Similarities between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy?

[mark46]

And back at you.

The Anglican Communion and the 39 provinces still exist. The Anglican Communion has withstood almost 30 years of attack from those who cannot accept its decisions made in the 70's.

Perhaps this decade will see the Anglican Communion give up to the pressure, and the Communion will fold, become and English and an African Communion, or simply become unsustainable with half of the primates in continuing boycott. Or perhaps, the new ABC will lead the primates back into meetings and something will actually get accomplished at Lambeth. In the meantime, we have one US province within the Anglican Communion.

And yes, we have separated Anglican brethren who have chosen to leave the Anglican Communion. I wish you all well.

Get a life, Mark.

 

[Albion]

.

 

[mark46]

Of course you have the same rights here as I do.

In the years that I have been here, I have read literally thousands of attacks against the Anglican Communion and its US province, here on the fellowship site for world Anglicans.

I made an observation, a comment, when you posted that the established national churches were part of the past, rather than the present. I make no complaint. We are Anglican. We are American. We are individualistic with personal rights to say whatever we want, especially on message boards.

I do not judge your comments. I read them; I pray; I react; I post my own comments. Others can read and find the discussion interesting or not.

I never ask those who have left the Communion to apologize. I don't have that right. I do comment on the effect of their leaving, especially within my own diocese.

However, you might at least try to understand why some of us think that the announcement of the death of the Anglican Communion and its 39 provinces is somewhat premature.

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.

And yes, I do understand that you have not discussed ACNA and GAFCON and are not a proponent of their actions.


.

 

[Cappadocious]

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?

That would not be ideal.

The ideal would be for parishes or segments of dioceses, or, in a pipe dream, a diocese, to declare themselves Orthodox (right believing) and then be recognized as such. As I said before, our ecclesiologies allow us to do this without "assimilation". You do not become Orthodox by pledging submission to the Patriarch of Constantinople or something.

Orthodoxy would only accept full entrance into the Orthodox Church, not just some sort of inter-communion.

Mutual recognition as Orthodox "in the diptychs" so to speak, is how a local church "enters" the Orthodox Church.

As they say...

That was then; this is now.

Well, I was referring to history past, in any case. Orthodoxy is not a state church in the U.S., either.

 

[Albion]

That would not be ideal.

The ideal would be for parishes or segments of dioceses, or, in a pipe dream, a diocese, to declare themselves Orthodox (right believing) and then be recognized as such. As I said before, our ecclesiologies allow us to do this without "assimilation".

That was my point in response to the simplistic idea that a possible Anglican-EO unity could come about just by having Anglicans change churches. And as for this comment: "I would rather see a union with High Church Anglicans as a body, personally," well, the cold hard fact is that it's near impossible to find a likely candidate church body.

I've taken no stand on the desirability of such a union. People have speculated on such a thing for decades, generations even, but before anyone gets too excited about it, it would be nice to have some way of pulling it off.

 

[Cappadocious]

well, the cold hard fact is that it's near impossible to find a likely candidate church body.

Are you saying that's because high church anglicans don't go to a "high church parish"?

 

[Albion]

Are you saying that's because high church anglicans don't go to a "high church parish"?

"High church" is a term that can mislead people, so let's hold that aside.

Here's my point...What seems to be hoped for in this scenario is for some Anglican church body to join the EO. The problem is that there isn't any such that I know of. At least not one that is prominent enough to count.

Mostly, Anglican jurisdictions include members who are of several different "parties" or leanings, and one parish could be of one theological profile while the one down the road is of another.

So if that suggests an alternative that is for INDIVIDUALS to separate from their present Anglican bodies in order to convert to some EO jurisdiction, that doesn't represent the coming together of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy in any meaningful way. There are, as we know, people moving back and forth from one of these churches to another all the time, but the two communions remain distinct.

 

[Cappadocious]

Mostly, Anglican jurisdictions include members who are of several different "parties" or leanings, and one parish could be of one theological profile while the one down the road is of another.

Even a parish could declare itself Orthodox, though. They would probably receive a bishop from an existing EO diocese in that case. They would still retain their identity.

So if that suggests an alternative that is for INDIVIDUALS to separate from their present Anglican bodies in order to convert to some EO jurisdiction, that doesn't represent the coming together of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy in any meaningful way.

