Similarities between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

[Decanus]

I've heard plenty about the similarities between Roman Catholic beliefs, traditions and style of worship, but not much about the Orthodox and Anglican Church's. Can anybody answer these questions:

1. What are the Similarities in Orthodox and Anglican style of worship and the differences?
2. What beliefs do both groups agree on and what ones do they disagree on?

Also, i've heard that the Anglican Church is more like the Orthodox Church than the Catholic Church. Can anyone tell me more about this and what their opinions are on the matter?

Thank you

 

[Cappadocious]

You might want to investigate the near union between the CoE and the Jerusalem patriarchate in the former half of the 20th century.

 

[LewsTherin]

I think Anglicanism and Orthodox Christianity has more common ground on the Anglo-Catholic end of the Anglican spectrum, particularly regarding how we view the Eucharist as a mystery, believing in the real presence of Christ while not trying to define the mechanics of it. I doubt an Evangelical Anglican with Calvinist leanings would have much in common with an Orthodox Christian theologically. I think that this great diversity in beliefs that are present in Anglicanism is why the talks of full communion with the Orthodox kind of fizzled out. Seems like I read that somewhere, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

For what it's worth, I'm trying to get more beards and incense in our parish.

 

[HalupkiMonster]

For context: I consider myself an Episcopalian Christian. I left the Eastern Orthodox Church about one year ago.

Similarities: There are many liturgical similarities, such as the litanies read and the responses to the celebrant. There are three lengthy gospel readings in both traditions, which the Catholic Church lacks. There are set books of prayer, and set prayers which the faithful say individually, but in unison (BCP and Orthodox prayer books.)

Differences: Well...quite a few, obviously. For starters, the EO commune with the bread and wine together, and the Anglicans give them separately. It is the practice in most Eastern Traditions for the priests and monastics to wear beards, as well as black cassocks wherever they go. The Eastern Orthodox liturgy, very often, contains the language of the particular jurisdiction of the Church (Russian, Greek, Polish, Serbian, Arabic, etc.) while the Anglican parishes have a large majority, if not all of the service, in English when in an English speaking nation.

The services of the Orthodox Church are also considerably longer than Anglican ones, and you will nearly ne'er find pews in an Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Christians are mainly converts from conservative Evangelical backgrounds. As a result, there is a new wave of social conservatism. You would never see a female priest, or a non-celibate homosexual receiving communion, or any of the accepting attitudes and actions that I love about the Anglican Church.

The Orthodox also praise the saints and Mary, the Theotokos/Bogoroditsa/Mother of God, for a considerable amount of the services and prayers, where in the Anglican tradition, focus is put on Christ for the most part.

The Orthodox Church also seems to despise everything western. I got this attitude from many people. Western Christian traditions were seen as obsolete to the traditions of the Christian east.

There is also a heavy focus on ethnicity, even in "American" perishes. Those of us (myself included) with heritage in non Orthodox countries felt left out when or parishes or Church camps had ethnic/cultural events. You see, my heritage is British. I am proud of it, but I resented it for a good period of my life in the Orthodox Church.

Lastly, and probably the most considerable difference of all, is the attitude towards other denominations. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, other faiths are seen as lacking truth. Even (and especially) other denominations of Christianity. My old Orthodox Church, and many that I've been to, have an attitude that everyone is crazy except the Orthodox, and that others need to be taught the true faith and the true gospel of the Orthodox Christian faith.

In the Anglican/Episcopal Church I, who am a cradle Presbyterian/fallen Orthodox Christian, was treated like a brother in Christ, and was truly made to feel as part of the family. I didn't need any special "saving" because of my denominational affiliation (other than the pure and true Christian saving that all people need,) so I am proud to wear my cross and call myself an Anglican.

 

[Cappadocious]

Orthodox Christians are mainly converts from conservative Evangelical backgrounds.

Come now, you don't really believe that, do you?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Come now, you don't really believe that, do you?

Well, it seems to be true of my local Greek Orthodox church at least. I couldn't say of any others.

 

[HalupkiMonster]

Come now, you don't really believe that, do you?

Sorry, I don't mean to generalize (though I realize that my post was one big generalization after another.) I was just speaking from opinion. In my experience, most Orthodox who attend Church regularly were converts. The "cradle" Orthodox usually stayed home until Pascha rolled around.

 

[mark46]

We can start with the obvious. Orthodoxy has no room for ordained females or ordained active homosexuals.

Also, I would note that The Episcopal Church in the US came very close to being accepted as an Orthodox church around 1900.

The BCP is acceptable to the Orthodox for liturgy with a few minor changes.
=================
Perhaps we are generalizing. However, converts to the US Orthodox churches tend to be evangelical. See the article below and do an internet search of Peter Gillquist. There have been many, many conversion stories of evangelical pastors.

