What is keeping Orthodox and Lutherans from unifying?

  • Thread starter Thread starter concretecamper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novocastrian said:
With regard to the Russian Church, at least, it would appear that we are both wrong. The basic position seems to be that there are no truly assured orders outside the Orthodox Church, but that non-Orthodox clergy may sometimes, at the discretion of the Orthodox episcopate, be received by vesting rather than by re-ordination.

orthodoxanswers.org/answer/1276/

I do not know how they currently treat non-Roman western clergy, but I do know that the Romanian Orthodox Church officially recognised the orders of the Church of England in 1937 during the archiepiscopate of Cosmo Lang.
Click to expand...
That is the way I understand the general Orthodox position.

GKC
 
Novocastrian said:
I do not know how they currently treat non-Roman western clergy, but I do know that the Romanian Orthodox Church officially recognised the orders of the Church of England in 1937 during the archiepiscopate of Cosmo Lang.
Click to expand...
It is true that Orthodox, for a time (I forget when exactly it was discontinued), permitted their faithful to receive communion at Anglican churches, if it was impossible for them to get to an Orthodox church. However, it has been explained to me that this was never a definitive recognition of Anglican orders.
 
Peter_J said:
It is true that Orthodox, for a time (I forget when exactly it was discontinued), permitted their faithful to receive communion at Anglican churches, if it was impossible for them to get to an Orthodox church. However, it has been explained to me that this was never a definitive recognition of Anglican orders.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the Orthodox never definitively recognise anything outside the Orthodox Churches! 😉
 
Peter_J said:
It is true that Orthodox, for ,a time (I forget when exactly it was discontinued), permitted their faithful to receive communion at Anglican churches, if it was impossible for them to get to an Orthodox church. However, it has been explained to me that this was never a definitive recognition of Anglican orders.
Click to expand...
I recall, though I can’t cite, that in the 20s and 30s four different Orthodox jurisdictions made statements that were interpreted as saying that they viewed Anglican orders in the same way they did RC orders. This was later interpreted to mean they viewed them, in their terminology, as “empty”, but capable of being made valid (not a term they used) by the Orthodox ecclesiastical oeconomy, as the Orthodox view such things. It was occasionally said that the Orthodox feel that they cannot say where valid orders are not, only where they are (i.e., within Orthodoxy.

I have no reference available for my memory.

GKC
 
ezeekl said:
But which Eucharist, Lutheran or Orthodox? Do the Orthodox accept Lutheran ministers ordination to be as valid as their own? I may be wrong but I do not think that is the case. Apostolic Succession is not just a Western concept. If there is no Apostolic Succession in Lutheranism then their ministers are not empowered to consecrate the Eucharist. I don’t think there is any disagreement about that between the Eastern and Western Churches…
Click to expand...
I know I would hesitate to consider any lutheran ordained clergy in a legitimate succession either historically or by faith. Lutherans seem to reckon that faith is all that is needed for the laying down of hands which to me seems utterly misguided.
 
GKC said:
I recall, though I can’t cite, that in the 20s and 30s four different Orthodox jurisdictions made statements that were interpreted as saying that they viewed Anglican orders in the same way they did RC orders.
Click to expand...
That strikes me as very odd. As I understand it, the permission the Orthodox gave their faithful was specifically to receive in an Anglican church (in the absence of an Orthodox church) and did not extend to Catholic churches.
 
Peter_J said:
That strikes me as very odd. As I understand it, the permission the Orthodox gave their faithful was specifically to receive in an Anglican church (in the absence of an Orthodox church) and did not extend to Catholic churches.
Click to expand...
Anglicans are not the only motley category. Maybe some Orthodox did.

It’s not something I would assert definitively, to be sure.

GKC
 
GKC said:
I recall, though I can’t cite, that in the 20s and 30s four different Orthodox jurisdictions made statements that were interpreted as saying that they viewed Anglican orders in the same way they did RC orders. This was later interpreted to mean they viewed them, in their terminology, as “empty”, but capable of being made valid (not a term they used) by the Orthodox ecclesiastical oeconomy, as the Orthodox view such things. It was occasionally said that the Orthodox feel that they cannot say where valid orders are not, only where they are (i.e., within Orthodoxy.

I have no reference available for my memory.

