Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[Cappadocious]

I'm assuming he means whether they are administrated with the same authority as the sacraments offered by a canonical priest

Doesn't that sound a little silly to you?

 

[MKJ]

I'm assuming he means whether they are administrated with the same authority as the sacraments offered by a canonical priest

I would not think that was what was meant.

 

[sculleywr]

I would not think that was what was meant.

If he wants them to be recognized as valid by the church, then should that be the definition we use? I mean, the church's recognition is necessary.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So we're clear, we're talking about a good and faithful minister who is doing the best he can and who has valid orders just being cut off from the Body of Christ due entirely to political circumstances completely beyond his control.

I'm sorry, I'm not about to accept this. Unreasonable doesn't begin to describe it.

I can see no good reason to accept dogmatically that the Church always has been and always will be politically one--certainly not in an all-or-nothing sense, where only one ecclesiastical body has any validity of orders, sacraments, etc. at all.

I agree that God will judge people according to the truth that they know, if that's what you mean.

well, as for your first point, please understand that I don't mean that he would be damned or cut off or anything. my point is that Christ established one visible Body at Pentecost, and if we look at Acts, and the first centuries of Christian history, people all joined that Body, even if they were raised in schism. you can say it's unreasonable, but it's what you see in the Bible.

and I said, it's in an all or nothing sense in that there is NO grace in other churches, I said that outside of the visible Body that Christ established, there is no guarentee. I said God can do what He wants.

so if we can see that God judges folks based on the light that they are given, then you should go to where that light shines the brightest, if you can.

 

[Cappadocious]

The question at hand is: What separates a church which becomes doctrinally and practically orthodox, which used to be a doctrinally Orthodox church going back to the first millennium, from the larger body of Orthodox churches?

Because, let's be honest. If the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate were to re-unite with the other Orthodox Churches, they would not be asked to re-ordain their priests or re-chrismate their members. Rather, they would simply commemorate each other in the Diptychs and get on with things.

So the question would be, if an Anglican parish or diocese or group of dioceses were to maintain orthodoxy, why would they have to re-ordain or re-Chrismate/confirm upon re-established communion between Churches?

The relationship between the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Anglican Church in the early 1900's does not suggest such a practice. The only place I see such a practice coming from in the 21st century would be from the Russian church and those influenced by it, and it would be based on dubious recent custom rather than a coherent Patristic Orthodox foundation rooted in how schismatic churches have historically been received into commemoration.

 

[Crandaddy]

If. However, the application has been carried over that they be re-ordained. Finally, the question you haven't answered. If you consider us to be the original church, and you believe the authority of a Sacrament is from the Church, then why, when what you would say is the first Church, would you believe orders given apart from said Church have authority? Are they suddenly NOT sacraments? If you wish to become Orthodox, you must admit that the Orthodox are the first and original Church. If Sacraments obtain their authority by virtue of being delivered by the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth, then how would a sacrament NOT delivered by that Pillar be a REAL Sacrament?

The authority and validity of all orders and sacraments comes from and is dependent upon the one true Church. What we might have in an errant church is a state of impaired communion with the one true Church, but it might not be so radically cut off from the Church that its orders and sacraments cease to be real orders and sacraments (i.e. that the grace of its sacramental acts ceases to come along with their performance), provided that, for any given sacrament:

(1) a proper minister performs the sacrament, with

(2) intent to do what the Church intends to do by the sacrament, according to both

(3) a proper spoken sacramental form (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” for baptism), and

(4) proper matter and/or sacramental rubric; this would be the “outward and visible sign” of the sacrament, as we Anglicans say (e.g. the use of water in baptism).

These are the conditions that Rome accepts for the validity of a sacramental act, I understand.

Note that (1) does not imply that the minister understand what the Church understands of the sacrament, nor does it imply that he not hold any false or even heretical beliefs about it (this is Fortescue's point in the Dix passage I quoted above).

And yet this was also EXTREMELY controversial, and eventually the statement was retracted, because it needed to NOT be said, especially when there was no universal acceptance of this within the Church.