Why are so many "Becoming Orthodox"

http://www.antiochian.org/content/b...-orthodox-again-interviews-fr-peter-gillquist

I find it interesting that when these evangelicals study and are led by the Spirit, they choose the ancient church. Anglicans (including Methodists) can simply cross the Tiber. Evangelicals just don't have that option.
==============

Personally, I find Orthodox theology more clear than that of any of the churches, although I find John Wesley speaks best to best my heart. Whenever there is a theological issue, I know I can go to an Orthodox site for clarity.

Anglicans are so varied that it is impossible to really discuss how we differ from the Orthodox. Obviously, an evangelical, Calvinist leaning, might find Orthodoxy strange indeed. Orthodoxy considers Calvinism a heresy.
In the end Anglicanism is a western Church with much of its hangups with regard to their understanding of sin and reconciliation. But, in reality, an Anglo-Catholic is almost as far away, given the closeness to Roman understandings of sin.

Jesus died so that we can be reconciled with the Father. He rose, conquering death and the Evil One. The 7 sacraments are not to be understood mechanically; they are mysteries (form the Greek) rather than sacraments (from the Latin). For the Orthodox. If one starts with the understanding of ancestral sin, one can better understand the differences. BTW, Oden and others have found that Wesley is much closer the Orhtodoxy than others in the West.

 

[Cappadocious]

When drawing a comparison between "high" Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, you can, of course, find many liturgical and practical similarities; the greatest similarity, however, would be ecclesiology.

The Anglican Church has traditionally had a relationship to secular leaders and to bishops more similar to that of the Orthodox Church in many respects. Norman feudalism "caste" a few things about regarding landed gentry bishops and all that. But it's tough to find an analogue to the Rum Millet system in the Ottoman Empire.

Anyway, Anglicans and Orthodox are similar theologically, and their understanding of sin, while "western" is not reliant upon Penal Substitution as a *necessary* component. And Anglicans have proven willing to use the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and all that good stuff.

Anglicans hold to the Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils, though they place a heavy emphasis on the Council of Chalcedon, following their Roman Catholic influence/roots. As a result, they have a "Chalcedonian Christology" that doesn't use the same sort of language as the Councils of Constantinople II and III. But, as long as they confess that one of the trinity suffered in the flesh, I don't see a problem.

Those are some thoughts.

I understand that the Russians and Copts get along quite well with the Anglicans in Britain and often collaborate on things.

In America, many High Church Anglicans joined the Orthodox Church after becoming disaffected; I would rather see a union with High Church Anglicans as a body, personally. Orthodox ecclesiology allows the Churches to form a relationship of communion by simply recognizing another body as Orthodox (right-believing), rather than having to "bring it into allegiance with X". One ecclesiastical advantage our communions share, which respects the autonomy and heritage of each local church.

 

[mark46]

And where are the modern-day Bishop Grafton and Saint Tikhon when we need them? The spirit of their prayers is still alive at Nashotah House and St Vladamir's (Episcopal and Orthodox seminaries) which often work and pray together.

http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/hatfield.pdf

 

[Albion]

When drawing a comparison between "high" Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, you can, of course, find many liturgical and practical similarities; the greatest similarity, however, would be ecclesiology.

The Anglican Church has traditionally had a relationship to secular leaders and to bishops more similar to that of the Orthodox Church in many respects.

The Church of England, perhaps, not Anglicans in general.

Anglicans hold to the Seven Roman Ecumenical Councils

A minority probably do, on an individual basis, but it's never been part of any official statement, formulary, etc.

In America, many High Church Anglicans joined the Orthodox Church after becoming disaffected; I would rather see a union with High Church Anglicans as a body, personally. Orthodox ecclesiology allows the Churches to form a relationship of communion by simply recognizing another body as Orthodox (right-believing), rather than having to "bring it into allegiance with X". One ecclesiastical advantage our communions share, which respects the autonomy and heritage of each local church.

But "High Church Anglicans" are not a body, i.e. a church in itself...unless you are speaking of one of the Continuing Anglican churches such as the Anglican Catholic Church. It would probably be interested in any overtures coming from the East.

 

[Cappadocious]

The Church of England, perhaps, not Anglicans in general.

I suppose being in America, where Episcopalian is most commonly used, makes me forget that Canada and other parts of the world also use "Anglican". You're right, I meant the CoE.

A minority probably do, on an individual basis, but it's never been part of any official statement, formulary, etc.

Perhaps, but aren't the first four councils "practically" held to, as they are in the RCC?

But "High Church Anglicans" are not a body, i.e. a church in itself.

