Anglican - Orthodox relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter angelic06
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

angelic06

Guest
I have an interest in the old hierarchical churches and their relationship to each other, as well as history in general. I am particularly interested in the early history between Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy, as well as Anglican activity in the East (I think India comes to mind).

This is especially considering that I am both a member of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, a structure intended for Catholics coming in from Anglicanism or Methodist (allowing some exceptions for cradle Catholics), as well as a frequent attendee of a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic community. While I would never leave the Holy Catholic Church, I am wondering if there are lessons to be gained from learned from contacts between hierarchical churches (that is, those with the orders of deacon, presbyter, bishop) which we Catholics can use in improving our relationships among our own Catholic churches sui juris?

Anyway, the following article is from 1920 which deals with early relations between Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. Discuss in this thread anything which might relate to this topic.

http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/emhardt_historical1920.html
 
Last edited:
Hullo! I am presently in a continuing Anglican parish. Perhaps I could be of some help?

I’m sure there are lessons we can all learn from each other. I pray we all grow closer together. We need each other. Jesus wants us to be one. I don’t pretend to know what that looks like, but I know schism is bad. What you are doing is very noble and good.

Having listened to the (very fragmented) continuing Anglican concerns, they are personally very afraid of being swallowed up by the Borg and assimilated. They want to keep what keeps them unique, particularly their liturgy and patrimony. Because they are so small, ecumenical dialogue is often approached as making them join the Borg (whether Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic). I think they want to be respected, even though they are small, and they want to be heard as they have something to offer that is worthwhile to bring to the table and share. For example, they are concerned that the strict uniformity of liturgy (especially in Eastern Orthodoxy) will annihilate their own Prayer Book liturgy. (This is a valid concern, since the Western Rite is often viewed by the Eastern Orthodox as a halfway house to get converts into a full Byzantine liturgy.) They want to stay Western in their cultural habits, as that is their identity.

I do read in some continuing Anglican blogs of an admiration for and a desire to resurrect the old Sarum Latin liturgy, upon which the Prayer Book is largely based (with some combination of Greek liturgy and other sources). Perhaps this can be a bridge liturgy to help them keep their “English” identity as we all work out how to be in unity with one another? Then again, too many are still in love with Cranmer’s work.

As far as doctrinal matters are concerned, Anglicans tend to have more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy, especially concerning purgatory. However, I am convinced that the New Perspective on Paul and especially N.T. Wright’s take on it can provide all three of us a common language with which to dialogue. I often feel that especially Protestants and Roman Catholics talk past each other. If we could find a Rosetta Stone to use to translate, I think we could make serious progress. Wright’s reworked terminology can help us lose the linguistical baggage we’ve acquired and start over. We could use him as a point of reference to talk about where we agree and disagree. Of course, this would involve actually trying to understand Wright rather reading our own terminology into him and assuming he’s saying something he didn’t even mean to say. It takes a special skill to relearn our “language” and start over. (A lot of notable Protestants are horrible at understanding him.)

Regardless of what we use as a Rosetta Stone, if we can try to find a common modern language that we can all understand, I think we can all make significant progress toward unity. Will there be differences? Oh, yes! But we can begin to have discussions concerning our real differences, rather than attacking straw men, which happens far too often.
 
I’m a Orthodox from the Middle East I’m not so knowledgeable on my church practices since I’m a recent convert living in a country with no other Christians who practice the faith. I would like to learn a bit about Angelica’s if you don’t mind I thought they were a type of Protestant denomination mixed with Catholicism.
 
I think a great place to start for understanding Anglicanism in general would be with Richard Hooker. There is a new translation into modern English in progress for his “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” being done by the Davenant Institute available here, with an Amazon link as well, in case ye olde English is not appealing (it reads like Shakespeare). (They’ve only got the Preface and volume I done so far, though.) I believe you will find much in common with what he believes concerning the nature of the Church. (Recall he is writing against Puritans.) Perhaps he can be one of our Rosetta Stones, to see what we have in common? And, obviously, some of what we don’t, but it begins a discussion, doesn’t it?
 
Hi Masihi!

I’ll have to do this in three posts due to character count limits.

Anglicans are a funny church. In England during the Protestant Reformation, they sort of had their own Reformation that hardly gets covered in the history books. It all started when Henry the VIII wanted an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. You see, England had just come out of the War of the Roses, and the Tudor house had come out on top. Henry and others were concerned that if he did not produce a male heir, then there would be another big civil war in England to determine which house would hold the monarchy. Since Catherine had not yet born a male child, and only given him a daughter, Mary, he asked the other English Lords if they would accept his illegitimate son as an heir (they wouldn’t). He then sought an annulment from the church, thinking he was cursed by God because Catherine had been his deceased brother’s wife and the Bible forbade such close relations. He was denied his annulment. (Recall that Spain had heavy influence on the papacy at this time, and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles, was a relative of Catherine. To be fair, he had petitioned for an exception to marry Catherine in the first place, as she had been his brother’s widow, under the grounds that she and Arthur had not consummated their union. On the other hand, Henry said that they had consummated the union when he sought the annulment. All so political and two-faced!)