I will repeat myself. If the Sacrament was not delivered by a representative canonically standing as a Bishop of the Church, then it is not a valid Sacrament. If this is the stance you must take, then it is a stance you must act on. It is why we DON'T receive Communion in Protestant Churches. The Communion partaken of outside of the Orthodox Church is invalid, as the Fathers have said:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

--St. Ignatius.

From whence did an Anglican Bishop receive his authority? If you trace the ordination back, one of them received their authority from a heretic. Do heretics have any authority in the Church? If the heretic delivers the sacrament of Ordination, can he stand in for the Bishop?

From whence does the Bishop receive authority? From God, and through the Church, for God does nothing within his Church which is not done through those OF the Church. God does not plant the Churches in countries by saying "Let here be a Church". No, He sends His Church there and His Church builds the church. He does not make the bread appear out of thin air for every Liturgy. No, He calls for us to prepare the prosphora, which is brought to the Altar and is there blessed, consecrated, and transformed into the very Body of Christ along with the wine, which becomes the blood of Christ.

Likewise, God NEVER ordained a man apart from His previously ordained bishops which follow Him in His Church. Can a man be a bishop if he is not part of the Church? How can he? He is not submitted to the Body of Christ, but outside of it. He may emulate and imitate the Body of Christ, but until one is truly joined to the Body, one is not of the Body. If we claim the Orthodox Church to be the Church, then we must accept ALL of the logical repercussions. That includes accepting the fact that an ordination apart from the Church's authority is not an ordination at all, being only a tradition which has been divorced from the great and holy Church to which it belonged.

The sacraments must be delivered by a validly consecrated bishop who retains the grace of his office, and the validity of his consecration must of necessity ultimately come from the (one true) Church. I think we're more or less in agreement here.

However, you seem to think that a bishop can invalidate his office, so that the sacraments he delivers no longer confer the grace that they might signify. If so, then how, exactly, does he do that? Earlier you mentioned that his ordinal line must not be tainted by heresy. What, exactly, do you mean by the term “heresy”? What constitutes a heretical bishop?

If we will see it that way, it becomes obvious that the promise of re-ordination given is, in fact, a mercy which the Church did not have requirement of. As St. John Maximovitch said:

God's Church will never lack the number of bishops, priests, deacons, readers, singers and altar boys it needs. For this reason, those who were called to serve at the altar or on the kliros must bear in mind that they must not become unworthy and must not be cast out.

Had the Church gone full-bore, it could have required that one come in the same fashion as a layman. But to be accepted into the Church with a short period until one's reordination is not something the Church is required to do. We can never make demands of the Church, nor ultimatums. If we claim her to be the true Church, then we know that ultimatums will not avail. Therefore, those who make ultimatums of the Church must not recognize the position and nature of the Church. The Church does not need us. It is we who need the Church. It is I who need the Church. It is you who needs the Church. The Church will go on without us, for the Church needs nothing which we can give.

Let us keep that in mind.

You are correct that those who seek acceptance to the Church are not in any position to make demands or ultimatums of her. I've never claimed otherwise.

What do you mean by validity?

A sacrament is valid if the grace of the sacrament is conferred along with the sacramental act, and holy orders are valid so long as the grace of the sacrament of ordination is conferred and retained.

If I were to attempt to celebrate the Eucharist, for example, my celebration would not be valid (and therefore would not produce the true Body and Blood of Christ) because I have never received a valid ordination (and therefore have never received the authority to celebrate the Eucharist that comes with the sacramental grace of ordination).

It perhaps bears repeating here that the validity of a sacrament and the authority to administer it would NOT be original to an errant church. They are original to the one true Church. An errant church might be thought of as having a sort of “ectopic” and dependent relation to the Church proper, but it would not be utterly cut off, so that its sacraments would not confer the grace that they signify (provided that they meet the conditions I outlined above).

This is how Rome views the Orthodox Church, basically.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If I may interject. Sometimes I tend to look in terms of St. Cyprian. What is the good of "valid" sacraments if we embrace false teachings or un-orthodox dogmas? Orthodoxy isn't a legalistic faith, and it's certainly not given to analyzing "validity." That's why the term was questioned. The Sacraments are definitely powerful medicines for the health of the soul and for the healing of our souls and bodies, as the Divine Liturgy tells us. But equally important with right sacrament is right thinking.

