Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

it seems that he glosses over the fact that the Anglican communion has ordained women and homosexuals, kinda saying that they are there, but that Orthodox should talk to the more traditional folks.

and it doesn't matter what any number of bishops say, the Church as a whole is what the Holy Spirit speaks through. so until the whole of Orthodoxy says that Anglican orders are valid or invalid (best word I could come up with), that's not our business to speculate whether they are or aren't.

and all of those letters were written before the crazy ecumenism, women's ordination, homosexual ordination, etc. I don't think those bishops would be as open if they saw the Anglican communion today.

Also, there is no two churches or communion "merging" or "coming together"
there is only one Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, and that is the Orthodox Church. those outside her fold can certainly come into the Church, but there is no merging or "union" except for the individual uniting himself/herself to the Church.

this article I believe, illustrates the deficiencies of Anglican "ecclesiology".

I dont believe the Anglican communion on a whole (I'm not talking about individuals within her fold) can really be called a Christian Church or communion. They have come so far away from Orthodox Christianity that they should be honest with themselves and admit they are no longer Christian.

yeah, it presupposed the idea of the branch theory, which we definitely reject.

There is an inability of the Orthodox Church to accept the "validity" of the sacraments from a church in which the order established by God in His church is ignored. We cannot accept the validity if a female priest because that is not how God established His Church. God doesn't recognize their validity and He certainly does not see the validity of a man as priest who actively commits a sin against God in homosexuality. God is the one who established these rules. Women have many opportunities in the Church. Homosexuals are called to repentance.

Let us put away the sins of this world and the changing of God's laws. Then, and only then, can there be serious discussion between Anglican and Orthodox.

Crandaddy said:

Preaching to the choir.

Put them away? We've severed the ties and left them behind entirely. So can there now be serious discussion between the Orthodox and the Continuing Anglican churches who have remained faithful to orthodox Tradition?

Click to expand...

There CAN be discussion between that portion of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy. My statement was made concerning those who consider themselves Anglican, but do not agree with you. There has always been open discussion open between the Orthodox Church and individual churches and groups of churches. Example is in Father Peter Gilquist's life, where he was part of the Evangelical Orthodox Church, which eventually came, as a majority movement from that church, into the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

"There is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This is certainly true. But can you demonstrate, or at least provide rational support for, your apparent contention that THE Church of the N-C Creed is strictly coextensive with the officially-recognized canonical bounds of Orthodoxy? I would very much like to see it."

Yes I can, however, I'm at work now, so I will respond later with a much longer and thorough answer, but for now...

1st of all, you mentioned the Nicene Creed, well, one way to answer your question in regards to the N-C creed is that unlike your group, or other Anglicans, RC's, and other protestant groups, we recite the creed in its original form, specifically, without the clause "who proceeds from the Father and the Son", aka, the Filioque.

So we retain the creed in its original form, and continue to recite it in its original form. We reject the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

I can say quickly now thatWe are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church because we never changed the original Apostolic deposit of faith given by Christ to His Apostles, neithe adding nor taking away from it. yes, how we express and articulate the faith has certainly changed, but not the faith itself. if you carefully look at what the Orthodox Church beleives and teaches today, you will see that it matches up perfectly with what the Apostles and the early Church Fathers taught. You will also see it in the lives of her saints. I would strongly suggest reading both the early Church Fathers, the lives of the saints, and then go and read something about the doctrines of the Orthodox Church. This iswhat I did, and was one of many factors that led me to become Orthodox.

You will also come across, if you decide to do the above, your answer about my statement about the deficiencies of Anglican Ecclesiology. You will come across what the Fathers and the Scriptures say about what is the nature of the Church, and you will find that our understanding of the Church is vastly different from how the majority in the West views what is the Church.

You will also see that we take a conciliar approach, not an individualistic approach. So while you mentioned that there were some hieararchs that thought maybe there was some validity with Anglican orders and sacraments, and told their flock that under certain circumstances they may take communion in an Anglican Church, they were mistaken to say such things. but we don't follow one or two individuals here and there, the entirety of the life and teachings of the Church trumps anyone's personal opinions or beliefs about anything. This is a major problem in Anglican ecclesiology which causes Anglicans to feel justified in changing the teachings of the Church because a majority or certain individuals agrees or believes this or that.