However, Thomas Cranmer thought he found a legal way for him to have his annulment. Henry made him Archbishop of Canturbury, and he later (after further failed wrangling in the church to get an annulment) finally broke from the church, declared himself the head of the English church, and made Cranmer give him his annulment. He married Anne Boleyn. She disappointed him by producing only yet another daughter (Elizabeth). He eventually trumped up charges of adultery against her and had her executed. He then moved on to subsequent wives. It was quite dangerous to be his queen. He finally did produce Edward, his only male heir.

Henry was a dangerous king to be around, and a bit of a psychopath/narcissist. Thomas Cranmer had come under influence of first the Lutheran reformers and then the Swiss Reformers, and he and several of his colleagues wanted to do their own Reformation. Henry wanted no part of it, other than to tell the papacy to get lost and to shut down all the monasteries and loot them. Cranmer and his colleagues had to tip-toe around Henry. Cranmer also had a funny notion of Divine Right of Kings, where he thought he had to absolutely submit to the king’s wishes as a representative of God’s rule on earth, so he was very submissive to Henry. Anything Henry wanted, Henry got. Cranmer’s views on this would come back to haunt him later.
 
Last edited:
Quietly, Cranmer labored on the Book of Common Prayer, wanting to bring England into a common English liturgy that everyone could understand. It was based on the old Sarum Latin liturgy imported in the Norman invasion. It also has elements of Greek Orthodox liturgy, as the English Reformers were very well educated in Greek and in the Eastern church fathers (as opposed to the Continental Reformers). He was able to get some reforms in, and he almost got Henry to form an alliance with the Lutherans, but Henry got cold feet for political reasons, and made Cranmer reverse things.

When Henry died, Cranmer had his big chance to push for more reforms, unrestrained from Henry’s ire. Edward was but a boy king, and surrounded by Protestant advisors. The Book of Common Prayer was pushed and revised. A lot of common folk did not take it well. Unlike on the Continent, England tended to have well educated priests who weren’t so corrupt, and the people were generally happy. Some rioting occurred. But ultimately, Cranmer and his colleagues won their way.

That is, until Edward died young, having been always sickly. Desperate to keep Henry’s staunchly Catholic daughter Mary off the throne, the Protestant-leaning parties tried to put Lady Jane Grey (a distant relative) on the throne instead. It didn’t work out so well. Mary assumed the throne, and understandably being very ticked off for Cranmer granting an annulment from her mother Catherine (which resulted in Mary’s being declared illegitimate), Cranmer was arrested, locked away, and forced to recant his Protestant beliefs if he wanted to live. Cranmer, having undergone what today we would consider psychological brainwashing, and also having that pesky belief in Divine Right of Kings, thought he had to recant because the monarch told him to. So he did. Normally, that would mean he wouldn’t be burned to the stake. However, Mary suspected his recantation would not be a permanent one. She had him burned to the stake anyway. On his way out, Cranmer finally figured out that Divine Right of Kings is not a very sound belief after all, and decided to do what his conscience told him to. He recanted his recantation in public, and as the flames were being set, he held his hand that had signed his recantation in the fire, saying, “This hand has offended!” So, he became a reluctant martyr.
 
Now, Mary tried to put things back to be Catholic, which sent a lot of Protestants fleeing to the Continent, but she also died prematurely. Her sister, Elizabeth, was Protestant. As you can see, Cranmer’s Reformation had completely short-circuited. Elizabeth rebooted it. Seeking to keep the most people happy, she tried a settlement between those who were more “low church” / Puritan and those who were more conservative. What resulted was a church that had managed to maintain its apostolic succession and had clung to its bishops and priests, but which also had staunch Protestant beliefs. (Albeit, Roman Catholics contest the validity of Anglican orders, which is probably a moot point now since the Old Catholics that schismed from Rome at Vatican I injected fresh laying on of hands on Anglican bishops when they made a concordat with the Anglican Communion.)

As you can see, the English Reformation was quite complicated and crazy. Things only got crazier, because a lot of the English Protestants were not happy with having bishops and priests, vestments, and other “popish” things. The very Prayer Book liturgy offended them. The growing tensions between the two parties would eventually spill over in the English Civil War. These tensions are also responsible for “low church” and “high church” factions. Many in the “low church” side of the house are borderline Puritans, but decided that conforming to English law regarding bishops and priests would be good enough and should be adiaphora. The later Oxford Movement that would birth Anglo-Catholicism would complicate matters even more.

We’re a really confused bunch, but we try to figure things out. Sometimes we are barely held together by duct tape and bubble gum.

Like I said, we’ could all learn from each other, and I think Anglicans could stand to learn a thing or two from our Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends if we want to survive. Nevertheless, we have some positive things to offer as well.
 
Good summary of Hank, the fascinating train wreck, and his Great Matter, plus more. Details could be added. For a history/bio that doesn’t pass over the matter, Scarisbrick’s HENRY VIII is highly recommended.

The request for a dispensation for Henry and Katherine to marry came from Hank VII.

Duct tape and bubble gum. Yep. Anglicans are a motley crew.
 
Last edited:
As long as you have a good grasp of what the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism then I think you could be able to learn from everybody.
I read a good explanation of Papal primacy and authority in a Coptic Orthodox site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top