Anglicans Vs. Orthodox

[jbelokur]

Okay, in another thread I started, I asked a question of those Christan groups that believe in a great apostasy and the concept of a remnant. One of the replies I got was this,

*"1) Date of Apostasy? The Council of Trent 1545/64!

1. The Faithful Remnant ?The Orthodox Church and the Anglican Continuing] Churches !
   Both Communions mentioned have existed from the Beginning till today!
   ACC, UECNA & P// are the Continuing Church!" *

What are your thoughts on this? I am looking specifically for Anglican (in particular the ACC if possible) and Orthodox replies. Do you agree with this statement, if so why, if not why not?

He also believes that while there is not visible unity between the ACC and the Orthodox they are united in doctrine and dogma. Again, why or why not?

PS: for those interested here is the link to the other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=449284&referrerid=62169

 

[Hesychios]

It is inappropriate for Anglicans to claim commonality with Orthodox. As flattering as it is to be courted in such a way, it is as if the association may confer some legitimacy on the Anglican beliefs and practices that does not really exist.

The only way that would be possible would be for the Anglican church as a whole (or the relevant corporate segment) to embrace Orthodox teachings wholeheartedly and unreservedly. That has never happened, and we are not in communion.

There are Orthodox churches in Great Britain, composed mostly of converts from Anglicanism (or their close descendants). If the two churches we alike in belief (and consequently we would be in communion) no conversions would be necessary or even desirable.

 

[jbelokur]

It is inappropriate for Anglicans to claim commonality with Orthodox. As flattering as it is to be courted in such a way, it is as if the association may confer some legitimacy on the Anglican beliefs and practices that does not really exist.

The only way that would be possible would be for the Anglican church as a whole (or the relevant corporate segment) to embrace Orthodox teachings wholeheartedly and unreservedly. That has never happened, and we are not in communion.

There are Orthodox churches in Great Britain, composed mostly of converts from Anglicanism (or their close descendants). If the two churches we alike in belief (and consequently we would be in communion) no conversions would be necessary or even desirable.

Right now in your opinion are the big doctrinal/dogmatic issues between you and the Anglicans?

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m a former Anglican, now Orthodox and one of the main reasons I came to Orthodoxy is because it does have a legitimacy that the Anglican Communion cannot claim.

As for doctrinal differences, the Anglican Church doesn’t have any hard doctrine, while the Orthodox Church does, but one of the largest sticking points between the two is the Anglican acceptance of female clergy. While female deacons did once exist, their role is obsolete.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Not in ALL areas of the Anglican Communion. My diocese of San Joaquin adamantly denies women’s ordination as does Fort Worth, Quincy, etc. You’re generalizing a bit. Sadly most provinces do though.

I’m a former Anglican, now Orthodox and one of the main reasons I came to Orthodoxy is because it does have a legitimacy that the Anglican Communion cannot claim.

As for doctrinal differences, the Anglican Church doesn’t have any hard doctrine, while the Orthodox Church does, but one of the largest sticking points between the two is the Anglican acceptance of female clergy. While female deacons did once exist, their role is obsolete.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

From your Orthodox point of view. Most Anglicans I know don’t feel they have to go over to the Orthodox and beg their recognition and understanding or grovel for their approval to feel legitimate and a true Church. You’re looking at it from your own lens, not from the Anglicans’ angle, at least not the Anglicans I know.

It is inappropriate for Anglicans to claim commonality with Orthodox. As flattering as it is to be courted in such a way, it is as if the association may confer some legitimacy on the Anglican beliefs and practices that does not really exist.

The only way that would be possible would be for the Anglican church as a whole (or the relevant corporate segment) to embrace Orthodox teachings wholeheartedly and unreservedly. That has never happened, and we are not in communion.

