Branch Theory

[ArmyMatt]

In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid. [34] He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders." Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.-wikipedia

one Bishop does not speak for the Church, the Church speaks through the Church. so it would take Orthodoxy to say that Anglican orders are valid, or that they have Apostolic succession. and when that happens, the Anglicans will be Orthodox with a nice British flavor.

 

[MKJ]

No. The Anglicans do NOT have Apostolic succession. The head of their church is a monarch, not a bishop.

???? The monarch is in no way the head of the Church of England in the same way a bishop, like the pope or EP is meant to be the head. The head in that sense is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The monarch - who is only the head of the CofE, not other Anglican bodies, is more like St Constantine in relation to the Church.

But this isn't why the Roman Church disputes Anglican orders anyway.

The OC doesn't affirm the Catholic priesthood as being valid either, so it all seems like a moot point from an Orthodox perspective.

The Roman Church IS the Catholic Church. Yes there are the eastern rites, but most of them didn't even come into the Catholic Church (from the East) until the 17th C at the earliest...

If so, why are you not in communion with him?

 

[Michael G]

???? The monarch is in no way the head of the Church of England in the same way a bishop, like the pope or EP is meant to be the head. The head in that sense is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The monarch - who is only the head of the CofE, not other Anglican bodies, is more like St Constantine in relation to the Church.

But this isn't why the Roman Church disputes Anglican orders anyway.

The OC doesn't affirm the Catholic priesthood as being valid either, so it all seems like a moot point from an Orthodox perspective.



If so, why are you not in communion with him?

Because while the Orthodox Church is catholic, it is not The Catholic Church. The Catholics schismed from Orthodoxy in the 11th century.

 

[Michael G]

What is your opinion on this?

In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid. [34] He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders." Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.-wikipedia

What I have to say is what I have always had to say about wiki: don't do it. Wikipedia is an authority on nothing and is a source of nothing more than opinion.

 

[MKJ]

Because while the Orthodox Church is catholic, it is not The Catholic Church. The Catholics schismed from Orthodoxy in the 11th century.

Don't the Orthodox say that the Catholic Church is not only schism, but heresy?

And you think the English were in error for breaking away from a group that had schismed from the true Church and was promoting heretical doctrines?

If the Roman Church was in error, for example in it's overweening claims for the papacy, which were the cause of the problem in England, wouldn't it be a good thing for the English to see this and attempt to return to a true model?

The same kind of claims to papal power that caused problems with the Orthodox Church are what had caused problems, for several hundred years , with the English. Why is it ok for the OC to be out of communion with Rome, but not the English? Are they doomed to follow the Patriarch of Rome because they are in the West? If so, why are there EO churches in the West today?

I am really confused about your view of this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Why is it ok for the OC to be out of communion with Rome, but not the English?

because only the Orthodox are in the Body that Christ started. schisming from an already heretical body is like clipping a toe from a leg that has been severed from from a body. sure, it's not attached to the dying limb, but unless it returns to the source of life, it too will die. and I think this is what is happening with the Anglican world today, and I say this as a former Anglican.

 

[MKJ]

because only the Orthodox are in the Body that Christ started. schisming from an already heretical body is like clipping a toe from a leg that has been severed from from a body. sure, it's not attached to the dying limb, but unless it returns to the source of life, it too will die. and I think this is what is happening with the Anglican world today, and I say this as a former Anglican.

Sure, that makes sense, but I just don't see how one could argue from an Orthodox perspective that it would have been wrong for the English to leave Rome. Michael seems to be arguing they were wrong to leave Rome, and because they did, they can have no claim to catholicity.

As far as some sort of reunion with Orthodoxy at that time, I don't know if there was really much reasonable possibility of that, or if anyone in England even thought about it.

 

[buzuxi02]

What is your opinion on this?