More to come

Well, some Orthodox clerics evidently had enough faith in the validity of Anglican orders and sacraments to grant permission to receive Anglican sacraments under special circumstances. To my knowledge, Orthodox have never been granted such permission to receive Catholic sacraments.

Click to expand...

personally I have never heard of that. when I was in basic there was a priest who was coming into the Antiochian Archdiocese, but was not Orthodox yet and was Anglican. my spiritual father gave a sigh of relief when he found out I refused communion from him.

plus, it does not matter what any indivudal or group of individuals say, it matters what the Church as a whole says.

Do you know what the branch theory is?

Click to expand...

yep, there is no branch theory. the EO, OO, RC, Anglican, etc churches cannot all be traced as Apostolic, because you not only have to show that you are historically connected to the Apostles, but that you also teach what the Apostles taught. once you sever either of those you are not in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anymore

There is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This is certainly true. But can you demonstrate, or at least provide rational support for, your apparent contention that THE Church of the N-C Creed is strictly coextensive with the officially-recognized canonical bounds of Orthodoxy? I would very much like to see it.

Click to expand...

well, only canonical Orthodoxy rejects, and has continually rejected, the filioque to the Nicaean Creed, that's a start.

I am personally all for dialogue, but it would have to follow the model of the book of Acts, where even after folks come to believe the Gospel, they come in to the already existing Body. they did not make up their own or keep doing their own thing.

Crandaddy said:

I've read Father Gilquist's Becoming Orthodox. As I recall, neither he nor any of the clergy of the Evangelical Orthodox Church had previously received holy orders from a church that claims valid Apostolic Succession, so their reception of holy orders from the Orthodox Church was not problematic.

In my church, however, the clergy are pretty adamant that they have valid orders, and that we are a continuation of the authentic ancient Church that originally came to the British Isles. So were the Orthodox Church to insist that our clergy be reordained/reconsecrated, there might be a problem.

Click to expand...

the division between Anglicans and the Orthodox are not only political. Thanks to the Church of England's mother church severing the line of Apostolic Succession by teaching different teachings than the Apostles, any line of succession traced through them is severed. For an Anglican Priest's orders to be valid, they must first be grafted back into the one true Church via Chrismation, Confession, Communion, and then Holy Orders. Only after a man has been Communed back into the Church will his Orders be established.

I will be very clear in saying that this is NOT a statement about the clergy of the Anglican Church. This is saying something about the Church. How can one's orders be valid and Holy if they occurred outside of Communion with the Church? They cannot be. A holy order is an order given and distributed by a CANONICAL Bishop. A Canonical Bishop is a man whose succession can be shown via lines of ordination that were not touched by heresy. Unfortunately, to this date, no Anglican Priest can meet that stringent requirement.

Why this requirement? Because God intended it to be thus, that the Succession of the Presbyters in the Church would preserve its grand and holy Tradition unharmed and in its complete fullness (Irenaeus; Against Heresies, Vol. 3, Chapter 2, Section 2). These standards were set by our fathers in the councils of Nicaea, Chalcedon, and the rest of our Ecumenical Councils. They, in their wisdom, refused to recognize the validity of Orders issued by heretical bishops. Such is the case of Anglican priests who received their Orders in the beginning from Roman Catholic bishops. As we view the filioque, among other Roman teachings, as heretical doctrines, the holy orders of the first Anglican Bishops were rendered invalid by the heretical doctrines of their ordaining clergy. If a church existed which split from the Arians were to attempt to re-establish Communion with us, we would make the same requirement of them. It is this, an action which requires true humility, to lay down one's cloak in favor of true Communion. And true humility in a man whose call to the clergy comes from God, this will result in his true Ordination in the Church.

The sin that besets us is pride. Is one truly too attached to his cloak and authority to come back to the Church? If one places ANYTHING above that which God ordains, then he has place God into second place in his life, and commits idolatry. One who is so attached to his position of authority is not truly worthy of the authority given him. The man who clutches on tightly to his authority will see his authority slip away as if it were soap. But when he releases hold of his authority, then God will see that and will reward him with far greater than his dreams could offer.

