Posted on 11/17/2006 5:12:22 PM PST by sionnsar
But while this is so, there are brightening prospects in the East. Thither, it would seem, God’s providence is directing us. The venerable orthodox Russian and Greek Church is turning to us with friendly expressions of interest. She says, “We do not ask you, as Rome does, to ’submit’ we only ask, ‘Do you hold the same Catholic faith we have inherited from the Fathers?’ If you do this, we are brothers.” When we consider that the East has been but little affected by the schoolmen, and had not to pass through the convulsions of a Reformation, and has for nine hundred years borne consistent witness for the faith once delivered, and against Roman errors, Anglicans should be willing to free themselves from their prejudices and somewhat self-conceit, and listen to her kindly words.
The Church, indwelt by Christ, guided by the Holy Spirit, is a living organism, and we may trust the Voice of God speaking through her before she was rent into Eastern and Western divisions. The Voice of God speaking to the churches is not confined, as some Anglicans seem to think, to any particular centuries. But in the seven Ecumenical councils we have the Voice of the Spirit and in the seven holy mysteries, the means of grace.
The question presenting the most difficulty has to do with the Filioque. There is no difference in belief between the Anglican communion and the venerable East on the doctrine of the Filioque, but without Ecumenical consent it has no right to be in the Creed.
May God inspire the wise men of the Church to solve the difficulty. Each church in the case of restored intercommunion would retain its own independent government and liturgy. Anglicans and Easterns must be content with agreement in the ancient faith,–not in the uniformity of its outward expression. While the faith is unchangeable, the Church, as the bride of Christ, has been led to follow her Lord’s life, and sometimes has been more absorbed in devotion to His incarnation, sometimes to His passion. The faith abides from age to age; but ceremonies and practices of devotion are the fresh outcome of the Church’s love. The East and the West have their own ceremonial traditions, and the differences existing should not hinder the restoration of Christian recognition and fellowship.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. I guess I don't follow you -- the article wasn't about traditions or practices, but rather: ‘Do you hold the same Catholic faith we have inherited from the Fathers?’
What I was saying is that in sociological sense Orthodoxy is a religion for despotisms. Thus, regardless of doctriinal and indeed of ANY other parameters, no reunion with such is either feasible or desirable for those who would like to represent free societies.
Are you trying to say that all Orthodox are tied to the State, worship the State over God, are under the heel of the State?
And where does that leave all the Orthodox in the USA? Do we worship Caesar?
There has not been a caesar of any sort for over 500 years, yet Orthodoxy is doing very well.
Many disaffected Episcopalians have found its timeless and true Christianity to be a calm haven for the storm tossed. I am among those grateful refugees.
Please forgive me though I ask some Orthodox FRiends to respond to this. From where I see things it may not be an unfair question, given the "ethnic" element often attributed to Orthodox churches (might we someday see an "American Orthodox" church")...
Feel free- I was born and grew up in the effing USSR, and thus I have the first hand experience of the "Orthodox civ". Just remember - I judge the trees [religions] by their fruit - the corresponding Huntingtonian civilizations, i.e. the societies they tend to produce and promote. In my framework the "filioque" is utterly irrelevant, but the fact that out of the Orthodox civ people tend to vote with their feet to the West, while in the opposite direction there is barely a trickle - is highly relevant.
I am humbled by your learning and gift of expression.
Even so, the impediments are the same. The one that stands out especially in my mind is that of women "priests." Do the Orthodox say that women can receive Orders? What about the other Mysteries... are they valid? Are the Thirty-Nine Articles compatible with the Orthodox Faith?
Without those issues answered, I find it difficult to believe that any more than a small few slivers of the Anglican Church could ever come into communion with the Orthodox. Maybe I'm wrong (since I say all of this as an outsider), but I am certainly curious.
You wrote: "Without those issues answered, I find it difficult to believe that any more than a small few slivers of the Anglican Church could ever come into communion with the Orthodox. Maybe I'm wrong (since I say all of this as an outsider), but I am certainly curious."
No, you're very right.
The Thirty Nine Articles are not embraced by all Anglicans. They were a bit of a compromise and both Anglo-Catholics and Reformed Anglicans have some dissatisfaction with them. It seems probable that to many Anglicans they would not present an insurmountable obstacle to Communion with the East.
