Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[sculleywr]

I just have a lot of trouble with the idea that Apostolic Succession is as fragile as Sculley says it is. This is why I'm inclined toward the Augustinian camp contra Cyprian and the Donatists. Surely we must say that God can deliver the sacraments even through flawed and sinful ministers, and I believe that he in fact does.

Of course, we are always obligated to pursue the Truth to what extent we are able to see Him, and if we see the Truth shining most brightly in another church (or even in THE Church), then we surely are obligated to go to her. And I should say further that even though God might extend His grace (perhaps even through the sacraments) to those who through no fault of their own are less enlightened than we, I do believe that should we choose to remain where they are and receive those sacraments, despite our vision of the Truth, we sin against God.

We don't see Succession as weak. We see men as weak. When a man knowingly separates himself from God by seeking after heresy and schism, then he taints his gift.

What we say is that since we do not see the grace imparted, then we cannot act as though the grace is there. The Church does not say where grace is. We, however, can only act upon the actions of the grace we perceive.

 

[sculleywr]

That is just a totally unrealistic reading of history. People did not do that, and no, the issues were not that clear. In a feudal society where there was no clear division between temporal and spiritual power and authority, where there was no speedy transport and no speedy communications - this was not like some small, or even large, heretical group that was clearly defined as wrong by the Church.

Martyrdom wasn't the issue, it wasn't that people wanted to join the Eastern bishops (or vice versa) but were afraid to - it was just not the way people thought about society and authority.

Many things in history happen because of accidents of time, or accidents of geography, more than because individuals will them, and that is true in the history of Christianity as well. People can't make choices where they don't perceive there are choices to be made.

Then why would the bishops themselves excommunicate eachother? There were bishops in the west besides the Pope excommunicating the East.

 

[Cappadocious]

I never said any of that. I am simply staying a fact. If the purpose of the succession is lost, then the succession is lost.

I am saying that even if you hold that intellectually, people have not historically read the same consequences from it that you do(that you'd need to re-ordain after X amount of time in schism because there's nothing left for the Grace of the Church to fill up.)

 

[sculleywr]

I am saying that even if you hold that intellectually, people have not historically read the same consequences from it that you do(that you'd need to re-ordain after X amount of time in schism because there's nothing left for the Grace of the Church to fill up.)

No, but it has been the practice of the Church that the bishops hold the authority to determine the need to re-ordain, according to the understanding of canons 8 and 9 of the Council of Nicaea.

 

[ArmyMatt]

just on a sidebar, and maybe some more info, but Fr Andrew Damick on his Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Podcast on AFR get's into Apostolic succession, and I think his take on it was pretty good.

 

[Cappadocious]

No, but it has been the practice of the Church that the bishops hold the authority to determine the need to re-ordain, according to the understanding of canons 8 and 9 of the Council of Nicaea.

I'd agree with that. So we should look at how the Church of Jerusalem's bishops were dealing with orthodox Anglicans in the 20th century.

 

[buzuxi02]

The article is written from a traditionalist Anglican point of view, looking at those events that took place during the early 20th century thru the Anglican prism things certainly looked rosy.

Of course the historical events from an Orthodox point of view is alot murkier. For starters Patriarch Meletius of Constantinople and later of Alexandria was a deposed bishop. He was not well liked and was able to secure his post(s) after being defrocked due to his relative Venizelos political alliance with Britian. During this time the Brits held great sway as the anti-Ottomons. This is why Orthodox have a great disdain for freemasonry. Meletius truly was a fringe figure.

The article claims that unity go back to 1922 as if in Orthodoxy that's a long time. All the instances of Anglican - Orthodox cooperation in the last few hundred years only amounts to a dozen or so examples. Some of them are from the USA in the 1800's when Orthodoxy here only amounted to a few parishes you can count on one hand.

Furthermore the term "validity" in Orthodoxy has a different meaning than in the west. For us it may simply mean a proper form fulfilling the requirements of eikonomia. There is absolutely no apostolic succession without right belief.

 

[sculleywr]

I'd agree with that. So we should look at how the Church of Jerusalem's bishops were dealing with orthodox Anglicans in the 20th century.

Looking at one group of bishops from one diocese is not near a representative sampling. Look at the whole. Not the few. If you want, they could bring the topic up in the next pan-orthodox council. But whatever that Council says should be the measuring stick.

 

[Crandaddy]

There is absolutely no apostolic succession without right belief.

But surely you see how this is problematic. You can't see someone's private beliefs; all you can see are his exterior acts and professions of belief. He might be lying, for all you know. How do you propose to solve this problem?