St. Dorotheos of Gaza (Discourses and Sayings; Cistercian Publications pg. 81):

"Listen to what the Lord Himself tells us: 'Learn of Me, for I am meek and humble of heart and you shall find rest for your souls' (Mt. 11:29). There you have it in a nutshell: He has taught us the root and cause of all evils and also the remedy for it, leading to all good. He shows us that pretensions to superiority cast us down and that it is impossible to obtain mercy except by the contrary, that is to say, by humility. Self-elevation begets contempt and disobedience begets perdition whereas humility begets obedience and the saving of souls. And I call that real humility which is not humble in word and outward appearance but is deeply planted in the heart; for this is what He meant when He said that 'I am meek and humble of heart.'"

From Lorenzo Scupoli (Unseen Warfare; SVS Press pg. 261):

"Guard yourself from thoughts, which appear holy and inflame an unreasonable zeal for themselves, of which the Lord speaks allegorically: 'Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits' (Mt. 7:15-16). Their fruit is the languishing and breaking of the spirit. Know that everything which draws you away from humility and from inner peace and quiet, however beautiful it may seem, is nothing but false prophets who, under the cover of sheep's clothing, that is, of a hypocritical zeal to do good to their neighbors without discrimination, are in truth ravening wolves who steal you of your humility, peace and quiet, so necessary to every man who desires steady progress in spiritual life."

I do note that you asked about your group that broke away from mainstream Anglicanism. You have to understand that in the eyes of the Orthodox, your group is no different from the Anglicans, Roman Catholics, or any other protestant group. Schism begets schism, and schism, in the eyes of the Fathers, is worst than heresy.

I understand that the Orthodox Church rejects the branch theory, but just so we're clear, the theory does not say that the multiple branches are God's work. It says that Christ founded one Church (and that there still is only one Church), but that due to sinful man, that one Church has become fragmented at the political level into different branches. Some branches are very healthy, others very sickly, yet others dead perhaps.

Click to expand...

I know, and we reject that because that one Church is still whole. Christ's Body is not fragmented into healthy, sickly, or dying parts. His Body is His Body.

Well, first of all, I don't see any reason to suspect that my church (even unto its ancient history) has ever taught anything other than what the Apostles taught (or at least not contrary to what the Apostles taught).

Click to expand...

well, there is certainly a difference in terms of what the Church is. again, look at the book of Acts. folks did not just hear the Gospel, believe and start their own groups. even after they accepted the Gospel, they came into the already existing Body.

And second, wouldn't the validity of the ordination of a deacon or priest or the consecration of a bishop (as well as the performance of any other sacrament) depend upon the validity of the form, matter, and intent of the sacrament's performance, regardless of whether the performing priest or bishop is guilty of serious sin--even heresy? If not, then how does your position differ from Donatism?

Click to expand...

because we are not talking about a personal sin, ie the bishop who ordains is a drunk, and the profession of a wrong Creed. secondly, to have valid Apostolic succession one needs both the right profession of belief and the unbroken historic line to the Apostles. if you are missing either, you don't have Apostolic succession.

Crandaddy said:

First of all, I want to make clear that neither Fr. Hart's church (the Anglican Catholic Church) nor mine (the United Episcopal Church of North America) is a part of the Anglican Communion. We have severed ties with them because of such issues as the ordination of women and the embrace of homosexuality.

It is Fr. Hart's contention (and I agree with him) that the Traditional, orthodox Anglicanism that sparked such ecumenical interest within the ranks of Orthodoxy lives on in Continuing Anglicanism.

In the words of the Affirmation of St. Louis:

“We affirm that the Church of our fathers, sustained by the most Holy Trinity, lives yet, and that we, being moved by the Holy Spirit to walk only in that way, are determined to continue in the Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship and Evangelical Witness of the traditional Anglican Church, doing all things necessary for the continuance of the same.”

I had expected it would be sufficiently clear that our Continuing Anglican churches are separate from the Anglican Communion...



Well, some Orthodox clerics evidently had enough faith in the validity of Anglican orders and sacraments to grant permission to receive Anglican sacraments under special circumstances. To my knowledge, Orthodox have never been granted such permission to receive Catholic sacraments.



There is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This is certainly true. But can you demonstrate, or at least provide rational support for, your apparent contention that THE Church of the N-C Creed is strictly coextensive with the officially-recognized canonical bounds of Orthodoxy? I would very much like to see it.



Care to elaborate?



And this applies to the Continuing churches I've mentioned as well?



Do you know what the branch theory is?



Preaching to the choir.

Put them away? We've severed the ties and left them behind entirely. So can there now be serious discussion between the Orthodox and the Continuing Anglican churches who have remained faithful to orthodox Tradition?

Click to expand...