There are Orthodox churches in Great Britain, composed mostly of converts from Anglicanism (or their close descendants). If the two churches we alike in belief (and consequently we would be in communion) no conversions would be necessary or even desirable.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The only real communication of any level of importance between Orthodox and Anglicans that I have seen was Metropolitan Jonah’s visit to the ACNA Anglican Church of North America kick-off convention. He went up there and lectured Anglicans about Calvinism, the filioque, women, etc. as the Anglicans by and large rolled their eyes and sent him on his way. Bishop Schofield, our bishop here in San Joaquin, whom I spoke with two weeks ago at length, knows Jonah personally from his days in an Orthodox monastery. They became and remain friends. Bishop Schofield would like to have the OCA/ACNA relationsihp but he’s alone, I think, in his view that it’ll ever happen. All the other priests and bishops I’ve spoken with roll their eyes about it and could care less.

The Orthodox, it seems, think everyone is courting them and wanting their seal of approval. I’m not sure that’s reality. Rome and Constantinople seem to have one thing in common despite their hatred of each other, they both think everyone is courting them for recognition of legitimacy.

Okay, in another thread I started, I asked a question of those Christan groups that believe in a great apostasy and the concept of a remnant. One of the replies I got was this,

*"1) Date of Apostasy? The Council of Trent 1545/64!

1. The Faithful Remnant ?The Orthodox Church and the Anglican Continuing] Churches !
   Both Communions mentioned have existed from the Beginning till today!
   ACC, UECNA & P// are the Continuing Church!" *

What are your thoughts on this? I am looking specifically for Anglican (in particular the ACC if possible) and Orthodox replies. Do you agree with this statement, if so why, if not why not?

He also believes that while there is not visible unity between the ACC and the Orthodox they are united in doctrine and dogma. Again, why or why not?

PS: for those interested here is the link to the other thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=449284&referrerid=62169

 

[blazerdave]

This one’s always a tricky subject.

Most of us (speaking as an Anglican, although not ACC) see ourselves as legitimate, and see some others as legitimate too. It all really does depend on perspective. If you see nothing wrong with yourself, your approach certainly differs! And part of what muddies the waters is the fact that some Anglicans do feel a need for authentication. Sometimes this means they want to be recognized by Canterbury or Rome, and in this case, it seems like it’s Orthodoxy that is the desired partner. From the Orthodox point of view, however, I can’t imagine that they’re interested in teaming up with those whose theology is not Orthodox. That is perfectly understandable.

So, as long as there are Anglicans, there will be some who say “We’re the True [Catholic] Church,” others who say “We’re one of the Three Branches,” yet others who say “We’re one branch of the universal Church,” and still others who think to themselves “In case we’re not quite what we ought to be, let’s seek some Official Backup to lend us some authenticity.” Anglicans - gotta love 'em.

 

[GKC]

From your Orthodox point of view. Most Anglicans I know don’t feel they have to go over to the Orthodox and beg their recognition and understanding or grovel for their approval to feel legitimate and a true Church. You’re looking at it from your own lens, not from the Anglicans’ angle, at least not the Anglicans I know.

Certainly, weeks go by without such thoughts passing through my mind.

Months, even.

GKC

 

[Nine_Two]

Not in ALL areas of the Anglican Communion. My diocese of San Joaquin adamantly denies women’s ordination as does Fort Worth, Quincy, etc. You’re generalizing a bit. Sadly most provinces do though.

The Communion itself, however does accept it. Now this is very much my Orthodox theology speaking, but by holding Communion with someone you are consenting to their theology holding a certain level of validity. There are certainly some provinces which truly are in agreement with Orthodoxy, but this acceptance of such practices is what keeps them from being fully orthodox themselves.

The Orthodox, it seems, think everyone is courting them and wanting their seal of approval. I’m not sure that’s reality. Rome and Constantinople seem to have one thing in common despite their hatred of each other, they both think everyone is courting them for recognition of legitimacy.

This hasn’t been my experience. I don’t think very many groups look to either Catholics or Orthodox for legitimacy, nor do I think many people believe that. Maybe its just because I know a lot of protestants, but Anglicans seem to be the only ones who ever care about legitimacy, and this is the first I’ve heard of an Anglican group trying to claim legitimacy through Orthdoxy.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Gurney,

From your Orthodox point of view. Most Anglicans I know don’t feel they have to go over to the Orthodox and beg their recognition and understanding or grovel for their approval to feel legitimate and a true Church. You’re looking at it from your own lens, not from the Anglicans’ angle, at least not the Anglicans I know.

