Branch Theory

[Gregorios]

Also, the reason we do not accept Anglican Holy Orders as valid (some jurisdictions do, I realize that but I'm referring to my own at this time) is that our understanding of Apostolic Succession is different. The laying on of hands and tracing it back to an Apostle is only half of it, the other half is keeping the faith of that Apostle as it has been handed down, the West has not done that so their orders are not valid. I realize in 1922 the EP said otherwise and at the time, I would have agreed with him, but now..well..again we all know what has happend. But according to the western concept of Apostolic succession, they are valid, and Rome contradicts it's own teaching in saying they are not.

 

[MKJ]

The CofE breaking away from Rome is a difficult thing..Rome was and is in a state of Schism but the schism was made worse by the Reformation..I don't know honestly, it seems to me the Pope lost his validity as Patriarch of the West when he lead the Latin Church into schism and it also seems that any role he had in the west would be assumed by the next in rank according to the diptychs which would be the Patriarch of Constantinople. The real issue is that England broke away and created their own jurisdiction, the canonical and appropriate action would have been to petition Constantinople for union with them rather than creating their own jurisdiction. This was almost a reality about 40 years ago..but then..well we know what happend.

Also, the reason we do not accept Anglican Holy Orders as valid (some jurisdictions do, I realize that but I'm referring to my own at this time) is that our understanding of Apostolic Succession is different. The laying on of hands and tracing it back to an Apostle is only half of it, the other half is keeping the faith of that Apostle as it has been handed down, the West has not done that so their orders are not valid. I realize in 1922 the EP said otherwise and at the time, I would have agreed with him, but now..well..again we all know what has happend. But according to the western concept of Apostolic succession, they are valid, and Rome contradicts it's own teaching in saying they are not.

Yes, this is what I would have expected the Orthodox position to be, and I think it is a coherent POV. I wouldn't expect the OC to accept Anglican orders as "valid", to use a word that doesn't quite fit.

As for petitioning Constantinople - well, that probably wasn't much of an issue in the 16th century. Even if it had been thought of I suspect that after their experience with Rome, the English monarchy would be very hesitant about any kind of allegiance to a foreign power. (I realize that would not have been the nature of the relationship, but rather that might be the perception by the English.) Even if it was realistic though, such things often take some time to work out and one would expect a gap between abandoning Rome and looking to Constantinople.

It is too bad perhaps that it didn't, because of all the problems that have appeared in Anglicanism in the 20th century might have been avoided. I also tend to think if it had happened, there would today have been a real "English" Orthodox Church, whereas it seems that now the whole idea is controversial (as we see in this very thread). I'm afraid this is one of the issues that has caused me some concern when I considered Orthodoxy - not that there is no Western Orthodoxy, but that some deny its possibility, and sometimes even that it existed at all.

I agree that the Roman rejection of Anglican orders seems forced according to their own logic - reading Apostolicae Curae always seems to me like an answer looking for a reason.

 

[Gregorios]

Some folks will just out and out say that all non-Orthodox are heretics and have lost all grace and hope for salvation. I'm afraid I cannot go that far or even close to it, I know grace is within the Orthodox Church..but I also believe Grace is found in the RCC and Anglican Churches (at least more conservative ones) I would have trouble accepting that God has blessed or will bless churches that are like the Episcopal Church USA..now this is a theological opinion on the part of an Orthodox laymen..so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Gregorios]

I confess I often find myself wishing what Blessed John Henry Newman wanted prior to his conversion were true..if the Anglican Church he and the others of the Oxford Movement had envisioned were real..well my icon on this fourm may well have been the same as yours MKJ, but since it has not been and even Blessed Johny Henry Newman knew it wasn't going to be, I have cast my lot with the Orthodox Church.....and sometimes, only sometimes, I wish it could have been different.

 

[buzuxi02]

I would ask that you elaborate on what you are refering to when you say "old baggage"? I dont know if you are aware but much of the anglican liturgy is based in anchient western christian liturgics (pre-schism). In fact you will see similarities between it and the orthodox liturgy. I just dont see how the western rite orthodoxy is at all protestant or espousing the branch theory since it's goal is to keep the good and Orthodox elements from anglicanism and dispose of the protestant (especially calvanist) influences from the reformation. If i am incorrect please enlighten me and try to be specific.

My original response was over a post where an individual questioned whether anglicans truly held to the branch theory. Thomas Cranmer the archbishop of Canterbury which composed the book of common prayer (which The supposed liturgy of St Tikhon is based on) was a firm believer in the branch theory. Cranmers Rite is the western rite used under Antioch and the branch theory assertions have not been removed . Perhaps through the lens of an Orthodox worshipper the branch theory is muted, but its still present in the liturgy of St. Tikhon. This proves that Anglicans originated the branch theory under Thomas Cranmer who planted the first seeds of this heresy.

Where specifically is this found in the western rite? In the following prayers of this 'protestant rite' as long as we place it in its original historic setting where rome and canterbury split ways:

P. " Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church. Almighty
and ever living God, who by thy holy Apostle hast taught us to
make prayers, and supplications, and to give thanks for all men:
We humbly beseech thee most mercifully to accept (these) our
Oblations, and to receive these our prayers, which we offer unto
thy Divine Majesty: beseeching thee to inspire continually the
Universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord:
And grant that all those who do confess thy holy name may agree
in the truth of thy holy Word, and live in unity and godly love.
We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all
Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer
justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the
maintenance of thy true religion and virtue. Give grace, O
heavenly Father, to all Bishops and other Ministers, especially
N. our Patriarch, N. our Metropolitan, and to the Holy Synod of
Antioch, that they may, both by their life and doctrine, set
forth thy true and lively Word, and rightly and duly administer
thy holy Sacraments."


If that doesnt convince you, then the after communion prayer should:

Almighty and ever living God, we most heartily thank thee, for
that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these
holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body
and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us
thereby of thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are
very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which
is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs
through hope of thy everlasting kingdom,