I agree.

 

[mark46]

Please give an example where a parish entered the EO and kept their liturgy and remained relatively the same as before, except for now having an Orthodox bishop.

I understand that when Peter Gillquist brought his entire church body, with its 17 parishes over to orthodoxy, the priests had to chrismated and then re-ordained as Orthodox priests. The members were chrismated. While they retained some independence for awhile, there was no question that the group had become Orthodox and had become part of the Orthodox Church.

Please note that I have nothing but praise for the Antiochian patriarch who accepted these 2000 souls into Orthodoxy (especially after the patriarch of Constantinople had refused them.
=====================
The discussions around 1900 and then around 2000 were about The Episcopal Church being accepted as an Orthodox church. The kind if acceptance that you speak of is relatively minor, and in any case is not likely to happen. I would also note that these folks would be expected to adopt Orthodox custom and eventually become integrated into the Orthodox church of which they had become a part. As noted above, this is what happened to Peter Gillquist's church. IMHO, an independent Episcopal local parish under an EO bishop just doesn't happen.

Even a parish could declare itself Orthodox, though. They would probably receive a bishop from an existing EO diocese in that case. They would still retain their identity.

 

[Cappadocious]

Please give an example where a parish entered the EO and kept their liturgy and remained relatively the same as before, except for now having an Orthodox bishop.

Wikipedia provides this: "The first Episcopal parish to be received into the AWRV was the Episcopal Church of the Incarnation in Detroit, Michigan".

Once the various jurisdictions are integrated into the OCA, then it would have just been a right-believing parish with Anglican tradition. Just as my parish would be a right-believing parish in the Rum Antiochian tradition.

I understand that when Peter Gillquist brought his entire church body, with its 17 parishes over to orthodoxy, the priests had to chrismated and then re-ordained as Orthodox priests. The members were chrismated. While they retained some independence for awhile, there was no question that the group had become Orthodox and had become part of the Orthodox Church.

These were Evangelicals that had begun to take on Greek and Russian Orthodox practices themselves. They had no organic apostolic Christan tradition.

They cannot be equated to the Anglican Church, which has its own ancient tradition.

 

[Albion]

Even a parish could declare itself Orthodox, though. They would probably receive a bishop from an existing EO diocese in that case. They would still retain their identity.

Well, sure. BUT IMO that still doesn't represent a union of "Anglicanism and Orthodoxy." It's slightly more significant than having a number of parishioners from some Episcopal parish decide that Orthodoxy is their choice and so they convert. Or a priest seeking to be accepted by the Antiochian or some other Orthodox jurisdiction. For there to be some significant level of the two communions coming together there would have to be a substantial union of jurisdictions on both sides. Something like the Uniates, for example.

BTW, I agree that the followers of Peter Gillquist--the Evangelical Orthodox Church--do not provide any precedent because those were non-Anglican Protestants who discovered Apostolic Succession and the historic liturgy, etc. through a study of Anglicanism but were not Anglicans.

 

[rhartsc]

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.

I have been a member of OCA, Antiochian, and Greek parishes. My experience is that the OCA and Antiochian have alot of converts. In my OCA parish more than half were converts and the last 3 priests were converts. Mostly from Roman Catholicism. In the most recent Antiochian parish the vast majority were converts from the Evangelical tradition. And they still were essential evangelical in outlook and were very conservative. In the other orthodox churches I have been to that are more ethnic like the Greek Church there are very few converts I find and if they are it was through marriage. Thats my experience anyway. I am sure it is different in every locale.

 

[rhartsc]

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 just wanted to add that besides the Antiochian Western Rite there is also the ROCOR(russian) Western Rite. As far as I know there has been greater cooperation as of late between these two Vicariates. I also know that many Byzantine rite Orthodox want the Western Rite to succeed. I think that would be a beautiful thing if different rites could receive the honor and dignity they deserve in one church.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

Please give an example where a parish entered the EO and kept their liturgy and remained relatively the same as before, except for now having an Orthodox bishop.

I understand that when Peter Gillquist brought his entire church body, with its 17 parishes over to orthodoxy, the priests had to chrismated and then re-ordained as Orthodox priests. The members were chrismated. While they retained some independence for awhile, there was no question that the group had become Orthodox and had become part of the Orthodox Church.