I was an Anglican for around 7-8 years. I can safely say that I've never been in a communion of people more confused, chaotic, warring, diverse, and rebellious religiously in all my life. From Calvinistic TULIP thinking to radically pseudo-papal Tractarianism to something in between....it was a messy enterprise. I looked at God through legal terms with Calvin pecking at me as I claimed to be an "Anglo-Catholic."

There is definite truth in Anglicanism, mixed with a hodge-podge of varying views that span from Spong to Katherine Schiori all the way to C.S. Lewisish theology to N.T. Wright. There is widespread acceptance of women's ordination, and in some areas like mine, there is more of an inclination against it. There are jurisdictions that forbid it but outsource priestesses to other jurisdictions that accept it?! Sola fide, sola scriptura, and a loosey-goosey approach was my parish while there are Calvinist parishes elsewhere. There is just no firm Orthodoxy and I think the waters are greatly muddied.

I miss some things I adored about my Anglican parish, but for every thing there that I liked, there are ten in my Orthodox one.

I have never had more moral, theological, and spiritual clarity in all my life. Orthodoxy is just that---Orthodox in teaching and spirituality, not just sacraments. To have sacraments, but have murky theological waters and not be in right understanding of the Fathers and the known safe harbor of Orthodoxy, well, I just don't see how speculating about it is a worthwhile endeavor....I personally hope the best for Anglicans and think many of them (MANY) are awesome people with huge hearts full of love for God, but to speculate about "validity" and orders working mechanically viably outside of proper teachings, what is the point?

 

[sculleywr]

The authority and validity of all orders and sacraments comes from and is dependent upon the one true Church. What we might have in an errant church is a state of impaired communion with the one true Church, but it might not be so radically cut off from the Church that its orders and sacraments cease to be real orders and sacraments (i.e. that the grace of its sacramental acts ceases to come along with their performance), provided that, for any given sacrament:

(1) a proper minister performs the sacrament, with

(2) intent to do what the Church intends to do by the sacrament, according to both

(3) a proper spoken sacramental form (e.g., “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” for baptism), and

(4) proper matter and/or sacramental rubric; this would be the “outward and visible sign” of the sacrament, as we Anglicans say (e.g. the use of water in baptism).

These are the conditions that Rome accepts for the validity of a sacramental act, I understand.

Note that (1) does not imply that the minister understand what the Church understands of the sacrament, nor does it imply that he not hold any false or even heretical beliefs about it (this is Fortescue's point in the Dix passage I quoted above).

The sacraments must be delivered by a validly consecrated bishop who retains the grace of his office, and the validity of his consecration must of necessity ultimately come from the (one true) Church. I think we're more or less in agreement here.

However, you seem to think that a bishop can invalidate his office, so that the sacraments he delivers no longer confer the grace that they might signify. If so, then how, exactly, does he do that? Earlier you mentioned that his ordinal line must not be tainted by heresy. What, exactly, do you mean by the term “heresy”? What constitutes a heretical bishop?

You are correct that those who seek acceptance to the Church are not in any position to make demands or ultimatums of her. I've never claimed otherwise.

Then why should a person ordained OUTSIDE of the Church demand that the Church recognize his ordination. You, however, failed to notice that the number one requirement of a Sacrament or Ordination was:

a proper minister performs the sacrament.

Deductive logic
Premise 1: Well, I can assume that the Anglicans consider the Roman Catholics to not be proper ministers, if they share the Orthodox view of them.
Premise 2: I can also assume that all of the original bishops of the Anglican Church were ordained by Roman Bishops, as this is not a very large logical leap based on the history of the Anglicans.
Premise 3: a proper minister must perform the sacraments, of which, Ordination is part.
Conclusion: Therefore, the ordinations given to the first bishops of the Anglican Church were invalid.

Question raised is: Wherein do Anglican Orders gain validity? They did not start with validity. At which point did they gain validity? Unless you can name a concrete place and time where they gained the validity of being delivered by a priest in an ordinal line unbroken by invalid ordinations, then the argument is moot. The Church would be justified, therefore, in denying any such privileges. The Church would be justified in enforcing the hardline rule of entrance via exorcism and Chrismation, followed by several years of training before any convert becomes clergy of the lower ranks.