In the 20th century there have been a variety of positions taken by the various Eastern Orthodox Churches on the validity of Anglican orders. In 1922 the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized them as valid. [34] He wrote: "That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders." Succeeding judgments, however, have been more conflicting. The Eastern Orthodox churches require a totality of common teaching to recognize orders and in this broader view find ambiguities in Anglican teaching and practice problematic. Accordingly, in practice Anglican clergy who convert to Orthodoxy are treated as if they had not been ordained and must be ordained in the Eastern Orthodox communion as would a lay person.-wikipedia

While your not asking me, i do need to voice my opinion on this. Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky first heirarch of ROCOR explained that outside the church holy orders of the heterodox do not have any grace.

But the reason that anglican clergy are recieved in their orders (russian practise) is because they have a proper visible form of apostolic succession. Basically they are recieved by eikonomia and whatever was lacking is made full in the Church. This is the what Orthodoxy means when they say they have valid orders.

As far as the above quote in 1922, i completely reject it as this 1922 robbber-synod was convened by the deposed Meletios who was put into that position by uncanonical means. Basically british influence during a tumultous time in Turkey. Meletios was ousted from the throne by the laity and clergy for this very innovation, bbarely escaped with his life. When Meletios usurped the throne of Alexandria after being ousted from Constantinople he declared the recognition of anglican orders within the Patriarchate of Alexandria as well. This happened after he was a high profile member of the 1930 Lamberth Conference. In fact Meletios was never a true patriarchate to begin with, since he was deposed from the episcopacy by the Church of Greece in 1921, He was a heresiarch, a tool for european politics in the near east. if this pan-orthodox council ever takes place this man should and will be anathemized.
If anyone whether bishop, priest, monk, or layman claim that apostolic succession is merely the laying on of hands, they are wrong. There is absolutely NO apostolic succession apart from right belief. If anyone disputes this then i suggest he reads the writings of Sts. Irenaeous, Vincent of Lerins and Basil the Great.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sure, that makes sense, but I just don't see how one could argue from an Orthodox perspective that it would have been wrong for the English to leave Rome. Michael seems to be arguing they were wrong to leave Rome, and because they did, they can have no claim to catholicity.

I think he was arguing that not becoming Orthodox is the bad thing, because even if one leaves Rome, one should still join Orthodoxy. only Orthodoxy has claim to catholicity, so when the English world fell to the West when William the Conqueror came through, they lost their claim as well.

As far as some sort of reunion with Orthodoxy at that time, I don't know if there was really much reasonable possibility of that, or if anyone in England even thought about it.

very true, but thank God we can get the message out about Orthodoxy to our Anglican brothers and sisters now

 

[Michael G]

Don't the Orthodox say that the Catholic Church is not only schism, but heresy?

And you think the English were in error for breaking away from a group that had schismed from the true Church and was promoting heretical doctrines?

If the Roman Church was in error, for example in it's overweening claims for the papacy, which were the cause of the problem in England, wouldn't it be a good thing for the English to see this and attempt to return to a true model?

The same kind of claims to papal power that caused problems with the Orthodox Church are what had caused problems, for several hundred years , with the English. Why is it ok for the OC to be out of communion with Rome, but not the English? Are they doomed to follow the Patriarch of Rome because they are in the West? If so, why are there EO churches in the West today?

I am really confused about your view of this.

The only true model is Orthodox Christianity. Everything else is heretical and schismatic. It is not that we are out of communion with Rome. It is that Rome is in schism from us and has ventured into very heretical realms. If the English broke with Rome and returned to Orthodoxy, that would be fine. But if they broke with Rome and ventured even further from the true faith than Rome is, then there is a problem.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

Didn't the EP valididate their Apostolic succession in the early 1900s?

In the 1920s.

 

[Michael G]

In the 1920s.

Just because 1 bishop spoke, that means nothing. The majority of Orthodox bishops would need to validate the Anglican Church and that is not happening.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

Well, it doesn't mean nothing, it means precisely what we were talking about. The EP said it. He may well be wrong, but I was responding to the question asked.

 

[buzuxi02]

I dont think anyone who knows anything would consider Meletios (the ep at the time) a canonical bishop.

