Anglicans Vs. Orthodox

[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?

Just to be clear on this point, it is not as if there is any popular vote-taking to determine or change doctrine.

I think it would be better for people who have experience in Anglican congregations to speak on the subject of Anglican beliefs than I, but it seems (to me, at least) in the Anglican communion traditional ‘Apostolic’ doctrines seem to be more or less optional. That could never be the case for Orthodox, adding or deleting beliefs to fit one’s personal way of thinking will put one outside of Holy Orthodoxy. That goes for bishops as much as anyone else, and to commune with any who endorse unorthodox beliefs is forbidden (… which is why Eastern Catholics are not considered Orthodox. They may share, or think they share, Orthodox beliefs, yet commune with the unorthodox, which is equivalent to endorsing or validating those other beliefs).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The most disappointing ACNA bishop is Archbishop Duncan himself. All he had to do was drop the idiotic notion of ordaining women to the ministry and he would have cemented himself like a rock with Iker and Schofield. Schofield has such a fierce loyalty and friendship with Duncan that that’s not a problem but Iker has grown impatient and fed up with Duncan’s pandering to the feminists. Many Anglicans of an orthodox, conservative brand like yours truly were hoping they’d take ALL the lameness of TEC and throw it into the lake to drown. Sadly they didn’t. They have these megachurch types like Christ Church Plano that have a flurry of support for women’s ordination and there is an all-too-entrenched evangelical yahoo spirit in ACNA that spoils the pot for sure…

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Lex orandi, Lex credendi is the Anglican way I’d say. The Anglican Church doesn’t have a catechism to speak of as the Catholics do. Democratic decisions did exist in the ancient church to some extent. Augustine of Hippo, the great doctor of the church, was elected by his flock to become Bishop of Hippo. No pope installed him. Councils met ecumenically and voted on doctrine as well, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Anglicans believe they are guided by the Spirit just as Popes and Catholics do and just as Orthodox do. Doctrine appears out of nowhere in Anglicanism in some parts but not in all. Again, women’s ordination has never been accepted here in the San Joaquin Diocese and likely will continue to be rejected. But in many provinces it has. Anglicanism is not an international hierarchical body that functions like Catholicism. In Catholicism after 1900years the doctrines on Mary came about like the Assumption and Immaculate nature of the Blessed Virgin so many communions are capable of spontaneous changes really late in the game

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?

 

[jbelokur]

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

I agree…but I was just clarifying.

 

[jimmy]

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?

But the general idea is true, Anglicans are wishy washy. Some believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, some don’t. Some accept womens ordination, some don’t. Some support openly gay clergy, some don’t. And they are fine with their own indecisiveness.

 

[seamusmohr]

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.

You have a completely wrong understanding of the Catholic Church. The Church was in Britain from early days, further unless I have been wrongly taught, she has never abandoned the faith or added to it! Which is more than can be said for some! The Church in these Isles has never claimed to be the Catholic Church in its entirety, but only a showing forth of Christ’s Body! A Communion of believers within the whole! She believes in the faith as revealed to the saints, written in scripture and interpreted by the Seven Ecumenical Councils! You, collectively, might think differently, you have yet to prove the difference convincingly! As it happens, I think, that my, as I was taught it, version of religion is as Catholic as any and as better than most, which isn’t to say it can’t be improved on.I think in some ways there’s great similarity between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, at least in the basics! But one thing I’m confident of, as a,Scots Episcopalian/Anglican, we do not need to shelter in the ethnic shadow of modern day Orthodoxy, or seek legitimacy from that source or indeed Rome!For two thousand years we have been a particular Church within the Body of Christ, if we cannot endure on our own feet following Catholic teaching, we should sit and consider where we’ve gone awry!

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.

 

[Nine_Two]

You have a completely wrong understanding of the Catholic Church. The Church was in Britain from early days, further unless I have been wrongly taught, she has never abandoned the faith or added to it! Which is more than can be said for some! The Church in these Isles has never claimed to be the Catholic Church in its entirety, but only a showing forth of Christ’s Body! A Communion of believers within the whole! She believes in the faith as revealed to the saints, written in scripture and interpreted by the Seven Ecumenical Councils! You, collectively, might think differently, you have yet to prove the difference convincingly! As it happens, I think, that my, as I was taught it, version of religion is as Catholic as any and as better than most, which isn’t to say it can’t be improved on.I think in some ways there’s great similarity between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, at least in the basics! But one thing I’m confident of, as a,Scots Episcopalian/Anglican, we do not need to shelter in the ethnic shadow of modern day Orthodoxy, or seek legitimacy from that source or indeed Rome!For two thousand years we have been a particular Church within the Body of Christ, if we cannot endure on our own feet following Catholic teaching, we should sit and consider where we’ve gone awry!

