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

  • Thread starter Thread starter BernadetteM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BernadetteM

Guest
It would be appreciated if one of our Orthodox brothers/sisters would explain what the offical view is by the Orthodox Church of the Anglican Commuion and those Anglicans who have left to start their own Anglican groups.

Do they consider them to be Catholic or Orthodox and are their sacraments valid? Do they retain Apostolic Succession?

I ask this as a priest who belongs to a group of Continuing Anglicans claims that his group is the true Catholic Church and that the Catholic Church is “almost Catholic”. He has shown no respect for either the Orthodox or Catholilc faiths.

He is also against the Orthodox Churches. He stated that the Book of Common Prayer holds the true faith. It appears that both the Orthodox and Catholic views of venerating the Blessed Mother and the saints are wrong, that these are innovations and not biblical.

Although the Catholic Church and Orthodox have some differences, the main doctrines of belief seem to be very close.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
Dear Bernadette,

As I like to consider myself “mostly Orthodox,” 😉 I’d like to have a go here!

The Orthodox do not recognize the Anglican communion nor its sacraments etc. There was a time when the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized that the Anglicans had valid orders, but this is no longer the case (and in any event that was a local thing anyway that was not shared by other Orthodox patriarchates).

There are Western Orthodox who have adapted the Book of Common Prayer to Orthodoxy (Lancelot Andrewes Press publishes this) and have the Rite of St Tikhon which is the Orthodox adaptation of the Prayer Book liturgy - very much as what Catholics of the Anglican Ordinariate would have.

It is true that the 39 Articles do condemn the Churches of Rome and the four Orthodox patriarchates (by name).

As for why Anglicans are leaving their communion for either Rome or Orthodoxy, there is a story that goes like this:

In the National Episcopalian Cathedral in Washington, a woman bishopess leads a procession where she is carrying a statue of the Buddha down the main aisle to the singing of gender-neutral hymns, and she then places the statue on the altar.

At this, an elderly Episcopalian gentleman in the front pew nudges his colleague next to him and states, “That’s it, Bill! One more thing like this and I’m outta here!!”

One Anglican who later became Western Orthodox told me this and said, “I just didn’t want things to get to that stage…”

Alex
 
I asked that question on another message board and was sent to this website, which seems to be a reasonable explanation of the Orthodox position on Anglicanism.

From angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Orthotake.htm

"The Orthodox take on Anglican claims

Point of information: If an Anglican priest or bishop converts to Eastern Orthodoxy, is he (a) received as a clergyman, or (b) conditionally ordained, or (c) reordained?

If he wants to be an Orthodox priest, he is reordained outright.

Here is the Orthodox take on Anglican claims to orders, in a nutshell.

In the 1920s and 1930s some patriarchates (including Constantinople and Romania) and the Churches of Cyprus and Greece made statements that some Anglicans wrongly interpreted as recognition of their orders. What the Orthodox really meant was: IF Anglicanism as a whole renounced its Protestant heresy and as a whole — the Anglican Communion — approached the Orthodox for admittance into Orthodoxy, these patriarchs would ‘economically’ receive these clergy in their orders (in other words, without reordination). Interestingly the former metropolitan of Kiev and founding first hierarch of ROCOR, Met. Anthony, believed in this (more). Until that happens, the patriarchates said, they would continue to reordain.

Of course, now that Anglicanism has moved even beyond its 16th-century classical Protestant origins away from the true faith (Charles Bennison, then its bishop in Philadelphia, has been quoted as saying, ‘The Church wrote scripture; we can change scripture’), this envisaged corporate reunion never will happen, so the question is moot."

The same site has some other links to documents on Anglican/Orthodox relations.
 
Yes, but the Orthodox Churches that made those statements on Anglican Orders were, in fact, speaking not to “all Anglicans” but to the “High Anglicans” who did indeed have practically the entire Catholic faith save for the papacy (they would acknowledge Purgatory as well).

The Old Catholics approached Orthodoxy in the 19th century and they even asked the Orthodox Church that if they united with Orthodoxy, could they continue to venerate Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague. The answer to this question was given and it is contained in a Kalendar of the Czech Orthodox Church that I’ve never managed to get my hands on . . .

So, in their case, this was a tacit recognition of their Orders by way of ekonomia.

Alex
 
How would suddenly admitting they are wrong, in a corporate manner, reinstate Orders which they lost centuries ago?
 
smad0142 said:
How would suddenly admitting they are wrong, in a corporate manner, reinstate Orders which they lost centuries ago?
Click to expand...
Because when it comes to having talks about communion, the Orthodox will never be able to give up the faith as it has been delivered to her. When a group wants to come into full eucharistic communion with the Orthodox, those individuals must become Orthodox themselves. They can still retain many of their Western disciplines though; such as aspects of the Book of Common Prayer, or a Tridentine Mass without the filioque.
 
AveChriste11 said:
Because when it comes to having talks about communion, the Orthodox will never be able to give up the faith as it has been delivered to her. When a group wants to come into full eucharistic communion with the Orthodox, those individuals must become Orthodox themselves. They can still retain many of their Western disciplines though; such as aspects of the Book of Common Prayer, or a Tridentine Mass without the filioque.
Click to expand...
Thats all fine and good but it doesn’t address my question. The Orthodox claim that Anglican orders are invalid because of the heresies they slipt into according to what people have said on this thread. How could corporately accepting Orthodoxy now reinstate orders they lost centuries ago.
 