Hi, there.

As a former member in the ACC, and with my hubby still in the ACC, this subject is near and dear to my heart. I have had a couple of conversations with the ACC Archbishop when he has visited my hubby's parish, and I respect him highly. I would love nothing better than to see those fine folks received into Orthodoxy!

But that is just it - they would have to come in to the Orthdox Church in order to be in Communion. Theologically, there is not much that separates us from the ACC, but I think the biggest difference is exactly in our understanding of the Church/Body of Christ and what it means to be in it. And I think that is why Anglicans of all stripes have a hard time understanding why we can't just come to some sort of "mutual communion" like TEC & ELCA. For us it is twofold: continuing in the Orthodox faith; and being under a faithful Orthodox Bishop. You have to have both to be Apostolic.

Yes, at one time some (a few?) Orthodox Bishops did allow Orthodox laity to commune in an Anglican parish if an Orthodox parish wasn't available - but that was a very long time ago, and was controversial even then. These days, that would never be allowed.

And it isn't a matter of "western vs eastern" or "rite"; it's simply a matter of connection to the Orthodox Church.

Welcome to TAW, Crandaddy!

Mary

Crandaddy said:

They'd have to be reordained, then? If that's your position, then two of your hierarchs expressly disagree with you (see the letters from the Archbishop of Cyprus and the Patriarch of Alexandria in the article).



Well then, what do you make of this:

“[T]he 'Minister must intend to do what the Church does' by that Sacrament, not 'intend to do what the Church intends'; i.e. he must intend to perform what Christ and the Church require, but need not mean and understand by it all that Christ and the Church understand by it. (Otherwise a stupid or cranky cleric could secretly frustrate every sacramental action he ever performed by holding muddle-headed or perverse ideas about it.) As a Roman Catholic scholar, writing with the imprimatur, once put it: 'People who are not theologians never seem to understand how little intention is wanted for a sacrament (the point applies equally to minister and subject). The “implicit intention of doing what Christ instituted” means so vague and small a thing that one can hardly help having it--unless one deliberately excludes it. At the time when everyone was talking about Anglican orders, numbers of Catholics confused intention with faith. Faith is not wanted. It is heresy to say that it is (this was the error of St. Cyprian and Firmilian against which Pope Stephen I, A.D 254-257, protested). A man may have utterly wrong, heretical and blasphemous views about a sacrament and yet confer or receive it quite validly.' (Adrian Fortescue, The Greek Fathers, London, Catholic Truth Society, 1908, pp. 94-95, n. 2) That is only a provocative way of saying what in substance every Catholic theologian has always said since the third century." (my emphasis)

Gregory Dix, The Question of Anglican Orders: Letters to a Layman, Revised edition (Dacre Press, 1956), pp. 37-38.

Every Catholic theologian since the third century--that's a good eight centuries before the great schism. Bear in mind that these remarks are made specifically within the context of the validity of holy orders.



I've already conceded that the filioque should not have been added to the Creed, but, as I've said, I don't believe it's heretical if properly understood. But besides that, what other heresies do you claim there are (or, more properly, that there were in 1570, when Pope Pius V excommunicated the Church of England for the “heresy” of not committing treason against her monarch)?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]

Not necessarily. Maybe they honestly believe they have valid orders. Maybe I honestly agree. Is that so hard to accept? Let's be fair here.

Click to expand...

I can accept that you believe it sincerely, but sincere belief does not make it true belief. Every priest in the Anglican Church traces back to heretics in that the primary founders of Anglicanism were ordained by believers of the Filioque, and of the Supreme Jurisdiction of the Pope, the two biggest heresies which made up the reasons for the Schism of 1054.

Do you truthfully expect the Church to ignore the canons of the Ecumenical councils which state that those baptized by heretics and schismatics are not holy orders because you believe it to be true? Do you set yourself over the Councils? This is the saying of the Councils:
Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Wheresoever, then, whether in villages or in cities, all of the ordained are found to be of these only, let them remain in the clergy, and in the same rank in which they are found. But if they come over where there is a bishop or presbyter of the Catholic Church, it is manifest that the Bishop of the Church must have the bishop's dignity; and he who was named bishop by those who are called Cathari shall have the rank of presbyter, unless it shall seem fit to the Bishop to admit him to partake in the honour of the title. Or, if this should not be satisfactory, then shall the bishop provide for him a place as Chorepiscopus, or presbyter, in order that he may be evidently seen to be of the clergy, and that there may not be two bishops in the city.