Please note that I have nothing but praise for the Antiochian patriarch who accepted these 2000 souls into Orthodoxy (especially after the patriarch of Constantinople had refused them.
=====================
The discussions around 1900 and then around 2000 were about The Episcopal Church being accepted as an Orthodox church. The kind if acceptance that you speak of is relatively minor, and in any case is not likely to happen. I would also note that these folks would be expected to adopt Orthodox custom and eventually become integrated into the Orthodox church of which they had become a part. As noted above, this is what happened to Peter Gillquist's church. IMHO, an independent Episcopal local parish under an EO bishop just doesn't happen.

I do know of one example - a parish (St Peter's) in Fort Worth, TX that left the Episcopal Church in the 90s and converted to a WR parish under the Antiochians. I've been there for Evening Prayer (during a pan-Orthodox service during Lent), and I doubt the worship changed much. They traded the BCP for the Orthodox WR liturgy. Their fasting rules are "western" (more lenient than in the Eastern rite) and their services, in Holy Week for instance, still follow western traditions.

They were able to keep their building, and it is a beautiful church that looks like any traditional Episcopal church, with a few icons added.

Mary

 

[rhartsc]

Please give an example where a parish entered the EO and kept their liturgy and remained relatively the same as before, except for now having an Orthodox bishop.

I understand that when Peter Gillquist brought his entire church body, with its 17 parishes over to orthodoxy, the priests had to chrismated and then re-ordained as Orthodox priests. The members were chrismated. While they retained some independence for awhile, there was no question that the group had become Orthodox and had become part of the Orthodox Church.

Please note that I have nothing but praise for the Antiochian patriarch who accepted these 2000 souls into Orthodoxy (especially after the patriarch of Constantinople had refused them.
=====================
The discussions around 1900 and then around 2000 were about The Episcopal Church being accepted as an Orthodox church. The kind if acceptance that you speak of is relatively minor, and in any case is not likely to happen. I would also note that these folks would be expected to adopt Orthodox custom and eventually become integrated into the Orthodox church of which they had become a part. As noted above, this is what happened to Peter Gillquist's church. IMHO, an independent Episcopal local parish under an EO bishop just doesn't happen.

This is exactly what would happen here in the US. In some Orthodox Churches outside the US they probably wouldn't have been so generous. The Orthodox are split on whether those they consider heterodox are truly baptized or not. There are various methods used to join the Church. I was chrismated, some are baptized, for some it is a profession of faith and very rarely it is by receiving the Eucharist.

 

[mark46]

Praise be to God!

I do know of one example - a parish (St Peter's) in Fort Worth, TX that left the Episcopal Church in the 90s and converted to a WR parish under the Antiochians. I've been there for Evening Prayer (during a pan-Orthodox service during Lent), and I doubt the worship changed much. They traded the BCP for the Orthodox WR liturgy. Their fasting rules are "western" (more lenient than in the Eastern rite) and their services, in Holy Week for instance, still follow western traditions.

They were able to keep their building, and it is a beautiful church that looks like any traditional Episcopal church, with a few icons added.

Mary

 

[Cappadocious]

Something like the Uniates, for example.

God forbid!

 

[Cappadocious]

This is exactly what would happen here in the US. In some Orthodox Churches outside the US they probably wouldn't have been so generous. The Orthodox are split on whether those they consider heterodox are truly baptized or not. There are various methods used to join the Church. I was chrismated, some are baptized, for some it is a profession of faith and very rarely it is by receiving the Eucharist.

I think you need to examine the practices of the Rum churches of the Middle East and Greece, rather than simply the U.S. and Russia.

 

[rhartsc]

I think you need to examine the practices of the Rum churches of the Middle East and Greece, rather than simply the U.S. and Russia.

How do you mean?

My understanding is that the EP, the CofG, Cyprus, Jerusalem,and Alexandria are rather strict while the Antiochian Patriarchate is less so. If you have a different view/experience I am eager to learn.

 

[Cappadocious]

How do you mean?

My understanding is that the EP, the CofG, Cyprus, Jerusalem,and Alexandria are rather strict while the Antiochian Patriarchate is less so. If you have a different view/experience I am eager to learn.

From what I have been told, the practice "in the field" involves lots of economia toward converts from RC, OO, Anglicans, what have you. General high church folk.