I am certainly not trying to present the Anglican point of view here I am Orthodox and speak for Orthodox. I would expect most Anglicans recognoize a certain legitimacy in their own church, and they do not need me to validate it for them, and I won’t pretend to be in a position to do that.

The OP quoted an Anglican who seemed to suggest an affinity of some sort between the Anglican and Orthodox that the RCC does not share. I am pointing out that there is no such affinity as far as I can see. I have the impression (forgive me if I err here) that Nine_Two is spot on in his characterization "As for doctrinal differences, the Anglican Church doesn’t have any hard doctrine, while the Orthodox Church does… "

To Orthodox, doctrine is supreme.

 

[jbelokur]

Hi Gurney, I am certainly not trying to present the Anglican point of view here I am Orthodox and speak for Orthodox. I would expect most Anglicans recognoize a certain legitimacy in their own church, and they do not need me to validate it for them, and I won’t pretend to be in a position to do that.

The OP quoted an Anglican who seemed to suggest an affinity of some sort between the Anglican and Orthodox that the RCC does not share. I am pointing out that there is no such affinity as far as I can see. I have the impression (forgive me if I err here) that Nine_Two is spot on in his characterization "As for doctrinal differences, the Anglican Church doesn’t have any hard doctrine, while the Orthodox Church does… "

To Orthodox, doctrine is supreme.

So if I might clarify for my own self, by the statement that, “the Anglican Church doesn’t have and hard doctrine” mean that their doctrines are ofter time subject to a democratic decision where by the popular opinion can change doctrine?

 

[rr1213]

It is self-evident that the continuing Anglican bodies were not there “from the beginning.” Each of these bodies have their own history and they generally don’t go back beyond the 1970s. Any such claim would be derivative, at best, throught the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

 

[MarkBrown]

So if I might clarify for my own self, by the statement that, “the Anglican Church doesn’t have and hard doctrine” mean that their doctrines are ofter time subject to a democratic decision where by the popular opinion can change doctrine?

Yes. How do you think women’s ordination, homosexual ordination and now for the CoE women bishops came into being. A vote by the clergy and laity. Where the majority wins and scripture and tradition are secondary.

Fr. Mark

 

[MarkBrown]

It is self-evident that the continuing Anglican bodies were not there “from the beginning.” Each of these bodies have their own history and they generally don’t go back beyond the 1970s. Any such claim would be derivative, at best, throught the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

The Continuing Anglican Churches began in the late 70’s with the Affirmation of St. Louis. A split from the TEC over Women’s ordination and the change to the 79 BCP.

One reason for the concern over legitimacy from some outside and only some of the Continuing Anglicans is the Chambers Succession. The movement had it’s first Bishop Charles Doren made a bishop by Albert Chambers (retired Episcopal Bishop) and Francisco Pagtakhan (Bishop of the Philippine Independant Church) and by a letter of consent from Bishop Mark Pae of the Anglican Church of Korea. The Philippine Church was created from excommicated Catholics in I think 1905. Not sure of succession of this church.

There were not three Bishop present. Leading some outside the movement and some within to wonder about the “legality” of the succession. Doren, Chambers and Pagtakhan then consecrated Bishops Mote, Morse and Watterson. Watterson soon left and became an Catholic priest. Those who do not have a concern over the method dismiss the need for three Bishops, though afterwards there have always been three Bishops to consecrate with Bishops crossing jurisdictional lines to help those who do not have enough Bishops. Case in point the UECNA had only 1 Bishop. To consecrate the three suffragen Bishops, Bishops from the ACC and APCK had to help. Other smaller grouping of Anglicans such as AEC, who only have one Bishop have had to seek other jurisdictions to help with consecrations. Thereby making moot the argument that only one is needed. Anglicans constantly seek 3 Bishops to make another Bishop. So the sticky point on legitimacy for some Continuers.

