How does Orthodoxy view orthodox Anglicanism?

[gurneyhalleck1]

Being a Roman Catholic myself and not an Orthodox Catholic, I’d like to know the common Orthodox view of traditional orthodox (small “o”) Anglicanism like continuing Anglicans as well as the break-off Anglican parishes and dioceses in the U.S. Do Orthodox view their orders as valid or do they share the Apostolicae Curae view of Rome? Are there any famous Orthodox writers who have given their take on Anglicanism? I’ve read John Meyendorff a great deal and really love his stuff but he never mentions Anglicanism. As a former Anglican I’d like an Orthodox perspective…

 

[malphono]

I recall from 30+ years ago that some Anglo-Catholic priests were ordained by Orthodox bishops (usually from one of the Slavic branches). There was one that I knew who was ordained “Archpriest” according to one of the Ukrainian branches of Orthodoxy (not sure which). In a similar vein, it seems that Orthodox (as well as Old Catholic) bishops were sometimes invited to be co-consecrators of (non-married) Anglican bishops. In all, I suspect the m.o.on the Anglican side was to “legitimize” their orders. Whether it did or not, is a question that I won’t address. But anyway, of course, all that was then, which was well before the Anglicans welcomed female “clergy” and “bishops” which rather puts another serious crimp in the perennial question of Anglican Orders. I’ve no idea what goes on currently.

 

[dixibehr]

Many from the mainstream official Anglican jursidictions become Orthodox.

Many Orthodox feel sympathy for the grief and bewilderment suffered by Anglicans who wish to cling to the traditional faith.

 

[Right_Glory]

There are no ‘valid’ orders or Sacraments outside the Church. That should pretty much explain any question you might have.

 

[GKC]

There are no ‘valid’ orders or Sacraments outside the Church. That should pretty much explain any question you might have.

The RCC recognizes valid but illict orders in a number of jurisdictions, Anglicanism not included.

The Orthodox, OTOH, usually do not. It’s mainly the difference between an Augustinian and a Cyprianic view of the transmission of orders.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I recall from 30+ years ago that some Anglo-Catholic priests were ordained by Orthodox bishops (usually from one of the Slavic branches). There was one that I knew who was ordained “Archpriest” according to one of the Ukrainian branches of Orthodoxy (not sure which). In a similar vein, it seems that Orthodox (as well as Old Catholic) bishops were sometimes invited to be co-consecrators of (non-married) Anglican bishops. In all, I suspect the m.o.on the Anglican side was to “legitimize” their orders. Whether it did or not, is a question that I won’t address. But anyway, of course, all that was then, which was well before the Anglicans welcomed female “clergy” and “bishops” which rather puts another serious crimp in the perennial question of Anglican Orders. I’ve no idea what goes on currently.

I have heard of the Orthodox bishops laying hands on Anglican priests and bishops, before. I’m not convinced it is historical, but I’d be happy to learn, if any dates/detaisl are known.

The Anglican Communion, and the Old Catholics/Utrecht, entered into full, formal communion, with the Agreement of Bonn, and began joint consecrations, in 1932. The PNCC started doing the same, in 1946. By this time, it’s hard to find Anglican clergy untouched by the Dutch. Logically, this infusion of OC lines (valid/illicit, in Rome’s eyes) should, all other things being valid, result in Anglican orders being viewed as valid/illicit, also.

Rome has never given an opinion as to the effect of the joint consecrations on Anglican orders.

Your comments on the proper matter, currently, in Anglicanism, are well taken.

GKC

*Anglicanus-Catholicus *

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The RCC recognizes valid but illict orders in a number of jurisdictions, Anglicanism not included.

The Orthodox, OTOH, usually do not. It’s mainly the difference between an Augustinian and a Cyprianic view of the transmission of orders.

GKC

Hey GKC,

Always great to read your posts! Could you explain what you mean by the Augustinian vs. Cyprianic views on the transmission of orders??

Scott

 

[IowaJay]

In the 1920s and the 1930s, there was a series of statements made by various Orthodox patriarchs recognizing that Anglicans had a line of apostolic succession. That does not mean they viewed Anglicans as having “valid orders,” but what it did mean is that if the Anglican Church were to corporately become Orthodox, their priests would not be reordained. Since corporate reunion did not happen, and Anglican priests have converted to Orthodoxy on an individual basis, those priests have been reordained.