GKC
Click to expand...
The presupposition amongst the Orthodox is that there are no valid sacraments outside of the Church. If we accept the orders, chrismation, or baptism of some groups, it is only because they have preserved the proper form of these sacraments, and thus receiving somebody into the church by performing these sacraments is unnecessary (but it is still proper to do them according to akriveia, for to receive one without baptism and chrismation is an act of condescension and oikonomia).
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
It appears that vanity is raised to the level of a virtue in Orhtodoxy.😃
Novocastrian said:
That’s hardly charitable.
Click to expand...
I said “it appears…”. It is an observation not an accusation. Also, I added the “Big Grin” smilie at the end which was also included on the post originally posted by Nine_Two
to which I was responding to. Here it is:

“We take that position on most matters.:D”
 
Peter_J said:
It is true that Orthodox, for a time (I forget when exactly it was discontinued), permitted their faithful to receive communion at Anglican churches, if it was impossible for them to get to an Orthodox church. However, it has been explained to me that this was never a definitive recognition of Anglican orders.
Click to expand...
There really is no more definitive recognition of orthodoxy and the reality of holy orders of a given communion (in the second sense) by another communion (again, in the second sense) than the act of permitting (inter-)communion (in the first sense).

Of course, I don’t think that specific communion of Orthodox were correct in allowing this, as most Anglicans don’t have Holy Orders from the R Catholic and the most common E Orthodox position (of course, disregarding the papal bull which declared them void, it seems a near certainty that at least a part of the CoE has the episcopal succession from relations with the Old Catholic Church, etc.). I distinguish here “episcopal succession”, the succession of laying on of hands, which says nothing about orthodoxy, and “apostolic succession”, the succession of both laying on of hands and the teaching of apostolic doctrine, in line with an expansion of comments earlier in the thread (of how the E Orthodox view orthodoxy as a necessary but not sufficient component of the succession).
 
Khalid said:
There really is no more definitive recognition of orthodoxy and the reality of holy orders of a given communion (in the second sense) by another communion (again, in the second sense) than the act of permitting (inter-)communion (in the first sense).
Click to expand...
That is, in fact, the position of Fr. Hart (see below), and there was a time when I would have agreed with him. However, based on what I have heard from Orthodox, they do not (and did not) officially recognize the orders of any non-Orthodox priests, whether they be Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican …
This process began as Orthodox Patriarchs and other Orthodox Bishops recognized, one by one, the validity of Anglican Orders and sent letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury to that effect. The first came in 1922, from Constantinople (as it is called when referring to the Patriarchate- instead of Istanbul). Soon after in 1923 came letters from Jerusalem, and then from the Archbishop of Cyprus. In 1923 came a letter from the Patriarch of Alexandria. In 1936, the Orthodox Church of Romania sent a letter, also recognizng the validity of Anglican Orders. (2)
Click to expand...
anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2006/05/orthodoxy-and-anglicanism-in-road.html
 
RyanBlack said:
Obviously Jon doesn’t believe that he has walked away from the Holy Eucharist. It really isn’t for you to say that Jon doesn’t truly believe that the Holy Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ (and no, I’m not putting words in your mouth, your posts have made it quite clear that this is exactly what mean to say). For you to do so is basically to call him a liar, since he has affirmed numerous time that he believes that the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.
Click to expand...
Could you please butt out and let Jon take up what ever he has to say, why does he need a nanny, and why are you getting involved third party, you don’t know what Jon thinks, or knows. Have more respect, you would not like someone to do this to you. Have you got a Crystal Ball or something. Stay out of it and be more respectful.
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
Could you please butt out and let Jon take up what ever he has to say, why does he need a nanny, and why are you getting involved third party, you don’t know what Jon thinks, or knows. Have more respect, you would not like someone to do this to you. Have you got a Crystal Ball or something. Stay out of it and be more respectful.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you doing the same thing here?
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
Could you please butt out and let Jon take up what ever he has to say, why does he need a nanny, and why are you getting involved third party, you don’t know what Jon thinks, or knows. Have more respect, you would not like someone to do this to you. Have you got a Crystal Ball or something. Stay out of it and be more respectful.
Click to expand...
My apologies, first, to Ryan for missing this.

This is an open forum, and Ryan has every right to speak his mind. He is under no obligation to “butt out” on your say-so.
Actually, Ryan has a pretty good idea of my thoughts because he and i have both been here a while and have read each other’s posts. Ryan is one of the most level-headed posters here, and doesn’t need to be told to be respectful. He does it quite well.
He is right. I have not abandoned the Eucharist. I believe and know that when I receive the Eucharist, I am receiving the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

Jon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top