Now, it is true that a bishop can invalidate his office, and from the point of his deposing, whether he is present for it or not (not was the case of most Roman bishops after the schism), he no longer is viewed by the Church as a vessel through which grace can come, for grace cannot travel through a heart unyielding to God's truth, for it must first get INTO the heart before it can travel through. Should a bishop espouse heresy, schism, or sin in his heart, how then can grace dwell therein, or flow therefrom? This was the message of John Maximovitch. Judas fell, and so did Nicholas of the Seventy, and many deacons, priests, and Bishops have fallen away, losing the authority of their position to heresy and schism such as the Arians, the Notatians, and the Monophysites. Espousing heresy does not, as you put it, "retain the grace of his office." It revokes that grace, for it denies the truth of the Giver of grace Himself.

 

[MKJ]

Who is demanding anything? Presumably everyone is interested in doing the right thing. Not doing something because you don't want people to demand something from you is dysfunctional.

 

[MKJ]

The question at hand is: What separates a church which becomes doctrinally and practically orthodox, which used to be a doctrinally Orthodox church going back to the first millennium, from the larger body of Orthodox churches?

Because, let's be honest. If the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Kiev Patriarchate were to re-unite with the other Orthodox Churches, they would not be asked to re-ordain their priests or re-chrismate their members. Rather, they would simply commemorate each other in the Diptychs and get on with things.

So the question would be, if an Anglican parish or diocese or group of dioceses were to maintain orthodoxy, why would they have to re-ordain or re-Chrismate/confirm upon re-established communion between Churches?

The relationship between the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Anglican Church in the early 1900's does not suggest such a practice. The only place I see such a practice coming from in the 21st century would be from the Russian church and those influenced by it, and it would be based on dubious recent custom rather than a coherent Patristic Orthodox foundation rooted in how schismatic churches have historically been received into commemoration.

Yes, this is precisely the sort of question that I was trying to get at.

 

[sculleywr]

Who is demanding anything? Presumably everyone is interested in doing the right thing. Not doing something because you don't want people to demand something from you is dysfunctional.

The demands made include that the ordination of Anglicans. But since that ordination occurred outside of true apostolic succession, a succession untainted by the impurity of heresy in any of the ordinations in its line of succession, there is an inability of the Church to choose to do that.

 

[MKJ]

The demands made include that the ordination of Anglicans. But since that ordination occurred outside of true apostolic succession, a succession untainted by the impurity of heresy in any of the ordinations in its line of succession, there is an inability of the Church to choose to do that.

I haven't seen any mobs of Anglican priests beating on the doors of Orthodox churches demanding to be admitted.

A discussion about what is true is not a demand, even when you don't come to an agreement. If you frame it that way all you do is make it impossible to talk at all.

 

[sculleywr]

I haven't seen any mobs of Anglican priests beating on the doors of Orthodox churches demanding to be admitted.

A discussion about what is true is not a demand, even when you don't come to an agreement. If you frame it that way all you do is make it impossible to talk at all.

Saying that the priests not ordained by canonical bishops must receive ordination under our canons is hardly stating anything new. That is the plain sense of the canons.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would also point out that this is nothing new. St Stephen, Pope of Rome, called St Cyril of Alexandria (I think it was him, one of those) the antichrist because he was recieving schismatics via baptism and ordaining their clergy, because he saw them outside of the Church, and therefore he did not recognize their clerical orders.

 

[Cappadocious]

Saying that the priests not ordained by canonical bishops must receive ordination under our canons is hardly stating anything new. That is the plain sense of the canons.

Sort of like "the plain reading of Scripture"?

"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..." -1st Ecumenical Council, Canon 8

By contrast, the Paulicians, who denied the Trinity, were re-baptised and re-ordained.

So...

Which do you consider orthodox Anglicans to be most like?

 

[Crandaddy]

What is the good of "valid" sacraments if we embrace false teachings or un-orthodox dogmas?