For more information:

angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Orthotake.htm

anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.html

orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/alexandria.pdf

orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/romania.pdf

 

[GKC]

In the 1920s and the 1930s, there was a series of statements made by various Orthodox patriarchs recognizing that Anglicans had a line of apostolic succession. That does not mean they viewed Anglicans as having “valid orders,” but what it did mean is that if the Anglican Church were to corporately become Orthodox, their priests would not be reordained. Since corporate reunion did not happen, and Anglican priests have converted to Orthodoxy on an individual basis, those priests have been reordained.

For more information:

angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Orthotake.htm

anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/index.html

orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/alexandria.pdf

orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/romania.pdf

And this is the view Orthodox hold of RC orders, also.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Hey GKC,

Always great to read your posts! Could you explain what you mean by the Augustinian vs. Cyprianic views on the transmission of orders??

Scott

The Augustinian position arose out of the Donatist controversy. Basically, it says that a bishop in apostolic succession does not lose the ability to confer valid orders, if he is outside the Church, but he does lose the authority to do so. This is the distinction between valid and licit. Under the Augustinian theory, Old Catholics and the PNCC, have apostolic succession, and valid but illicit orders and confer the same (assuming matter, form and intent are proper).

The Cyprianic theory holds that the episcopacy is undivided, as is the Church, and that it is only valid within the context of the Church, the mystical body of Christ. Since the Orthodox consider the Church to be themselves, they look at Anglican ( and RC ) orders not so much as invalid, but empty, not capable of conveying grace, but capable of being made functional, if united to the one Church (Orthodoxy). This is the reasoning behind the judgments mentioned in Iowajay’s post.

GKC

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Augustinian position arose out of the Donatist controversy. Basically, it says that a bishop in apostolic succession does not lose the ability to confer valid orders, if he is outside the Church, but he does lose the authority to do so. This is the distinction between valid and licit. Under the Augustinian theory, Old Catholics and the PNCC, have apostolic succession, and valid but illicit orders and confer the same (assuming matter, form and intent are proper).

The Cyprianic theory holds that the episcopacy is undivided, as is the Church, and that it is only valid within the context of the Church, the mystical body of Christ. Since the Orthodox consider the Church to be themselves, they look at Anglican ( and RC ) orders not so much as invalid, but empty, not capable of conveying grace, but capable of being made functional, if united to the one Church (Orthodoxy). This is the reasoning behind the judgments mentioned in Iowajay’s post.

GKC

Forgive my ignorance, but do Orthodox believe Roman Catholics have “empty” sacraments then? How could they be “valid” but “empty?” If the Body of Christ is confected, people are forgiven in reconciliation, holy orders are created, and people are being baptized/confirmed, how then could RC orders not convey grace? I’m not educated on Orthodoxy and would love to know more about them…

Scott

 

[GKC]

Forgive my ignorance, but do Orthodox believe Roman Catholics have “empty” sacraments then? How could they be “valid” but “empty?” If the Body of Christ is confected, people are forgiven in reconciliation, holy orders are created, and people are being baptized/confirmed, how then could RC orders not convey grace? I’m not educated on Orthodoxy and would love to know more about them…

Scott

I fear I know little more. In brief, the Orthodox restrict the idea of efficacious sacraments to the One Church. Which isn’t you, or us. So, no confection, no orders, no grace.

GKC

 

[O.S.Luke]

I guess if I really want to “come home,” I will be crossing the Bosphorus, not the Tiber.

So confusing. Maybe that’s why Jesus said he had nowhere to lay his head.

 

[Right_Glory]

I guess if I really want to “come home,” I will be crossing the Bosphorus, not the Tiber.

So confusing. Maybe that’s why Jesus said he had nowhere to lay his head.

You’re always welcome.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You’re always welcome.

Right Glory, do you view the RCC in the manner that GKC has mentioned? Do you see the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as empty and conveying no grace?

 

[Right_Glory]

Right Glory, do you view the RCC in the manner that GKC has mentioned? Do you see the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church as empty and conveying no grace?

In a word: yes. I don’t like to say that but yes, that is what I believe.

 

[Hesychios]

I fear I know little more. In brief, the Orthodox restrict the idea of efficacious sacraments to the One Church. Which isn’t you, or us. So, no confection, no orders, no grace.

GKC

Unfortunately, the entire question is framed in western “Latin” terms, which can not apply to Orthodoxy. In the west there are concepts of ‘valid’, ‘invalid’ and ‘valid but illicit’.