Yes, I was suggesting that they could be acknowledged as a church in themselves, or churches in themselves, should a reunion occur.

 

[Albion]

I suppose being in America, where Episcopalian is most commonly used, makes me forget that Canada and other parts of the world also use "Anglican". You're right, I meant the CoE.

It's not the term that I was concerned with. My own church is "Anglican" by name and not "Episcopal," but that is beside the point. What I meant is that the Church of England is an established church, so it follows that the church-state situation you were speaking of would apply. Most of the world's Anglican churches are not established churches, however.

Perhaps, but aren't the first four councils "practically" held to, as they are in the RCC?

Unofficially, yes. It was the "seven" councils that I was referring to..

Yes, I was suggesting that they could be acknowledged as a church in themselves, or churches in themselves, should a reunion occur.

Practically speaking, how could that be done? Individual church members would have to leave their parishes and reorganize into Anglican Use parishess or something like that, right?

 

[Mary of Bethany]

The Church of England, perhaps, not Anglicans in general.


A minority probably do, on an individual basis, but it's never been part of any official statement, formulary, etc.



But "High Church Anglicans" are not a body, i.e. a church in itself...unless you are speaking of one of the Continuing Anglican churches such as the Anglican Catholic Church. It would probably be interested in any overtures coming from the East.

I've been privileged to have a couple of conversations at dinner with Abp. Haverland of the ACC. Very nice man! Though he is very fond of Orthodoxy, and had at least some conversation with former Met. Jonah of the OCA, he of course remains Anglican at heart. I do not think he would consider leading the ACC in to Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy would only accept full entrance into the Orthodox Church, not just some sort of inter-communion.

Mary

 

[Albion]

I've been privileged to have a couple of conversations at dinner with Abp. Haverland of the ACC. Very nice man! Though he is very fond of Orthodoxy, and had at least some conversation with former Met. Jonah of the OCA, he of course remains Anglican at heart. I do not think he would consider leading the ACC in to Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy would only accept full entrance into the Orthodox Church, not just some sort of inter-communion.

Mary

Hi, Mary.

I have no doubt that you are correct. In fact the ACC gave it a try some years ago, and of course it came to nothing. My mention of it here was only because there are few other Anglican jurisdictions in this country that are both clearly Anglo-Catholic and would have any interest at all in some accomodation with Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't think there's a real chance, however.

 

[ebia]

It's not the term that I was concerned with. My own church is "Anglican" by name and not "Episcopal," but that is beside the point. What I meant is that the Church of England is an established church, so it follows that the church-state situation you were speaking of would apply. Most of the world's Anglican churches are not established churches, however.

Many (most?) are colonial churches that started as established churches though - an offshoot of the Church of England in an offshoot of the British Empire.

 

[mark46]

I understand the The Ancient Way (Orthodoxy) differently than you do. There has always been room for whole churches to become part of an existing Orthodox church as was the case when Peter Gillquist and a whole church body joined the Antiochan Church.

HOWEVER, in the late 1900's the Orthodox almost accepted The Episcopal Church and its BCP as a church within Orthodoxy, with minor changes to the BCP. Orthodoxy does not require that churches dissolve. Also, within the Antiochian Orthodox Church, there still exist a Western Anglican liturgy which is
acceptable, although not widespread.

Inter-communion based on compromise is NOT a good idea, IMHO. I prefer the approach of Nashotah House (an Anglo-Catholic Anglican seminary) and Saint Vladimir's (an Orthodox seminary). They have worked together for years, have prayed together and have had joint programs.

I've been privileged to have a couple of conversations at dinner with Abp. Haverland of the ACC. Very nice man! Though he is very fond of Orthodoxy, and had at least some conversation with former Met. Jonah of the OCA, he of course remains Anglican at heart. I do not think he would consider leading the ACC in to Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy would only accept full entrance into the Orthodox Church, not just some sort of inter-communion.

Mary

 

[Albion]

Many (most?) are colonial churches that started as established churches though - an offshoot of the Church of England in an offshoot of the British Empire.

As they say...

That was then; this is now.

 

[mark46]

You seem to celebrate the fact that the Continuers, ACNA and GAFCON have succeeded in almost completely breaking up the national Anglican churches and the Anglican Communion.

As they say...

That was then; this is now.

 

[Albion]

You seem to celebrate the fact that the Continuers, ACNA and GAFCON have succeeded in almost completely breaking up the national Anglican churches and the Anglican Communion.

That's nonsense. But I am a Continuing Anglican and just as entitled to be here as you. Do you expect me to be depressed or apologetic that our churches have survived? And BTW, I hardly ever say anything about GAFCON and I do not support ACNA.

No, there's almost nothing about your complaint that has merit.



.