 

[buzuxi02]

Its irrelevant what an individuals personal opinons are as long as they remain personal. Bishops are to preserve the faith unadultered, without alterations or additions. He must safeguard and pass down the Tradition which he recieved.

 

[Crandaddy]

Its irrelevant what an individuals personal opinons are as long as they remain personal. Bishops are to preserve the faith unadultered, without alterations or additions. He must safeguard and pass down the Tradition which he recieved.

So an Orthodox cleric can secretly be a heretic or harbor some other very serious sin and still validly ordain clergy and perform other sacramental acts? All that matters is that he doesn't outwardly teach or profess anything that breaks with Tradition?

It's not about right belief, then, but about right outward appearance (saying and doing the correct things, going through the motions), in other words. Is this what you're saying?

 

[sculleywr]

But surely you see how this is problematic. You can't see someone's private beliefs; all you can see are his exterior acts and professions of belief. He might be lying, for all you know. How do you propose to solve this problem?

As far as we can tell, the Bishops of the Orthodox Church have carried down, for us, the right beliefs. We cannot state with any certainty, much less 100%, that the Anglican Succession has done that.

 

[MKJ]

So an Orthodox cleric can secretly be a heretic or harbor some other very serious sin and still validly ordain clergy and perform other sacramental acts? All that matters is that he doesn't outwardly teach or profess anything that breaks with Tradition?

It's not about right belief, then, but about right outward appearance (saying and doing the correct things, going through the motions), in other words. Is this what you're saying?

I think you probably have to look at it collectively rather than individually - which should not be a surprise as Christianity is a collectivist religion in many ways.

The idea being, I think, that in Orthodoxy the heretical views of that individual are not going to be able to infect the whole of the Church in any meaningful way. If they are expressed, the OC deals with them, possibly to the point where the heretical individual or group becomes excluded from the institutional Church. Because they see that this has always worked for them in the past (over the long term anyway) they are confident in their own apostolic succession and access to sacraments as a Church.

(Of course if we could show this is historically not the case, this argument would be untenable.)

On the other hand, this has evidently not been the case in Anglicanism, and it is debatable whether we even say that it should be true theoretically. Heretical bishops have been allowed to infect Anglican doctrine. We now have people who think they can have a blessed sexual relationship that is not a marriage, that the laity can confect the Eucharist, that the Eucharist can be given to dogs, that apostolic succession is unimportant. These are acceptable views at Anglican theological colleges. When I look at the various traditional Anglican groups, one of my first thoughts is that there is really nothing preventing the same thing happening in them. When someone like Spong can be allowed not only to lead, but teach perfidious doctrine, how could we know that he is not so far away from Christian teaching that he can even function as a bishop.

That is the real issue with the way Westerners talk about validity - while holding a heretical view does not in itself invalidate an office, at some point it begins to impact things like intent. Can someone who believes that Christianity is a sort of metaphor have intent, for example. And Spong is not alone - I know of other bishops with similar views that are not well known. Do those bishops really connect us to the Church,. And what about the priests they ordain.

Who knows, really. After a generation, maybe a declaration of belief would suffice to weed out those returning. After 10 generations, well, it is hard to say if apostolic secession is intact or not, especially for someone who is not actually a member of the group.

 

[sculleywr]

I think you probably have to look at it collectively rather than individually - which should not be a surprise as Christianity is a collectivist religion in many ways.

The idea being, I think, that in Orthodoxy the heretical views of that individual are not going to be able to infect the whole of the Church in any meaningful way. If they are expressed, the OC deals with them, possibly to the point where the heretical individual or group becomes excluded from the institutional Church. Because they see that this has always worked for them in the past (over the long term anyway) they are confident in their own apostolic succession and access to sacraments as a Church.

(Of course if we could show this is historically not the case, this argument would be untenable.)

On the other hand, this has evidently not been the case in Anglicanism, and it is debatable whether we even say that it should be true theoretically. Heretical bishops have been allowed to infect Anglican doctrine. We now have people who think they can have a blessed sexual relationship that is not a marriage, that the laity can confect the Eucharist, that the Eucharist can be given to dogs, that apostolic succession is unimportant. These are acceptable views at Anglican theological colleges. When I look at the various traditional Anglican groups, one of my first thoughts is that there is really nothing preventing the same thing happening in them. When someone like Spong can be allowed not only to lead, but teach perfidious doctrine, how could we know that he is not so far away from Christian teaching that he can even function as a bishop.

