What is the Official Teaching of the Orthodox Church Towards the Anglican churches

[mardukm]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

Honestly I don’t know the answer to your question. I do know that it is not possible to to exercise any priestly office outside of the Church. Whether there is an indelible mark I do not know.

Has there ever been a plenary EO Council, or an authority that can properly proclaim new dogma for the EOC, that has judged the Catholic Church to be “in heresy?”

In lieu to the answer for above, my ultimate questions are:

1. Would it be proper for a particular EO bishop to receive Catholic priests into the EOC with the belief that the Catholic Church indeed has “valid orders”?
2. Would an EO bishop (or any individual lay EO, for that matter) be excommunicated for believing that the CC was not in heresy, but only in schism?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josephdaniel29]

Dear brother josephdaniel,

Has there ever been a plenary EO Council, or an authority that can properly proclaim new dogma for the EOC, that has judged the Catholic Church to be “in heresy?”

“New” dogma? What’s this word “new”?

Okay, in all seriousness; why do you think a council would be necessary to determine heresy? And to answer your question, yes, numerous councils have declared the Roman Catholic Church to be in heresy, starting with the Third Ecumenical Council and including the Palamite Councils, the 1583 Council of Jerusalem, the 1672 Council of Jerusalem and the 1772 Council of Constantinople. The Patriarchal Encyclicals of 1848 and 1895 also specifically condemn the Catholic Church as heretical.

In lieu to the answer for above, my ultimate questions are:

1. Would it be proper for a particular EO bishop to receive Catholic priests into the EOC with the belief that the Catholic Church indeed has “valid orders”?

A bishop is free to believe whatever he wishes to believe within the bounds of Holy Tradition. Whether or not someone has “valid orders” is not part of the deposit of faith.

1. Would an EO bishop (or any individual lay EO, for that matter) be excommunicated for believing that the CC was not in heresy, but only in schism?

Blessings,
Marduk

Why in the world would someone be excommunicated for that?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not sure how fair it is to put " " quotes around the titles of their offices? They don’t do that to Catholics, Orthodox, or Protestants, we shouldn’t do that to them…

I used to be Anglican.

Any anglicans coming into union with the Catholic or Orthodox Church are going to have to jettison most of the things that made them uniquely anglican, the 39 articles, etc. Also non-male “priests” and “bishops” are going to have to step down from their positions. However, the Anglican Use Catholics can still use the Book of Common Prayer, with minor changes that is.

Most anglicans that I know that are clinging onto some semblance of orthodoxy are knocking on Rome or Constantinople’s door asking to be let in. A small number have joined the “Continuing Anglican” movement.

I would love to check out an Anglican Use parish.

As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church along with the Catholic Church considers Anglican orders to be null and void.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I used to be Anglican.

Any anglicans coming into union with the Catholic or Orthodox Church are going to have to jettison most of the things that made them uniquely anglican, the 39 articles, etc. Also non-male “priests” and “bishops” are going to have to step down from their positions. However, the Anglican Use Catholics can still use the Book of Common Prayer, with minor changes that is.

Most anglicans that I know that are clinging onto some semblance of orthodoxy are knocking on Rome or Constantinople’s door asking to be let in. A small number have joined the “Continuing Anglican” movement.

I would love to check out an Anglican Use parish.

As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church along with the Catholic Church considers Anglican orders to be null and void.

If I understand Joseph correctly, the OC does not share the CC’s view of utterly null and void towards Anglican orders, they just cannot make a judgement about Anglican orders, since they are “not the church” in the Orthodox view of it. As a result, they cannot declare them to be valid or declare them to be invalid.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think they use the same Orthodox logic with Anglicans that they use with Catholics: we can tell you where grace and validity IS, but we cannot tell you where it is absent…words to that effect…

You know my opinion—Anglican orders are valid

If I understand Joseph correctly, the OC does not share the CC’s view of utterly null and void towards Anglican orders, they just cannot make a judgement about Anglican orders, since they are “not the church” in the Orthodox view of it. As a result, they cannot declare them to be valid or declare them to be invalid.