 

[MKJ]

The only true model is Orthodox Christianity. Everything else is heretical and schismatic. It is not that we are out of communion with Rome. It is that Rome is in schism from us and has ventured into very heretical realms. If the English broke with Rome and returned to Orthodoxy, that would be fine. But if they broke with Rome and ventured even further from the true faith than Rome is, then there is a problem.

Being in schism means being out of communion. It doesn't imply anything as to fault or who was the cause.

It's not reasonable to say the English should have returned to Orthodoxy in the 15th century. It might have solved a lot of modern problems, but people are at times constrains by circumstances beyond their control, including just plain lack of awareness and communication.

And not really knowing about Orthodoxy, but seeing that Rome was wrong, you think they should have stayed with Rome?

Did they venture further from the true faith? That's kind of a yes and no question. Clearly the more reformed Anglicans did in many ways. But if you look at the concept the CofE had of itself under Henry, or Anglo-Catholics later on, I'd say overall they are significantly closer to Orthodoxy that Rome is, in political structure, theologically, and possibly even in spiritual approach. There are a few exceptions, but those doctrines tended to be responses to practical problems.

 

[Michael G]

Being in schism means being out of communion. It doesn't imply anything as to fault or who was the cause.

It's not reasonable to say the English should have returned to Orthodoxy in the 15th century. It might have solved a lot of modern problems, but people are at times constrains by circumstances beyond their control, including just plain lack of awareness and communication.

And not really knowing about Orthodoxy, but seeing that Rome was wrong, you think they should have stayed with Rome?

Did they venture further from the true faith? That's kind of a yes and no question. Clearly the more reformed Anglicans did in many ways. But if you look at the concept the CofE had of itself under Henry, or Anglo-Catholics later on, I'd say overall they are significantly closer to Orthodoxy that Rome is, in political structure, theologically, and possibly even in spiritual approach. There are a few exceptions, but those doctrines tended to be responses to practical problems.

Once you sever Apostolic Succession, the only way to get it back is to be joined to an Apostolic group. There are only 3 Groups with Apostolic Succession that is valid, The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church (including the Copts), and the Roman Catholic Church. Once the English Church severed ties with Rome the only way it could get valid Apostolic Succession was to become Orthodox. There simply is no other way around it.

 

[choirfiend]

But if you look at the concept the CofE had of itself under Henry, or Anglo-Catholics later on, I'd say overall they are significantly closer to Orthodoxy that Rome is, in political structure, theologically, and possibly even in spiritual approach. There are a few exceptions, but those doctrines tended to be responses to practical problems.

If Orthodoxy is where they needed to be then, it's where they need to be now--so why not do something about that now?

 

[buzuxi02]

The CoE is simply a further deviation from Rome. One only needs to venture into the anglican, old catholic forum and realize there ideal of struggling and overcoming sin is to indulge in it. In fact there is no such thing as sin in anglicanism, yesterdays sin is tomorrow's virtue. Rasputin would have loved modern day anglicanism. How does an anglican overcome sin? Stop considering it a sin.

There was a time when homosexuality was wrong even in britain, today the anglicans ordain them as their shepherds , and the laity is sooo proud.
Abortion? No biggie.
Fasting? Whats that.
Tradition? Only when it conforms to the caucasian wests liberal values.
Scripture? Christ's teachings should be interpreted by 2011 standards, virgin birth and ressurection is optional belief.
Pre-marital sex? Science tells us its natural
Animal day blessings in church? There all for it, great marketing tool.
Anglicanism has morphed into one of the creepiest sects. I'm sorry if i offended anyone.

 

[Ignatius21]

Once you sever Apostolic Succession, the only way to get it back is to be joined to an Apostolic group. There are only 3 Groups with Apostolic Succession that is valid, The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church (including the Copts), and the Roman Catholic Church. Once the English Church severed ties with Rome the only way it could get valid Apostolic Succession was to become Orthodox. There simply is no other way around it.

Or...to rejoin Roman Catholicism...right?

 

[Michael G]

Or...to rejoin Roman Catholicism...right?

If they want to, they can. It would make all of the nastiness of the Reformation seem a bit silly and pointless though.