If we embrace them? No good at all. Deadly, in fact. Especially reception of the Blessed Sacrament. See Paul's warning in 1 Corinthians.

Orthodoxy isn't a legalistic faith, and it's certainly not given to analyzing "validity."

What do you mean by “legalistic”? It seems to me that Orthodox aren't entirely innocent of legalism either. I've seen Orthodox produce lists of charges against Catholics a mile long that are rife with what seem to me the most petty and insignificant things. I can't for the life of me see why, for example, it is absolutely necessary for leavened prosphora to be used for the Eucharist, yet there are many Orthodox who absolutely insist on it.

And further, I don't think analyzing validity of sacraments and orders is legalistic. It's necessary in order to determine where the Church is and where she isn't. I can't just go create a church that perfectly emulates the Orthodox Church and expect the Orthodox Church to immediately acknowledge my church's legitimacy. Why? Because in order to be legitimate, the clergy of my church would need to receive valid orders. The Orthodox Church knows this. Even if the specific term “valid” isn't commonly used in the Orthodox lexicon to describe what my church would require, the basic idea is indispensable to the legitimacy of the Orthodox Church herself. Otherwise, I wouldn't be taking Orthodoxy seriously (and I do take Orthodoxy very seriously).

Then why should a person ordained OUTSIDE of the Church demand that the Church recognize his ordination. You, however, failed to notice that the number one requirement of a Sacrament or Ordination was:

a proper minister performs the sacrament.

Deductive logic
Premise 1: Well, I can assume that the Anglicans consider the Roman Catholics to not be proper ministers, if they share the Orthodox view of them.
Premise 2: I can also assume that all of the original bishops of the Anglican Church were ordained by Roman Bishops, as this is not a very large logical leap based on the history of the Anglicans.
Premise 3: a proper minister must perform the sacraments, of which, Ordination is part.
Conclusion: Therefore, the ordinations given to the first bishops of the Anglican Church were invalid.

Question raised is: Wherein do Anglican Orders gain validity? They did not start with validity. At which point did they gain validity? Unless you can name a concrete place and time where they gained the validity of being delivered by a priest in an ordinal line unbroken by invalid ordinations, then the argument is moot. The Church would be justified, therefore, in denying any such privileges. The Church would be justified in enforcing the hardline rule of entrance via exorcism and Chrismation, followed by several years of training before any convert becomes clergy of the lower ranks.

Now, it is true that a bishop can invalidate his office, and from the point of his deposing, whether he is present for it or not (not was the case of most Roman bishops after the schism), he no longer is viewed by the Church as a vessel through which grace can come, for grace cannot travel through a heart unyielding to God's truth, for it must first get INTO the heart before it can travel through. Should a bishop espouse heresy, schism, or sin in his heart, how then can grace dwell therein, or flow therefrom? This was the message of John Maximovitch. Judas fell, and so did Nicholas of the Seventy, and many deacons, priests, and Bishops have fallen away, losing the authority of their position to heresy and schism such as the Arians, the Notatians, and the Monophysites. Espousing heresy does not, as you put it, "retain the grace of his office." It revokes that grace, for it denies the truth of the Giver of grace Himself.

I think what it boils down to is that I find your view of how clergy can invalidate their orders to be troublesome.

If you look at a given cleric's ordinal line, you might see that it includes members of a schismatic sect. You might see that it includes members of a sect that held false beliefs. However, you will not be able to see what sin those particular individuals harbored in their hearts. Just because someone is located on the wrong side of a schismatic divide does not necessarily mean that he personally is guilty of the sin of schism. Likewise, just because someone is counted among members of a group that holds false beliefs does not necessarily mean that he personally is guilty of the sin of heresy; he might hold honestly mistaken beliefs. I, for example, do not believe that the Filioque is theologically heterodox. You say that it is. If you are correct, then does that necessarily make me personally guilty of the serious sin of heresy?