That is the real issue with the way Westerners talk about validity - while holding a heretical view does not in itself invalidate an office, at some point it begins to impact things like intent. Can someone who believes that Christianity is a sort of metaphor have intent, for example. And Spong is not alone - I know of other bishops with similar views that are not well known. Do those bishops really connect us to the Church,. And what about the priests they ordain.

Who knows, really. After a generation, maybe a declaration of belief would suffice to weed out those returning. After 10 generations, well, it is hard to say if apostolic secession is intact or not, especially for someone who is not actually a member of the group.

Well, well, well. MKJ, were you reading my mind to figure out what I have been trying to say? This is masterfully put.

 

[MKJ]

Well, well, well. MKJ, were you reading my mind to figure out what I have been trying to say? This is masterfully put.

I'm glad I managed to put it clearly.

ETA: I should add, in case any one picks up on it, that I don't actually know any Anglican theological colleges that say it is a good idea to give the Eucharist to dogs. But the idea that the Eucharist is just a symbol, though not Anglican, is common enough in such places.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think you probably have to look at it collectively rather than individually - which should not be a surprise as Christianity is a collectivist religion in many ways.

The idea being, I think, that in Orthodoxy the heretical views of that individual are not going to be able to infect the whole of the Church in any meaningful way. If they are expressed, the OC deals with them, possibly to the point where the heretical individual or group becomes excluded from the institutional Church. Because they see that this has always worked for them in the past (over the long term anyway) they are confident in their own apostolic succession and access to sacraments as a Church.

(Of course if we could show this is historically not the case, this argument would be untenable.)

On the other hand, this has evidently not been the case in Anglicanism, and it is debatable whether we even say that it should be true theoretically. Heretical bishops have been allowed to infect Anglican doctrine. We now have people who think they can have a blessed sexual relationship that is not a marriage, that the laity can confect the Eucharist, that the Eucharist can be given to dogs, that apostolic succession is unimportant. These are acceptable views at Anglican theological colleges. When I look at the various traditional Anglican groups, one of my first thoughts is that there is really nothing preventing the same thing happening in them. When someone like Spong can be allowed not only to lead, but teach perfidious doctrine, how could we know that he is not so far away from Christian teaching that he can even function as a bishop.

That is the real issue with the way Westerners talk about validity - while holding a heretical view does not in itself invalidate an office, at some point it begins to impact things like intent. Can someone who believes that Christianity is a sort of metaphor have intent, for example. And Spong is not alone - I know of other bishops with similar views that are not well known. Do those bishops really connect us to the Church,. And what about the priests they ordain.

Who knows, really. After a generation, maybe a declaration of belief would suffice to weed out those returning. After 10 generations, well, it is hard to say if apostolic secession is intact or not, especially for someone who is not actually a member of the group.

wow, this is an awesome response.

 

[sculleywr]

wow, this is an awesome response.

I think posts like this and people who say this and other Orthodox teachings are the reason that dialogue with certain parishes should be serious and both parties should be looking for the end goal of conciliar union.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think you probably have to look at it collectively rather than individually - which should not be a surprise as Christianity is a collectivist religion in many ways.

The idea being, I think, that in Orthodoxy the heretical views of that individual are not going to be able to infect the whole of the Church in any meaningful way. If they are expressed, the OC deals with them, possibly to the point where the heretical individual or group becomes excluded from the institutional Church. Because they see that this has always worked for them in the past (over the long term anyway) they are confident in their own apostolic succession and access to sacraments as a Church.

(Of course if we could show this is historically not the case, this argument would be untenable.)

On the other hand, this has evidently not been the case in Anglicanism, and it is debatable whether we even say that it should be true theoretically. Heretical bishops have been allowed to infect Anglican doctrine. We now have people who think they can have a blessed sexual relationship that is not a marriage, that the laity can confect the Eucharist, that the Eucharist can be given to dogs, that apostolic succession is unimportant. These are acceptable views at Anglican theological colleges. When I look at the various traditional Anglican groups, one of my first thoughts is that there is really nothing preventing the same thing happening in them. When someone like Spong can be allowed not only to lead, but teach perfidious doctrine, how could we know that he is not so far away from Christian teaching that he can even function as a bishop.

That is the real issue with the way Westerners talk about validity - while holding a heretical view does not in itself invalidate an office, at some point it begins to impact things like intent. Can someone who believes that Christianity is a sort of metaphor have intent, for example. And Spong is not alone - I know of other bishops with similar views that are not well known. Do those bishops really connect us to the Church,. And what about the priests they ordain.