As you know, Apostolicae Curae, and it’s entire rationale are inapplicable to the Orthodox way of looking at the problem of Anglican orders. It was an effort to move Anglican orders from the ‘valid but illicit’ category to the ‘invalid’ category. As far as Orthodox are concerned, when you are out of the church, you are on your own…and good luck to you.

Notwithstanding the personal opinion of many, the church itself does not take such a definite formal position on the matter. The church can only know who it is communion with, and that is always another bishop and church which shares the same theology. Beyond that, no one knows for certain.

That is not the same as knowing absolutely that one is outside of God’s Grace. We are not able to constrain the Holy Spirit, He goes where He will and he is not checking back with us first.

There is a possibility that the sacraments of the RC, or even the Anglicans, Methodists or Lutherans, are real…we don’t really know.

There is a possibility that the sacraments of the RC, or even the Anglicans, Methodists or Lutherans, are NOT real…we don’t know. Yes, I am arbitrarily lumping all four together here.

We will play it safe and assume nothing. In practical terms we have to act as if sacraments and orders outside of our church are irrelevant and refrain from communing or concelebrating with laity and church leaders outside of our own communion.

Any Orthodox Christian who assumes RC sacraments (or Anglican, Lutheran etc.) are valid can only express a personal opinion. In practice he must obey his bishop and the synod.

Any Orthodox Christian who assumes RC sacraments (or Anglican, Lutheran etc.) are not valid can only express a personal opinion. He still must obey his bishop and the synod.

Right now, Orthodox bishops routinely forbid us to commune outside of Orthodoxy. There may be exceptions to this, such as under severe persecution in the Gulags or in small Levantine villages, but they would be exceptions.

There is certainly no concelebration between our hierarchs and other hierarchs who teach something different.

 

[GKC]

Unfortunately, the entire question is framed in western “Latin” terms, which can not apply to Orthodoxy. In the west there are concepts of ‘valid’, ‘invalid’ and ‘valid but illicit’.

As you know, Apostolicae Curae, and it’s entire rationale are inapplicable to the Orthodox way of looking at the problem of Anglican orders. It was an effort to move Anglican orders from the ‘valid but illicit’ category to the ‘invalid’ category. As far as Orthodox are concerned, when you are out of the church, you are on your own…and good luck to you.

Notwithstanding the personal opinion of many, the church itself does not take such a definite formal position on the matter. The church can only know who it is communion with, and that is always another bishop and church which shares the same theology. Beyond that, no one knows for certain.

That is not the same as knowing absolutely that one is outside of God’s Grace. We are not able to constrain the Holy Spirit, He goes where He will and he is not checking back with us first.

There is a possibility that the sacraments of the RC, or even the Anglicans, Methodists or Lutherans, are real…we don’t really know.

There is a possibility that the sacraments of the RC, or even the Anglicans, Methodists or Lutherans, are NOT real…we don’t know. Yes, I am arbitrarily lumping all four together here.

We will play it safe and assume nothing. In practical terms we have to act as if sacraments and orders outside of our church are irrelevant and refrain from communing or concelebrating with laity and church leaders outside of our own communion.

Any Orthodox Christian who assumes RC sacraments (or Anglican, Lutheran etc.) are valid can only express a personal opinion. In practice he must obey his bishop and the synod.

Any Orthodox Christian who assumes RC sacraments (or Anglican, Lutheran etc.) are not valid can only express a personal opinion. He still must obey his bishop and the synod.

Right now, Orthodox bishops routinely forbid us to commune outside of Orthodoxy. There may be exceptions to this, such as under severe persecution in the Gulags or in small Levantine villages, but they would be exceptions.

There is certainly no concelebration between our hierarchs and other hierarchs who teach something different.

This is a good exploration of about everything I have every read on the subject. My use of the word “empty” was intended to convey the uncertainty of the matter. As I have heard it said, the (Orthodox) Church only knows for certain where the Church is (Orthodox), not where it is not.

GKC

 

[O.S.Luke]

Unfortunately, the entire question is framed in western “Latin” terms, which can not apply to Orthodoxy. In the west there are concepts of ‘valid’, ‘invalid’ and ‘valid but illicit’…

I have tried to say this for years to folks at CAF about the differences between the West and the East. Thank you for saying it so well.

O+

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In a word: yes. I don’t like to say that but yes, that is what I believe.

I’m sad to hear that but I appreciate your honesty. It’s refreshing. God bless.