Pre-1066 the Church of England was an autocephalus Church in full communion by its own rights with the Orthodox, however following the Norman conquest it came under the control of Rome. So while you might be able to claim descent that way, the problem is your claim of Apostolic Succession is intwined with Rome, so if one claims that Rome does not have valid succession (And I put forward no such motion here, however the person quoted in the OP was making such an accusation), then the Anglican Church cannot claim its own succession.

The branch theory, which you refer to when you say you are “part” of the Catholic Church is considered in violation of the Nicene Creed by both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which makes it very difficult for you to claim while at the same time claiming to be following the Councils when speaking to an Orthodox or Catholic group.

The Orthodox and Anglicans have many similarities, however they most certainly do not agree on the basics, as evidenced by our different ideas of who should be allowed to take the Eucharist with us. As the Liturgy is the centre of the faith, the Eucharist is the centre of the Liturgy, and if we differ on something so central then surely we differ on the basics, and any such claim to the contrary must be dismissed.

 

[CallistusPM]

Here is the big difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Anglican Community:
The Anglican Church’s claim to Apostolic Succession was abrogated when Pope Leo XIII, in l896 declared the line broken because Anglicans had removed certain traditional rituals and no longer mentioned in the Anglican Rite the “power to offer sacrifice.” - as in “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognizes as valid all of the Orthodox sacraments and well as the ordination and consecration of Orthodox priests and bishops respectively. The Catholic Church also gives respect to the Orthodox Church for its immense contributions to monasticism, spiritual theology, and, like its Western counterpart, its abiding love for the Mother of God.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Very negative and almost hate filled view of conversion to another Church.

Do you have this view of those who leave other Churchs to join the Anglican Church?

 

[GKC]

Here is the big difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Anglican Community:
The Anglican Church’s claim to Apostolic Succession was abrogated when Pope Leo XIII, in l896 declared the line broken because Anglicans had removed certain traditional rituals and no longer mentioned in the Anglican Rite the “power to offer sacrifice.” - as in “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognizes as valid all of the Orthodox sacraments and well as the ordination and consecration of Orthodox priests and bishops respectively. The Catholic Church also gives respect to the Orthodox Church for its immense contributions to monasticism, spiritual theology, and, like its Western counterpart, its abiding love for the Mother of God.

The logic here is what a RC should affirm, IAW the wording in Apostolicae curae. It will not surprise anyone that Anglicans do not affirm such. One point in AC was that the original form of the consecration/ordination rites in the Edwardine Ordinal did not include the mention of the sacrifical authority. But this must be coupled with the other point made, with respect to the intention of the consecrators of Archbishop Parker in 1559 (it is assumed that this was the meaning of the reference to invalid intent in AC. It is not clear). Intent and form have to be considered together, since there a number of rites which the RCC does recognize as conveying valid orders that similarly do not mention that sacerdotal authority.

GKC

 

[gmcbroom]

GKC I’m still surprised that some Anglicans would want the Orthodox recognition. After all the differences between them seem extreme. As for Apostolicae Curiae, why would one change the traditional rituals concerning consecration? And if the Catholic church has and does turn a blind eye to some rites and not others then why? Hmmmmm…

 

[GKC]

GKC I’m still surprised that some Anglicans would want the Orthodox recognition. After all the differences between them seem extreme. As for Apostolicae Curiae, why would one change the traditional rituals concerning consecration? And if the Catholic church has and does turn a blind eye to some rites and not others then why? Hmmmmm…

I can’t say, as to why an Anglican would worry about the Orthodox attitude. Or the RC, for that matter, save in the sense found in John 17. As to the change in the form, one can only conjecture. But, as can be found here and there (Lula, HOLY ORDERS, HOLY SACRAMENTS), there are rites which do not meet the strictures of Apostolicae curae, which Rome considers as conveying the sacrament of Orders. It is interesting to contemplate how things might have fallen out, if the early Anglican Church had not changed the form, but had continued with the then current Pontificale Romanum.
But the logic of considering the Edwardine Ordinal as invalid in form, and not, say, the Mozarabic Rite, lies in the fact that the Ordinal was especially constructed, at that point in time, by those particular individuals. Thus supplying, in Rome’s eyes, the evidence to permit a determinatio ex adiunctis, that the intent is using that form was invalid. See Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION. *Contra *which, see Hughes’ ABSOLUTELY NULL AND UTTERLY VOID and STEWARDS OF THE LORD.

Complicated.