The Anglican rogues are the ones who put themselves into schism by their unlawful acts.

Click to expand...

no, they have been in schism ever since their beginning, because they cannot trace themselves directly back both theologically and historically to the Apostles. only the Orthodox can.

Is it your position that it cannot possibly be fragmented, or that it just simply is the case that it happens not to be fragmented (for whatever reason)?

Click to expand...

cannot be fragmented. Christ's Body is One, He is not divided.

What, exactly, am I supposed to disagree with here?

Click to expand...

if the existing Body that has always been around, and someone is not in communion with THAT body, they should be. that Body is the Orthodox Church.

Please see the Dix passage that I quoted above.

Click to expand...

good quote, however, if a bishop were to say before a service that Jesus is only a man, and that he believes in reincarnation, sorry, not gonna recieve communion from him. that confession excommunicated him from the Church.

Crandaddy said:

Looks to me like it says that the heretical Cathari (Novatian) clergy were to keep their orders and not be reordained (on the condition that they affirm in writing that they'll be faithful to orthodox dogma).

This actually reinforces my position, rather than attack it.

Click to expand...

Ahh, but notice what happens to the bishops of the Cathari. They become presbyters if there is already a bishop in that episcopate. And those who have been twice married or have lapsed must be recommuned. In other words, they had to start from the beginning. In the end, the canon there said that the Bishop under Canon law was the one with the final word. Then again, we have other canons concerning schismatic clergy:

As of the 17th century, the stance on heretics and schismatics returning to the Church was as follows:

2. For Protestants: a profession of faith, as well as an exorcism and insufflation, absolution, confirmation, and communion.

3. For Roman Catholics, Uniates and apostates: a confession of faith, confession, communion.

(As the first refers to non-Christians, I omitted it).

Again, the 8th canon from the Council of Nicaea reads as follows (what I gave last was canon 9):

Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council reads:

As concerning those who call themselves Puritans and who are claiming to be adherents of the catholic and apostolic Church, it has seemed right to the holy and great Council, when they have had hands laid upon them, to let them remain in the clergy. Above all, that it is fitting for them to confess to this in writing, to wit, that they will agree to and will adhere to the dogmas of the catholic and apostolic Church. That is, that they will hold communion with persons married a second time, and with those who in time of persecution have lapsed from the faith; regarding whom a length of time has been fixed, and a due season has been set, for their penance. So that they may adhere to the dogmas of the catholic Church in everything. Wherever they are the only ones found to have been ordained, whether in villages or in cities, they shall remain in the same habit (or order). But wherever there is a Bishop of the catholic Church, and some of them are joining it, it is obvious that, as the Bishop of the Church will keep the dignity of bishop, the one called a bishop among the so-called Puritans shall have the honor of a Presbyter, unless it should seem better to the Bishop that he should share in the honor of the name. But if this does not please him, he shall devise a position either of a chorepiscopus or of a presbyter, with the object of having him seem to be wholly in the clergy, lest there should be two bishops in the same city.


Canon 8 reads very much like canon 9. They were placed side by side, and there is a reason. The Cathari were very new by this time, while the "Puritans" were older as a group. The Cathari still had many who had been ordained and then fell into the heresy. Meanwhile, the Puritans had many who were ordained outside of the Church.

I honestly missed this canon my first time through, which is out of character. However, we see in the first two councils two different approaches to accepting clergy. As the Anglicans were never part of the Orthodox Church, they must be recommuned and reordained. Had they only fallen away from the Orthodox directly, it might have been different.

It is an honorable thing to want unity of the faithful, but it is imperative that we follow those canons as have been set forth for those ordained outside the Church. In many cases, clergy who have converted from Anglican/Episcopal churches have been accepted by Confession and confirmation (Chrismation), then they soon received the ordination.

with regard to the idea that the Church cannot be fragmented - what does that mean, really - how do we set the boundaries on that. What makes a schism, and what is a state of impaired communion.

Sometimes it seems rather like we only discern such things from looking backwards - if a rift is healed it was impaired communion, if not, we call it a schism.

I often get the feeling that if, after the English Reformation, the CofE had approached the east to be reintegrated into the OC, they would have got quite a different answer than they would today. I cant say that I find that reassuring as far as the OCs position on how they approach this issue.