I spoke with Sam Huntington earlier this year, about the Christian East and West actually being the two halves of the same civilization that need to be reunited. He said that he did not know much about or understand Orthodoxy or its culture, and never did. Therefore, by his own admission, his statements on the Orthodox civilization in "Clash of Civilizations" are based on ignorance, and may be dicounted.
As for Soviet despotism, it really was conceived in the West (Marx, Engels, etc.), not the Orthodox East. In Russia and other Eastern countries, communism was born out of rejection of Orthodox Christianity, and the desire to exterminate it.
As for Orthodoxy and despotism in medieval times, Western feudalism was even more despotic than the Eastern Roman Empire, and nowhere near as civilized. Neither Orthodox Serbia nor Greece in modern times could be called despotic, in the case of Serbia not until its communist conquest by Tito.
God only became a junior partner to Caesar in Czarist Russia under the Western Enlightenment-oriented Peter the First, who abolished the Patriarchate and put the church under the state. Catherine the Second, another Western Enlightenment-oriented Russian ruler, was also a gross despot. I hope that the next time we try to unite East and West, we will do it right, based on the undivided faith of the Christian Church, not some atheistic ideology.
As for the Anglicans (or us Lutherans) uniting with Orthodox Christianity, as we should, it won't happen until we reverse our revisionist, liberal protestant drift. For example, Jefferts-Schori and "Selfish Gene" Robinson have got to go.
Both of you ought to know that this article is a bit, shall we say, dated and certainly doesn't reflect any Orthodox view over the past near 100 years in this country. In the late 19th century to about 1912 in this country, there were fitful efforts at some sort of agreement with the Anglicans generally and the Episcopalians specifically. In fact, early on there was actual enthusiam for the idea on the part of the senior Orthodox hierarch in America. By 1912, however, +Raphael came to the conclusion that there was no present possibility of anything like an intercommunion (discussions continued in Europe until about 1930 when they were abandoned by the Orthodox). The following is his pastoral letter to the Church in America on the subject.
"To My Beloved Clergy and Laity of the Syrian Greek-Orthodox
Catholic Church in North America:
Greetings in Christ Jesus, Our Incarnate Lord and God.
My Beloved Brethren:
Two years ago, while I was Vice-President and member of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union, being moved with compassion for my children in the Holy Orthodox Faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), scattered throughout the whole of North America and deprived of the ministrations of the Church; and especially in places far removed from Orthodox centers; and being equally moved with a feeling that the Episcopalian (Anglican) Church possessed largely the Orthodox Faith, as many of the prominent clergy professed the same to me before I studied deeply their doctrinal authorities and their liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer—I wrote a letter as Bishop and Head of the Syrian-Orthodox Mission in North America, giving permission, in which I said that in extreme cases, where no Orthodox priest could be called upon at short notice, the ministrations of the Episcopal (Anglican) clergy might be kindly requested. However, I was most explicit in defining when and how the ministrations should be accepted, and also what exceptions should be made. In writing that letter I hoped, on the one hand, to help my people spiritually, and, on the other hand, to open the way toward bringing the Anglicans into the communion of the Holy Orthodox Faith.
On hearing and in reading that my letter, perhaps unintentionally, was misconstrued by some of the Episcopalian (Anglican) clergy, I wrote a second letter in which I pointed out that my instructions and exceptions had been either overlooked or ignored by many, to wit:
a) They (the Episcopalians) informed the Orthodox people that I recognized the Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church) as being united with the Holy Orthodox Church and their ministry, that is holy orders, as valid.
b) The Episcopal (Anglican) clergy offered their ministrations even when my Orthodox clergy were residing in the same towns and parishes, as pastors.
c) Episcopal clergy said that there was no need of the Orthodox people seeking the ministrations of their own Orthodox priests, for their (the Anglican) ministrations were all that were necessary.
I, therefore, felt bound by all the circumstances to make a thorough study of the Anglican Church's faith and orders, as well as of her discipline and ritual. After serious consideration I realized that it was my honest duty, as a member of the College of the Holy Orthodox Greek Apostolic Church, and head of the Syrian Mission in North America, to resign from the vice-presidency of and membership in the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union. At the same time, I set forth, in my letter of resignation, my reason for so doing.
I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church. I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. I speak, of course, from the Holy Orthodox Eastern Catholic point of view. The Holy Orthodox Church has never perceptibly changed from Apostolic times, and, therefore, no one can go astray in finding out what She teaches. Like Her Lord and Master, though at times surrounded with human malaria—which He in His mercy pardons—She is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8) the mother and safe deposit of the truth as it is in Jesus (cf. Eph. 4:21).