Also within the continuers you will find those who are like the Trail of Blood Baptists. And I have had conversations with those who believe Anglicanism came from the Orthodox and Rome is an interloper in England. Instead of going home to Rome, we should be going home to (insert favorite Orthodox Church)instead. Yes, strange conversations to say the least.

Fr. Mark

 

[Nine_Two]

So if I might clarify for my own self, by the statement that, “the Anglican Church doesn’t have and hard doctrine” mean that their doctrines are ofter time subject to a democratic decision where by the popular opinion can change doctrine?

Partially that, but also if an individual is at odds with whatever happens to be considered “the norm” it is quite acceptable.

While I fully admit this is hearsay, a friend of mine who was in the process of converting to the Orthodox Church just after the last Lambeth conference told me that his Anglican priest (part of the quite orthodox diocese of the South Cone) was telling him that he’d gone and some of the bishops were suggesting a Nestorian viewpoint should be accepted as equally valid as the more commonly accepted Christology. If someone tried that at an Orthodox gathering of Bishops you’d probably be able to count the time in seconds before their Holy Synod excommunicated them.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That very well might be hearsay. Nestorianism amongst a primarily conservative evangelically-oriented group of Anglicans like those affiliated with Archbishop Venables is pretty much a silly notion. I don’t buy it…Take a look at the membership in the Southern Cone and ask yourself if that sounds plausible?

Partially that, but also if an individual is at odds with whatever happens to be considered “the norm” it is quite acceptable.

While I fully admit this is hearsay, a friend of mine who was in the process of converting to the Orthodox Church just after the last Lambeth conference told me that his Anglican priest (part of the quite orthodox diocese of the South Cone) was telling him that he’d gone and some of the bishops were suggesting a Nestorian viewpoint should be accepted as equally valid as the more commonly accepted Christology. If someone tried that at an Orthodox gathering of Bishops you’d probably be able to count the time in seconds before their Holy Synod excommunicated them.

 

[Hesychios]

So if I might clarify for my own self, by the statement that, “the Anglican Church doesn’t have and hard doctrine” mean that their doctrines are ofter time subject to a democratic decision where by the popular opinion can change doctrine?

The way I see it, there is a lot of latitude in the individual’s response to traditional belief in Anglicanism. It goes beyond such things as women’s ordination (which I am not quite sure is a doctrinal issue myself), in itself a separation from the traditional practice of the Apostolic churches.

Anglicanism in England and around the world has long had sitting bishops which taught Geneva Calvinism, and today will share communion with sitting bishops (which in Apostolic Christianity have “teaching authority”) which have the unorthodox views as expressed by James Pike, Spong and Vicki Robinson. These people do not all think alike, but are usually willing to be in communion.

Even Continuing Anglicanism (as mentioned above, starting in the 1970’s) has to recognize it’s dual origins in Latin Catholicism (Augustine, Anselm) and the Geneva School (Calvin) of Protestant thinkers. There are solid reasons the Church of England, even in it’s best expressions, has not been in communion with Holy Orthodoxy for almost 1000 years.

 

[prodromos]

So if I might clarify for my own self, by the statement that, “the Anglican Church doesn’t have and hard doctrine” mean that their doctrines are ofter time subject to a democratic decision where by the popular opinion can change doctrine?

Christ is Risen!

My experience within the Anglican Church is that you can have quite heretical beliefs and still be an Anglican in good standing. I never felt comfortable with that.

John

 

[Nine_Two]

That very well might be hearsay. Nestorianism amongst a primarily conservative evangelically-oriented group of Anglicans like those affiliated with Archbishop Venables is pretty much a silly notion. I don’t buy it…Take a look at the membership in the Southern Cone and ask yourself if that sounds plausible?

No, the priest who was telling my friend this was with the Southern Cone, the bishops were at Lambeth. Apparently a variety of bishops from the provinces of Canada and US.

As I said, the Southern Cone itself is pretty orthodox, even if some of its parishes in North America are less so.