I am no Orthodox expert, not by a longshot, but one thing that separates the Orthodox from Catholics is their views on orders. The Catholics believe a priest or bishop can be ordained and fully-consecrated to the Lord validly, leave the Catholic Church and enter into a schismatic group and yet still practice the Sacraments validly but “litictly.” The Orthodox, at least many of them I have read about or spoken to, view things more through the approach of St. Cyprian, that once a bishop or presbyter exits Holy Orthodoxy and goes into another Church, they are now outside the Church. Being outside the Church nullifies their ability to validly confer sacramental grace. One cannot be sure of the validity of their sacraments or any grace therein as the priest or bishop is doing these things outside the valid Church herself. So is the priest valid? Who knows? That’s the Orthodox view on Catholicism and I would presume, Anglicanism.

Anglicanism gets beaten up by both Catholics and Anglicans alike 😦
smad0142 said:
Thats all fine and good but it doesn’t address my question. The Orthodox claim that Anglican orders are invalid because of the heresies they slipt into according to what people have said on this thread. How could corporately accepting Orthodoxy now reinstate orders they lost centuries ago.
Click to expand...
 
That is all fine and good when talking about Catholic orders. Its the old Orthodox adage “We know where grace is, but we do not know where grace isn’t.” The Orthodox have taken a different position regarding Anglican orders however, and have decided that they are definitely invalid. How then could a corporate conversion suddenly result in valid orders?
 
smad0142 said:
That is all fine and good when talking about Catholic orders. Its the old Orthodox adage “We know where grace is, but we do not know where grace isn’t.” The Orthodox have taken a different position regarding Anglican orders however, and have decided that they are definitely invalid. How then could a corporate conversion suddenly result in valid orders?
Click to expand...
Who said it would? :confused: They would have to accept the Orthodox faith and then be received into the Church (then if the bishop receiving them decided to keep their orders, he would most likely chrismate them and then ordain them). Confessing the Orthodox faith is not enough, you must enter into communion with her. 🙂 Hope that helps.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
smad0142 said:
That is all fine and good when talking about Catholic orders. Its the old Orthodox adage “We know where grace is, but we do not know where grace isn’t.” The Orthodox have taken a different position regarding Anglican orders however, and have decided that they are definitely invalid. How then could a corporate conversion suddenly result in valid orders?
Click to expand...
I fear there is a bit of a misunderstanding. The Orthodox Church recognizes no sacraments outside of itself. The Church can only testify to itself. The Church cannot make a judgment of heterodox sacraments because they are not of the Church.

So, when deciding on how to receive a heterodox Christian into the Church, it is entirely up to the bishop with his power to bind and loose to decide how it is to be done. Properly speaking there is no such thing as a “conditional” baptism or ordination. If a bishop decides to ordain someone being received into the Church, then that is their one and only ordination. If a bishop decides to apply economia, and to receive a heterodox priest by simple vesting, that is not a recognition that the previous “ordination” was grace filled, it is the bishop through his Apostolic authority saying that whatever was lacking in the heterodox rites are now filled and completed by the individual’s reception into the Church.

Now on to Apostolic Succession. For the Orthodox it is a truism that for an individual to have Apostolic Succession they must by definition hold the Apostolic Faith. Even if you were ordained personally by an Apostle, if you abandon the Faith you do not have Succession. So, if the Church decides to receive and Anglican or Catholic bishop by simple vesting, it is an application of economia with the understanding that whatever was lacking in the heterodox rites is filled and completed by the individual’s Orthodox confession and reception into the Church.
 
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.
 
josephdaniel,

Thanks for the good response. I have a question further about Orthodox understanding about Orders. In the West the conferral of Orders is considered to permanently change the soul, just like Baptism. Does such a notion exist in the East? And if so, then how would heterodoxy result in losing this sacramental character? Wouldn’t it just result in an inability to “use”, for lack of a better term, this character?

Thanks!!
 
There are probably Anglicans and former ones in your area. If you have contact with those who wish to have an Anglican Use parish, you will need to gather together, maybe for Evening Prayer and a meeting. You can contact Fr. Bartus at St. Mary of the Angels Anglican Church. He is gathering groups together and he might be able to help you.

His parish is located in Hollywood, CA. I think that there are probably many of us, although I converted years ago, who are wishing to have an Anglican Use parish to attend.

I do believe that many Orthodox accept that Catholic orders are valid, it seems that it depends on which Orthodox Church. They do not accept Anglican Orders.

Good luck, it might take some time before the Ordinariate grows, however if seems to be doing well in the US of those who wish to join it when it is established.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
smad0142 said:
josephdaniel,

Thanks for the good response. I have a question further about Orthodox understanding about Orders. In the West the conferral of Orders is considered to permanently change the soul, just like Baptism. Does such a notion exist in the East? And if so, then how would heterodoxy result in losing this sacramental character? Wouldn’t it just result in an inability to “use”, for lack of a better term, this character?

Thanks!!
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top