GKC

 

[seamusmohr]

Here is the big difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Anglican Community:
The Anglican Church’s claim to Apostolic Succession was abrogated when Pope Leo XIII, in l896 declared the line broken because Anglicans had removed certain traditional rituals and no longer mentioned in the Anglican Rite the “power to offer sacrifice.” - as in “the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.”

**Whilst the Pope has a point of view, the opinions he expressed in 1896 are no more than that! Opinions.
**

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognizes as valid all of the Orthodox sacraments and well as the ordination and consecration of Orthodox priests and bishops respectively. The Catholic Church also gives respect to the Orthodox Church for its immense contributions to monasticism, spiritual theology, and, like its Western counterpart, its abiding love for the Mother of God.

"The Catholic Church’ you mention is simply the Roman Catholic Church which is not quite the same thing!

 

[seamusmohr]

GKC I’m still surprised that some Anglicans would want the Orthodox recognition. After all the differences between them seem extreme. As for Apostolicae Curiae, why would one change the traditional rituals concerning consecration? And if the Catholic church has and does turn a blind eye to some rites and not others then why? Hmmmmm…

As an Scots Episcopalian/ Anglican. I wonder just what are the differences between the Orthodox and the Anglicans Theologically?

 

[GKC]

**Whilst the Pope has a point of view, the opinions he expressed in 1896 are no more than that! Opinions.
**

"The Catholic Church’ you mention is simply the Roman Catholic Church which is not quite the same thing!

For us, as Anglicans, the statements in Apostolicae curae are certainly opinion, though not necessarily merely opinion. But when a Papal bull of that sort is promulgated, for the faithful RCs, it is more than an opinion. While it is not ex cathedra, it is (it would seem) at least sententia ad fidem pertinens, and was mentioned as the sort of point the RC faithful must affirm by then Cardinal Ratzinger, a few years ago.

What we Anglicans think of the document is not what a RC might or should think. And vice versa.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

GKC I’m still surprised that some Anglicans would want the Orthodox recognition. After all the differences between them seem extreme.

Which Anglicans?

Those Anglicans who claim to adhere to the Seven Councils and the teachings of the First Millennium (I would usually call them “Anglo-Catholics,” but one poster here has objected to the term, which he identifies with an overemphasis on peripherals) do not, it seems to me, have substantive differences with the Orthodox. I do not understand why such Anglicans would not seek union with the Orthodox, unless they also believed in papal authority in a manner not accepted by the Orthodox, and hence preferred to seek union with Rome. (That is certainly the main reason I have not personally sought union with the Orthodox in the past–it seemed at least possible to me that the lack of union with Rome was a defect in Orthodoxy.) I admit that I tend to be uncharitable toward such Anglicans, particularly when they are part of traditionalist churches which are in communion with hardly anybody.

GKC, I know that you’ve said in the past that you don’t see the need to become Orthodox because you are a Westerner, and specifically an Anglican, by tradition and are comfortable with that. But doesn’t the mandate for unity override loyalty to cultural or liturgical tradition?

Obviously those Anglicans who are theologically Protestant in some significant way do have reasons not to seek union with the Orthodox, though those will vary depending on just how Protestant the given Anglican is.

Edwin

 

[GKC]

Which Anglicans?

Those Anglicans who claim to adhere to the Seven Councils and the teachings of the First Millennium (I would usually call them “Anglo-Catholics,” but one poster here has objected to the term, which he identifies with an overemphasis on peripherals) do not, it seems to me, have substantive differences with the Orthodox. I do not understand why such Anglicans would not seek union with the Orthodox, unless they also believed in papal authority in a manner not accepted by the Orthodox, and hence preferred to seek union with Rome. (That is certainly the main reason I have not personally sought union with the Orthodox in the past–it seemed at least possible to me that the lack of union with Rome was a defect in Orthodoxy.) I admit that I tend to be uncharitable toward such Anglicans, particularly when they are part of traditionalist churches which are in communion with hardly anybody.

GKC, I know that you’ve said in the past that you don’t see the need to become Orthodox because you are a Westerner, and specifically an Anglican, by tradition and are comfortable with that. But doesn’t the mandate for unity override loyalty to cultural or liturgical tradition?

Obviously those Anglicans who are theologically Protestant in some significant way do have reasons not to seek union with the Orthodox, though those will vary depending on just how Protestant the given Anglican is.

Edwin

Maybe. I’ll be happy to see the Orthodox making overtures to become Continuing Anglicans. It would be a start.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus
*

 

[Contarini]

Maybe. I’ll be happy to see the Orthodox making overtures to become Continuing Anglicans. It would be a start.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus
*

This is one of those issues where it’s probably best not to try to argue with you, but since I respect you personally and find it hard to understand why you hold the position you do, here goes.