And even in the Orthodox Church, how can you be so sure that your own clergy aren't secretly guilty of invalidating sins? To my knowledge, Orthodoxy does not claim that her clergy are a pristine showcase of saints. Are you certain that the Orthodox Church neither has nor has ever had any clergy who secretly harbor contempt for other members of the Body of Christ, or who secretly hold heretical beliefs but for whatever reason prefer not to speak up about them, or who are secretly guilty of any other invalidating sin? Would not the sacramental acts that such clergy perform be invalid by your standard? And if so, then how can you really be sure that your bishop is really a bishop, that your priest is really a priest, or even that the Communion you receive is really the Body and Blood of Christ at any Orthodox Liturgy you might attend? I don't think you can. In fact, I think the probability that a very large portion of Orthodox clergy have invalid orders and offer invalid sacraments is quite high, given your standard.

Basically, I see your standard as a two-edged sword. It cuts the Orthodox Church the same as the Anglican and Roman Churches. This is why I'm inclined to accept the Roman standard for assessing sacramental and ordinal validity. It doesn't encounter this problem.

I would also point out that this is nothing new. St Stephen, Pope of Rome, called St Cyril of Alexandria (I think it was him, one of those) the antichrist because he was recieving schismatics via baptism and ordaining their clergy, because he saw them outside of the Church, and therefore he did not recognize their clerical orders.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, I believe it was.

 

[sculleywr]

I think what it boils down to is that I find your view of how clergy can invalidate their orders to be troublesome.

If you look at a given cleric's ordinal line, you might see that it includes members of a schismatic sect. You might see that it includes members of a sect that held false beliefs. However, you will not be able to see what sin those particular individuals harbored in their hearts. Just because someone is located on the wrong side of a schismatic divide does not necessarily mean that he personally is guilty of the sin of schism. Likewise, just because someone is counted among members of a group that holds false beliefs does not necessarily mean that he personally is guilty of the sin of heresy; he might hold honestly mistaken beliefs. I, for example, do not believe that the Filioque is theologically heterodox. You say that it is. If you are correct, then does that necessarily make me personally guilty of the serious sin of heresy?

And even in the Orthodox Church, how can you be so sure that your own clergy aren't secretly guilty of invalidating sins? To my knowledge, Orthodoxy does not claim that her clergy are a pristine showcase of saints. Are you certain that the Orthodox Church neither has nor has ever had any clergy who secretly harbor contempt for other members of the Body of Christ, or who secretly hold heretical beliefs but for whatever reason prefer not to speak up about them, or who are secretly guilty of any other invalidating sin? Would not the sacramental acts that such clergy perform be invalid by your standard? And if so, then how can you really be sure that your bishop is really a bishop, that your priest is really a priest, or even that the Communion you receive is really the Body and Blood of Christ at any Orthodox Liturgy you might attend? I don't think you can. In fact, I think the probability that a very large portion of Orthodox clergy have invalid orders and offer invalid sacraments is quite high, given your standard.

Basically, I see your standard as a two-edged sword. It cuts the Orthodox Church the same as the Anglican and Roman Churches. This is why I'm inclined to accept the Roman standard for assessing sacramental and ordinal validity. It doesn't encounter this problem.

Yes, it does cut both ways. While we cannot be completely sure that a Bishop is sinning in secret, it is our faith in God which validates the Sacraments if the Bishop IS sinning.

HOWEVER, If we know a Bishop is sinning or is promoting heresy or schism, then we are now held accountable NOT to accept the gifts he offers. They are no longer gifts, for we know of the nature of the tree, and the gifts are the fruits thereof. If we knowingly partake of the gifts of a Schismatic or heretic, then we are stating that we are KNOWINGLY in Communion and agreement with a heretic or Schismatic.

Therefore, in the knowledge that the Anglicans come from the seed of the fruit of a tree of heresy (namely the Roman Catholic doctrines held by the priests ordaining the first priests to break away from the Romans), how then can we expect them to be valid? The Anglican Church has never in its history been able to claim a Succession unbroken by heresy. It is simply impossible.

Therefore, it is the solemn duty of the Anglican priest to seek a Succession which is unbroken. It is not a chore, but a blessing, to receive Ordination into the TRUE Apostolic Succession. And seeing how Anglicans are the ONLY Protestants to receive such an offer from the Orthodox Church, it is quite an example of the Economia (grace) extended thereto.

