“K, any take on this?”
I’m a bit surprised it was Met. Jonah who spoke to the Anglicans. If this new group is actually interested pursuing thee discussions, they would do better to be speaking with +Demetrios and +Philip. Beyond that, I think the Orthodox Church is open to anyone who wishes to embrace Orthodoxy.
As I have said to you, s, it has been my experience that Episopalians take to Orthodoxy much easier and quicker than people from other particular churches or ecclesial groups. There is a remnant of a very ancient Anglo Orthodox mindset there which flowers in an Orthodox setting, though to the extent that this group is made up of bd’s (good to see you bd!) clients, I don’t see a wholesale acceptance of Eastern Christian theology which of course is the sine qua non of any unity.
The experience of Orthodoxy with the reception of large groups here in America has been mixed. When thousands of Carpatho Russians came into Orthodoxy in the late 19th century, that worked out fine. The reception of a large group which styled itself as “Evangelical Orthodox” in 1987 has been, at best, a mixed blessing. The Carpatho Russians were all but Orthodox anyway; the Evangelical group is still very, very Western in its mindset and tends to preach a Western, even Protestant sort of atonement theology which while probably not heretical, is foreign to Orthodoxy. I’d say the conservative Episcopalians fall somewhere in between, but much nearer the Carpatho Russians than the Evangelicals.
I trust that Met. Jonah isn’t anticipating an expansion of “Western Rite Orthodoxy”. That won’t fly among even the Antiochians. Otherwise, I think the OCA metropolitan has set out the usual requirements for becoming Orthodox and this new group may well want to consider it.
Metropolitan Jonah was once an Episcopal priest and he is the successor of St Tikhon (whom the Episcopalians are adding to their calendar of saints next month). He, more than anyone else, can serve as a “bridge figure” between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy,
I took the time last night read the 39 Articles of Religion again. It is interesting to note that Article XIX declares the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome to have erred. It does not say anything about the Church of Constantinople. It is important to know that Anglicans have never had problems with the Orthodox. No Archbishop of Canterbury was ever murdered in the name of Orthodoxy (unlike Archbishops Cranmer and Laud).
The ACNA Constitution affirms the the teachings of the first four councils of the undivided Church and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh councils. Icons are not unusual in Anglican churches, but they are not central to worship like in Orthodoxy.
I think the biggest obstacle for Anglicans embracing Orthodoxy is not theology, but culture.