A very interesting reprint From Ad Orientem of the essay: The Significance of Apostolic Succession in Heterodoxy* which was written by Metropolitan, later Patriarch, Sergii (Stragorodsky) and first published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1935 (No. 23-24) and republished in the October 1961 edition of the JMP.

The editors note that the importance of the subject, the authority of the author and the unavailability of this essay to the wide circle of their readers convinced them to reprint Metropolitan Sergii’s essay.

Here are a few interesting excerpts.

…

For example the Old Catholic and the Belakrinitza hierarchies both base their origin on individual ordinations. The Orthodox Church unconditionally rejects the latter hierarchy and declares all of its acts as invalid, and those who enter the Church are received through chrismation. Our Church likewise does not recognize Old Catholic hierarchy. At this time no one knows how they are treated in the Greek East. However the relations of ruling Church circles towards the Old Catholics (at least in the past) has been most sympathetic both from our part and in the East. Particularly, individual consecration was not an unconditional impediment for the recognition of the Old Catholic hierarchy. In justification, reference was made to the acceptance by Western practice of individual consecration (one bishop and two specially empowered abbots). Perhaps this departure became established because the bishop’s office, in view of the development of Papal authority, does not differ much from that of the presbyter. Be that as it may, but if the Old Catholics truly adopted for themselves the teaching of the ancient undivided Church, and would not resort to dogmatism, analysis and arguments about details of teaching and ritual, and if the leaders would be less imitative of Protestants, it is very possible that Old Catholics would have by now received in communion with the recognition of their hierarchy.

…

In order to establish itself in communion, the heterodox “Church” must at least recognize its dogmatical and canonical defects and correct them, which it can do on its own initiative and then by that fact of correction it becomes a full member of the union of local Orthodox Churches, joined together by mutual communion in the Eucharist and prayer. In such a case there is no need of an official reception or a union with one of the existing Orthodox Churches. The Westerners, knowing only about unions with Rome which requires the suppression of any local customs or independence, are afraid that an invitation to unite with the Eastern Orthodox Church would result in the same attempt to subject them to the East with a loss of their own originality. This fear of course, chills any already lukewarm thoughts about Church union. In point of fact, if the Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox Church is merely a desirable embellishment of Church life and not life itself, then is it not reasonable from the point of an abstract idea, perhaps one which is fascinating and edifying, but practically not very beneficial, to risk some very precious realities? This leads to an exchange of many sweet words, much erudition, many arguments over secondary matters, much persistence in vindicating principles, but there is not that thirst which forces one “…to come to the waters” (Is. 55:1), there is no spiritual effort with which one can “accomplish great things” (G. Canon).

…

* Heterodoxy = anything not Orthodox i.e., R.C., Old Catholic, PNCC, Anglican, Protestant, etc.

Also note, since this was 1935, the term ‘Old Catholics’ includes the PNCC. Many of the Old Catholic churches have fallen so far from orthodoxy (women ‘priests’, homosexual union blessings) that I would venture to guess that they would no longer be viewed as they were in 1935.