The standard I hold is this: If heresy is known or visible in the Successive Ordination of a priest, or if heresy or sin is visible in his life in a habitual way, he is to be considered invalid. In the case of an Orthodox Priest, the discovery of heresy or habitual sins of large magnitude, or single sins of such magnitude, results in instant defrocking. It is grace which is practiced when a schismatic priest is offered re-ordination, much more so when a whole group of schismatics are offered re-ordination.

 

[sculleywr]

Sort of like "the plain reading of Scripture"?

"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..." -1st Ecumenical Council, Canon 8

By contrast, the Paulicians, who denied the Trinity, were re-baptised and re-ordained.

So...

Which do you consider orthodox Anglicans to be most like?

Mostly neither. The Cathari and the Paulicians were both schismatics directly from the Orthodox Church. Many of them had been ordained by canonical bishops. Anglicans have never been ordained by Canonical priests. If a Sacrament is made true by the administration of a Canonical clergy who has kept the faith pure, how then can the ordination of Anglicans be true? Which Canonical clergy oversaw it?

 

[Cappadocious]

Anglicans have never been ordained by Canonical priests.

Yes they have. They've been around for over a millennium.

Or is there only a lee-way period of one generation (a policy with no canonical basis afaik)? If the UOC-KP were to re-unite with us, all bishops, priests, and deacons ordained by once-removed bishops would have to be re-ordained?

I don't see that happening.

And further, I don't think analyzing validity of sacraments and orders is legalistic. It's necessary in order to determine where the Church is and where she isn't.

In the Church, "in the course of human events", that is typically determined by mutual commemoration in the diptychs, not by investigating sacramental validity as such. Hence there is no discussion of "valid and/or licit" sacraments and/or mysteries.

So you could discuss how to determine validity, how to recognize it, etc. all you want, and reasonable people aren't gonna yell stuff about scholasticism and whatnot, because nobody cares. The OCC simply doesn't really focus on "validity" as the litmus test for unity.

 

[searn77]

Greetings! Christ is baptized! I'm new to this forum and hope to partake in some of the discussions that go on in here. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm an Old Calendarist Orthodox Christian which means I'm not in communion with the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Moscow, etc.

Anyways I've read this thread and it reminded me of a letter I've read by Metropolitan Ephraim of HOCNA that can be found if you go to HOCNA's website, go to the faith tab, and scroll down to where it says "Economia in Church History" (I can't post the link since I am a new member here but if you can't find it you can always PM me).

I know I'm doing it an injustice by trying to sum up his point but basically there have been events in the Church's past where, if one were to apply the strictness of the canons, would imply that the validity of the Sacraments in the Orthodox Church would be invalid. Just to provide one example, St. Anatolius was consecrated Patriarch of Constantinople by Dioscuros (who was condemned by the 4th Ecumenical Council) and Eutychus a heretic. According to the Apostolic canon #68 St. Anatolius' ordination was invalid. Yet St. Anatolius upheld Orthodox teaching against heresy and St. Tarasius (a later Patriarch of Constantinople) even called St. Anatolius' consecration from heretics an "ordination from God." The Church didn't say that St. Anatolius' ordination was invalid and therefore all the Sacraments he administered were invalid as well; rather the Church in this circumstance recognized his ordination as valid.

Basically the article goes on to say that there have been grey areas in the Church's past that are not so clear cut regarding the validity of sacraments. And God's grace is not a light switch that immediately switches on & off at a flick of someone teaching a heresy or going into schism. Sure, heretics and schismatics do not have grace in their sacraments, but as to the precise time when the heretics and schismatics lose grace is up to God, as God's grace is uncreated and is His own self-giving.

Although Met. Ephraim is not in communion with World Orthodoxy and therefore makes statements about World Orthodoxy that they would obviously object to, I'd still highly recommend reading his letter in order to understand how economia is used in the Church.

Now the Anglicans are really in a whole different situation than the example that I provided above and if I were to venture and take a guess I would have to say that I believe their sacraments are invalid. But I just wanted to chime in and say that we can't put our faith in the canons in order to prove the validity of Sacraments but rather put our faith in God and His Church where we know that the Sacraments are valid.