid. John Wesley was not a CofE bishop. (It is possible he may have been (secretly) a bishop through another jurisdiction, but in the absence of clear evidence we must assume he was not). He appointed overseers in USA (for example) and a line of Methodist/Wesleyan succession derives from that. Congregational churches typically do not insist that any previously ordained individual needs to be present at ordinations; further such churches often authorise un-ordained people to preside at the Holy Supper of the Lord. Here are a couple of brief extracts from Archbishop Doye Agama's recent book: "For us in the [Apostolic Pastoral] Congress, Apostolic succession (which was not yet a formal doctrine in the very Early Church) is neither a requirement for entry to heaven or for successful ministry here on earth, but is an honour and often has implications for order within the church". Regarding Wesley, Abp Doye writes: "While Methodism may not provide the classic form of Apostolic Succession, the lineage back to John Wesley is certainly cherished by this Congress". You see, not everyone interested in and cherishing lines of succession is holding to the episcopal-only-lines theory, nor to the theory that the validity or authenticity of a sacramental act turns upon the Holy Orders status of the celebrant. Kind regards, Diakonias (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Diakonias.

@Diakonias: I agree that the article is somewhat improved but it still equivocates in several places that he was in some way an Armenian Catholic bishop.

For example, even the section title "Consecration (disputed, or doubtful) as an Armenian Catholic bishop, circa 1879" is, for me, not as accurate as just writing "Unsubstantiated claim of being an Armenian Catholic bishop."

Writing that: "A vardapet may hold rank similar to that of a bishop, though without the power to ordain priests," also equivocates vardapet and bishop but reliable sources show the two terms are in different categories since vardapet is only a type of monk while bishop is a type of administrative authority. The term vardapet is not synonymous or similar to the term bishop. Anson, for example, was clear that a vardapet "has no episcopal status." As I wrote above, this equivocation is Chechemian's pious fraud.

Similarly, in the "Ministry, 1878–89" section:

Between 1878 and 1881 Chechemian served in a leadership role in the Armenian Catholic Church in his home town of Malatya. Initially (1878–79), this was as a vardapet. The question of whether, in 1878 or 1879, he was raised to episcopal status in the Armenian Catholic Church is discussed earlier in this article.

Who wrote that "Chechemian served in a leadership role in the Armenian Catholic Church in his home town of Malatya"? A vardapet is not a type of administrative authority. The second sentence is just building that straw man that equivocates vardapet and bishop.

Similarly, in the "(A) via the Armenian Catholic Church, (from Leon Chorchorunian and Cardinal/Patriarch Antony Hassun)" section:

From the above, it can be seen that there is certainly a line of presbyteral succession from Leon Chorchorunian (lived 1822–1897) of the Armenian Catholic Church. However, whether it is an episcopal succession is disputed as explained above, and may be doubtful.

In my opinion, this is another form of equivocating since the rest of the "Lines of succession" section does not mention any other ordinations to a sacramental priesthood. It is a shift to a different sense of the same term.

I have read that Chechemian initially claimed he was the recipient of an Armenian Catholic line of succession and not about some other "parallel lines of succession".

I have not read that Chechemian rejected the theory about valid sacraments that churches maintaining apostolic succession hold.

A Google search shows that the Catholic and Orthodox concept of apostolic succession is not the same as the Protestant concept of historic succession (which some Protestants believe is only symbolic, i.e. "an honour, privilege and heritage"). Nevertheless, the concept of apostolic succession is not the same as the concept of historic succession.

While there are various Protestant theories about sacraments, Chechemian's claim was about an actual (not symbolic) episcopal consecration within the Armenian Catholic Church by an actual (not symbolic) Armenian Catholic bishop. It does not follow that Doye Agama's four points about apostolic succession apply to Chechemian. I agree with you that many, if not most, Protestant sacramental paradigms reject the Catholic and Orthodox concept of apostolic succession and reject an ordained priesthood, but I have not read that Chechemian accepted those Protestant paradigms. Moreover, Chechemian's own fictitious claim, that he was the recipient of an Armenian Catholic line of succession, seems to show that he rejected those paradigms about apostolic succession that Agama described. I have not read that any group that emerged from Chechemian had considered him as a symbolic bishop. Moreover, a vardapet is not a type of symbolic bishop. Linking Agama to Chechemian seems to be WP:Original unless it can be sourced.

Chechemian's unsubstantiated claim is not even unique within the article. For example, in the "(C) from Stevens" section:

Ferrette (originally a Roman Catholic priest) claimed to have been consecrated as a bishop in 1866...

Lee and Seccombe, together with Thomas Mossman were the three founders and leaders of the Order of Corporate Reunion. The three of them claimed to have been secretly consecrated (circa 1877) as bishops. There has been much speculation and conjecture as to who their consecrators were. Owing to the secrecy that long surrounded these consecrations, it may be difficult definitively to establish the facts.

I also have not read that any group that emerged from either Ferrette or Lee/Seccombe/Mossman had considered any of those as symbolic bishops.

I think the types of claims all of these people made were much easier to foist in the past since email (or even telephone) was not available to easily communicate and refute there claims. I remember reading an RSS comment about some other questionable episcopal consecration that brought up the difficulty of communicating by telegraph where the recipient spoke a different language —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)