Do we agree that:

1. The existence of Anglicanism as a separate body from the Roman Communion indicates that Roman teaching is erroneous to some degree, even if only inasmuch as Rome demands conditions for intercommunion that are not those of the Catholic Faith;
2. For centuries before the Church of England separated from Rome, the Eastern Churches challenged Rome on those points where Anglican Catholics now understand Rome to be wrong; and
3. The separation of the Church of England from Rome was associated to some degree with the influence of Protestant ideas, and the Articles of Faith adopted by the C of E in the sixteenth century are somewhat inadequate in their expression of Sacred Tradition due to the influence of these Protestant ideas.

If all of these things are true, then it seems to follow that Anglicans ought to take an extremely humble attitude toward those Christians who maintained the integrity of Sacred Tradition for centuries before Anglicans separated from Rome, and who have consistently rejected those Protestant departures from Sacred Tradition which have to some degree infected Anglicanism. This is particularly true when we bear in mind that Anglo-Catholicism has never been more than one wing of Anglicanism at any time since the Reformation, and that in important respects it dates only to the 19th century.

I know that you may disagree with some of the above, but I’m not sure which parts you agree with or how you avoid drawing the conclusion that Anglicans ought to approach the Orthodox as suppliants asking to be restored to communion and not as equal partners sundered by no fault of ours.

I can see three possibly valid reasons not to take such an approach:

1. The conviction that Protestantism contains considerable validity (so that the Protestant side of Anglicanism should be defended and embraced to some degree);
2. The conviction that union with Rome is essential to true Catholicity; or
3. The belief that while Rome has erred, the Western Church was correct in certain respects over against the East (the Filioque, for instance?) which would leave Anglicans (at least, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics) as the true Catholics over against both Rome and the East.

My own ecclesial instability is caused by the fact that both 1 and 2 have some appeal for me–2 more than 1 on the whole. I do not find 3 to be tenable in the least, but you clearly see these matters very differently than I do.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[GKC]

This is one of those issues where it’s probably best not to try to argue with you, but since I respect you personally and find it hard to understand why you hold the position you do, here goes.

Do we agree that:

1. The existence of Anglicanism as a separate body from the Roman Communion indicates that Roman teaching is erroneous to some degree, even if only inasmuch as Rome demands conditions for intercommunion that are not those of the Catholic Faith;
2. For centuries before the Church of England separated from Rome, the Eastern Churches challenged Rome on those points where Anglican Catholics now understand Rome to be wrong; and
3. The separation of the Church of England from Rome was associated to some degree with the influence of Protestant ideas, and the Articles of Faith adopted by the C of E in the sixteenth century are somewhat inadequate in their expression of Sacred Tradition due to the influence of these Protestant ideas.

If all of these things are true, then it seems to follow that Anglicans ought to take an extremely humble attitude toward those Christians who maintained the integrity of Sacred Tradition for centuries before Anglicans separated from Rome, and who have consistently rejected those Protestant departures from Sacred Tradition which have to some degree infected Anglicanism. This is particularly true when we bear in mind that Anglo-Catholicism has never been more than one wing of Anglicanism at any time since the Reformation, and that in important respects it dates only to the 19th century.

I know that you may disagree with some of the above, but I’m not sure which parts you agree with or how you avoid drawing the conclusion that Anglicans ought to approach the Orthodox as suppliants asking to be restored to communion and not as equal partners sundered by no fault of ours.

I can see three possibly valid reasons not to take such an approach:

1. The conviction that Protestantism contains considerable validity (so that the Protestant side of Anglicanism should be defended and embraced to some degree);
2. The conviction that union with Rome is essential to true Catholicity; or
3. The belief that while Rome has erred, the Western Church was correct in certain respects over against the East (the Filioque, for instance?) which would leave Anglicans (at least, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics) as the true Catholics over against both Rome and the East.

My own ecclesial instability is caused by the fact that both 1 and 2 have some appeal for me–2 more than 1 on the whole. I do not find 3 to be tenable in the least, but you clearly see these matters very differently than I do.

In Christ,

Edwin

I even take an humble attitude toward the RCC. But I am an Anglican. A Catholic in the Anglican tradition. As to your 3 possibilities, I agree with #1 and part of #3.I think all possessing the Apostolic succession are Catholic. Those who place barriers on communion between such apostolic Catholics give unity shrift.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus
*

 

[CallistusPM]

**Whilst the Pope has a point of view, the opinions he expressed in 1896 are no more than that! Opinions.
**

"The Catholic Church’ you mention is simply the Roman Catholic Church which is not quite the same thing!