The Orthodox Church differs absolutely with the Anglican Communion in reference to the number of Sacraments and in reference to the doctrinal explanation of the same. The Anglicans say in their Catechism concerning the Sacraments that there are "two only as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." I am well aware that, in their two books of homilies (which are not of a binding authority, for the books were prepared only in the reign of Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth for priests who were not permitted to preach their own sermons in England during times both politically and ecclesiastically perilous), it says that there are "five others commonly called Sacraments" (see homily in each book on the Sacraments), but long since they have repudiated in different portions of their Communion this very teaching and absolutely disavow such definitions in their "Articles of Religion" which are bound up in their Book of Common Prayer or Liturgy as one of their authorities.
The Orthodox Church has ever taught that there are seven Sacraments. She plainly points out the fact that each of the seven has an outward and visible sign and an inward and spiritual Grace, and that they are of gospel and apostolic origin.
Again, the Orthodox Church has certain rites and practices associated and necessary in the administration of the Sacraments which neither time nor circumstances must set aside where churches are organized. Yet the Anglicans entirely neglect these, though they once taught and practiced the same in more catholic days.
In the case of the administration of Holy Baptism it is the absolute rule of the Orthodox Church that the candidate must be immersed three times (once in the name of each Person of the Holy Trinity). Immersion is only permissory in the Anglican Communion, and pouring or sprinkling is the general custom. The Anglicans do not use holy oil in the administration, etc., and even in doctrinal teaching in reference to this Sacrament they differ.
As to the doctrine concerning Holy Communion the Anglican Communion has no settled view. The Orthodox Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation without going into any scientific or Roman Catholic explanation. The technical word which She uses for the sublime act of the priest by Christ's authority to consecrate is "transmuting" (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). She, as I have said, offers no explanation, but She believes and confesses that Christ, the Son of the living God Who came into the world to save sinners, is of a truth in His "all-pure Body" and "precious Blood" (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) objectively present, and to be worshiped in that Sacrament as He was on earth and is now in risen and glorified majesty in Heaven; and that "the precious and holy and life-giving Body and Blood of Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ are imparted" (to each soul that comes to that blessed Sacrament) "Unto the remission of sins, and unto life everlasting" (Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom).
Confirmation or the laying on of hands, which the Orthodox Church calls a Sacrament—"Chrismation"—in the Anglican Church is merely the laying on of hands of the Bishop accompanied by a set form of prayers, without the use of Holy Chrism, which has come down from Apostolic days as necessary.
Holy Matrimony is regarded by the Anglican Communion as only a sacred rite which, even if performed by a Justice of the Peace, is regarded as sufficient in the sight of God and man.
Penance is practiced but rarely in the Anglican Communion, and Confession before the reception of Holy Communion is not compulsory. They have altogether set aside the Sacrament of Holy Unction, that is anointing the sick as commanded by Saint James (see James 5:14). In their priesthood they do not teach the true doctrine of the Grace of the Holy Orders. Indeed they have two forms of words for ordination, namely, one which gives the power of absolution to the priest, and the alternative form without the words of Our Lord, whosoever sins ye remit, etc. (John 20: 23). Thus they leave every bishop to choose intention or non-intention in the act of ordination as to the power and Grace of their priesthood ("Ordination of Priests," Book of Common Prayer).
But, besides all of this, the Anglican Communion ignores the Orthodox Church's dogmas and teachings, such as the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, special honor to the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and reverence for sacred relics, holy pictures and icons. They say of such teaching that it is "a foul thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God" (Article of Religion, XXII).
There is a striking variance between their wording of the Nicene Creed and that of the Holy Orthodox Church; but sadder still, it contains the heresy of the "filioque."
I do not deem it necessary to mention all the striking differences between the Holy Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion in reference to the authority of holy tradition, the number of Ecumenical Councils, etc. Enough has already been said and pointed out to show that the Anglican Communion differs but little from all other Protestant bodies, and therefore, there cannot be any intercommunion until they return to the ancient Holy Orthodox Faith and practices, and reject Protestant omissions and commissions.