Who knows, really. After a generation, maybe a declaration of belief would suffice to weed out those returning. After 10 generations, well, it is hard to say if apostolic secession is intact or not, especially for someone who is not actually a member of the group.

Good analysis..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

both parties should be looking for the end goal of conciliar union.

Personally, it seems rather difficult for union to occur so long as there is so much fragmentation in the Anglican camp.



In example, the issues of new leadership have been a very sharp issue when seeing how those who qualify for good leadership are ignored while others are accepted easily..

• BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Archbishop becomes druid

As said elsewhere, the entire "Druid" aspect is saddening, although thankfully it's not something all Anglicans are for thankfully (especially the African Anglican Bishops who've often done A LOT in calling out paganism such as that...more here, here and here). Dr John Sentamu (one of the African Anglican Bishops, highly righteous/wise and humble man of God who has stood against immorality) has been installed by bookies as their favourite person to become the new Archbishop in the wake of the Archbishop of Canterbury announcing that he'd step down by the end of 2012 year...and it has caused a lot of controversy.

Many have noted plainly where they'll no longer support the Archbishop or recognize his authority because of it....and whereas others note that what that Archbishop did was not really join paganism since others see it in the same realm as many Baptists see FreeMasonry as a social club/order divorced from religious overtones pagan in nature, others see it the way many Evangelicals/others in Christendom see FreeMASONRY when it comes to the demonic/devotion to the Devil....needing NO acceptance at any point. What the Archbishop did is exactly what the sister branch of Anglicanism (Episcopal ) did in justifying so many unbiblical stances that it's not even close to being Christianity.

Many have been praying actively for others to take the helm such as Dr John Sentamu --as he's one of the Anglican Bishops being voted on to replace the one who became a Druid. As said before, he's a radical man of the Lord who stood against the things the Archbishop of Cantenbury supported (be it paganism or same-sex relationships, etc) and has taken a lot of flack due to being the only African Bishop around...something many have noted to be a huge controversy. But the man has provided excellent leadership and has been a big encouragement for others in the Anglican church combatting against people in it that've been doing things like the Episcopal church that allows so much garbage into it.

 

[MKJ]

Personally, it seems rather difficult for union to occur so long as there is so much fragmentation in the Anglican camp.



In example, the issues of new leadership have been a very sharp issue when seeing how those who qualify for good leadership are ignored while others are accepted easily..

• BBC NEWS | UK | Wales | Archbishop becomes druid

As said elsewhere, the entire "Druid" aspect is saddening, although thankfully it's not something all Anglicans are for thankfully (especially the African Anglican Bishops who've often done A LOT in calling out paganism such as that...more here, here and here). Dr John Sentamu (one of the African Anglican Bishops, highly righteous/wise and humble man of God who has stood against immorality) has been installed by bookies as their favourite person to become the new Archbishop in the wake of the Archbishop of Canterbury announcing that he'd step down by the end of 2012 year...and it has caused a lot of controversy.

Many have noted plainly where they'll no longer support the Archbishop or recognize his authority because of it....and whereas others note that what that Archbishop did was not really join paganism since others see it in the same realm as many Baptists see FreeMasonry as a social club/order divorced from religious overtones pagan in nature, others see it the way many Evangelicals/others in Christendom see FreeMASONRY when it comes to the demonic/devotion to the Devil....needing NO acceptance at any point. What the Archbishop did is exactly what the sister branch of Anglicanism (Episcopal ) did in justifying so many unbiblical stances that it's not even close to being Christianity.

Many have been praying actively for others to take the helm such as Dr John Sentamu --as he's one of the Anglican Bishops being voted on to replace the one who became a Druid. As said before, he's a radical man of the Lord who stood against the things the Archbishop of Cantenbury supported (be it paganism or same-sex relationships, etc) and has taken a lot of flack due to being the only African Bishop around...something many have noted to be a huge controversy. But the man has provided excellent leadership and has been a big encouragement for others in the Anglican church combatting against people in it that've been doing things like the Episcopal church that allows so much garbage into it.

Realistically if we see Anglicans coming into some sort of official relationship with the OC, I think it will be at the level of the parish rather than diocese or larger groups. And it will be a slow thing that happens over time, because as we probably all know, a parish making any big decision takes forever.

The thing about the archbishop becoming a druid is not actually true though, and the Anglican Communion already has its new archbishop of Canterbury - not Sentamu as it happens.