Therefore, as the official head of the Syrian Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church in North America and as one who must give account (Heb. 13:17) before the judgment seat of the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls (I Pet. 2:25), that I have fed the flock of God (I Pet. 5:2), as I have been commissioned by the Holy Orthodox Church, and inasmuch as the Anglican Communion (Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA) does not differ in things vital to the well-being of the Holy Orthodox
Church from some of the most errant Protestant sects, I direct all Orthodox people residing in any community not to seek or to accept the ministrations of the Sacraments and rites from any clergy excepting those of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, for the Apostolic command that the Orthodox should not commune in ecclesiastical matters with those who are not of the same household of faith (Gal. 6:10), is clear: "Any bishop, or presbyter or deacon who will pray with heretics, let him be anathematized; and if he allows them as clergymen to perform any service, let him be deposed." (Apostolic Canon 45) "Any bishop, or presbyter who accepts Baptism or the Holy Sacrifice from heretics, we order such to be deposed, for what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (Apostolic Canon 46)
As to members of the Holy Orthodox Church living in areas beyond the reach of Orthodox clergy, I direct that the ancient custom of our Holy Church be observed, namely, in cases of extreme necessity, that is, danger of death, children may be baptized by some pious Orthodox layman, or even by the parent of the child, by immersion three times in the names of the (Persons of the) Holy Trinity, and in case of death such baptism is valid; but, if the child should live, he must be brought to an Orthodox priest for the Sacrament of Chrismation.
In the case of the death of an Orthodox person where no priest of the Holy Orthodox Church can be had, a pious layman may read over the corpse, for the comfort of the relatives and the instruction of the persons present, Psalm 90 and Psalm 118, and add thereto the Trisagion ("Holy God, Holy Mighty," etc.). But let it be noted that as soon as possible the relative must notify some Orthodox bishop or priest and request him to serve the Liturgy and Funeral for the repose of the soul of the departed in his cathedral or parish Church.
As to Holy Matrimony, if there be any parties united in wedlock outside the pale of the holy Orthodox Church because of the remoteness of Orthodox centers from their home, I direct that as soon as possible they either invite an Orthodox priest or go to where he resides and receive from his hands the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony; otherwise they will be considered excommunicated until they submit to the Orthodox Church's rule.
I further direct that Orthodox Christians should not make it a practice to attend the services of other religious bodies, so that there be no confusion concerning the teaching or doctrines. Instead, I order that the head of each household, or a member, may read the special prayers which can be found in the Hours in the Holy Orthodox Service Book, and such other devotional books as have been set forth by the authority of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Commending our clergy and laity unto the safekeeping of Jesus Christ, and praying that the Holy Spirit may keep us all in the truth and extend the borders of the Holy Orthodox Faith, I remain.
Your affectionate Servant in Christ
+ RAPHAEL,
Bishop of Brooklyn,
Head of the Syrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission in North America
As for the Anglicans (or us Lutherans) uniting with Orthodox Christianity, as we should, it won't happen until we reverse our revisionist, liberal protestant drift. For example, Jefferts-Schori and "Selfish Gene" Robinson have got to go.
"Of course. Besides the Homosexual Robinson, IS that the Anglican chuch that recently decided that euthanazia was acceptable for disabled infants?
If so, anathema on them."
Indeed, and yet it has been my experience that of all the people, Christians or otherwise, who have come through the doors of our parish church and gone on to become chrismated Orthodox, it is precisely the Episcopalians who "get it" and develop an Orthodox phronema the quickest and at the deepest level.
"Based on the Greeks I know and on what I know about modern Greek history, on the predominance in Greece of socialist and nationalist parties [and let us add to it the ambiguity about the '48 civil war with the communists], on the proclivity to affiliation with the likes of the Serbs and Mid-Easterners - I reject your argument root, branches, trunk and leaves. And add the bark there, too."
OK
It is important to differentiate between communion with Canterbury and communion with Anglicans. Anglican theology and dogma have never been entirely settled, and the communion has often described itself as united primarily through how we worship. Many of the differences with Orthodoxy cited by +Raphael refer primarily to Reformed (Protestant) Anglicanism, which IS heavily (but not entirely) reflected in the Thirty Nine Articles and the Books of Homilies from the time of Edward and Elizabeth. Reformed theology is absolutely inconsistent with eastern orthodox catholocism. Anglo-catholicism, which has been a current of Anglicanism from the time of the reformation, and for example recognizes seven sacraments, is much more consistent with Eastern orthodoxy.
It would be difficult for Canterbury and most of the national Anglican churches to enter into full communion with either Roman or Eastern Orthodoxy without entirely disclaiming all strains of Calvinism, but it is conceivable that some of the continuing Anglican churches could do exactly that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.