Considering EO (or less likely, RCC)

Hello everyone. Hopefully there'll be someone here to read this. I figure I should give random internet people a chance to intercede before I do something as radical as change denomination.

As the title suggests, I in a bit of an ecclesiastical crisis right now with regards to my Church affiliation. I am a sinner who strives towards small-o orthodoxy within Anglo-Catholicism (after a previous crisis of faith and after reading a lot of Thomistic philosophy combined with stuff by GKC and even C. S. Lewis I rejected my former broad-church heterodoxy and liberalism*, as well as Protestantism for the most part). Obviously I was not convinced of Papism nor Vatican II weirdness (I still think they're suspicious at best and ridiculous at worst), and this has left me in a real mess. I found the most orthodox and traditional Anglo-Catholic parish available (in the ACC and in communion with Canterbury), but I'm still worried about what's been going on within the larger Anglican communion and the ACC with regards to a clear repudiation of God's will in order to fit better with worldly liberalism (this has been done to death, you probably know what I'm talking about), not to mention my doubt over the validity of Apostolic Succession in Anglicanism, especially after relatively recent changes (yes, those ones) and exposure to admittedly rather good arguments from EOs and RCs.

Recently I gave Eastern Orthodoxy a look, which I had previously ignored due to its being perceived as an ethnic club, and am not unseriously considering the possibility that they may be right when they claim to be legit (whodathunkit). Note that I'm not just a reactionary knee-jerker whose going to switch denominations "just because" of heterodoxy within my own- I'm seriously trying to find out who is right, with eternal implications. At the very least, the EO it's looking like a better alternative to the RCC as an emergency parachute. Of course this brings difficulties (such as conversion to the EO necessitating an implicit statement that Anglicanism is bunk and that it lacks Apostolic Succession, not to mention the fideism rampant in my local "metropolitans"). Ideally the orthodox High Church Anglicanism of Lewis, Elliot and pre-RCC Chesterton would be a good option, but on the ground it no longer exists. I have doubts as to whether any of those three would be in either the COE or ACC had they been alive today.

So, what on earth do I do here? Stick with the ACC and Anglo-Catholicism? I figure I should at least talk with my priest about this, but am afraid of a canned answer, not to mention the awkwardness of implicitly admitting to an Anglican priest that I'm not sure Anglican ordination is legit.


*My story is a little more complicated that that, since at one point I was a de-facto agnostic/reluctant weak atheist and spent much of my teenage and early adult life rather irreligiously (I'm now 25 and relatively recent de-facto "revert"), but you get the point.

 

Well, as my religion tag might indicate I am biased, both being a lapsed Catholic and one of the dreaded liberal "moral relativist hippies" That said, if you're interested these are my two cents...

I don't claim to be an expert on Eastern Orthodoxy by any stretch of the imagination, but from what was explained to me in my Church history and Theology lessons Orthodoxy is very much an "ethnic" club. Not so much that they don't welcome non Greeks/Russians/Egyptians or whatnot (most of their services are in the vernacular tounge, don't worry about that), quite the contrary they're usually delighted to win new converts. Rather that unlike Roman Catholicism where there is a central power base (the Vatican) which sets a single ruleset Eastern Orthodoxy has nothing comparable to this, not even the Patriarch of Constantinople/Istanbul comes close.

This does have some some benefits, for instance Russians can better relate and empathize with their Russian clerics rather than a distant Italian Monarch but it comes with some not inconsiderable penalties. While Eastern Orthodox Christians do share some similar beliefs to one another (trinity, sacraments etc) they can diverge wildly on the form of services, sources of authority and in some cases even major doctrines of faith (take a look at how the Copts view Christs nature!) Though most autocephalous regions are in communion with one another, there is always at best a gentle chaos amongst them and they are divided along ethnic lines.

Catholicism itself doesn't suffer this difficulty; there is one set standard for all from which there can not legally be any diversion from. Certainly the RC will happily incorporate some local "cultural flavor" to make it more relatable to the laity (there is a far bigger emphasis on prayers for ancestors in Chinese and Vietnamese RC Churches than European ones) but unlike Orthodoxy is not bound by ethnic or country boundaries.

An RC church is like the McDonalds of Christianity; you can go into any one around the globe and while the language might be different you know exactly what you're going to get every time. Eastern Orthodoxy is far more heavily influenced by nationalism and the ethnic culture from which it originated from, whereas Catholicism promotes a more universal, indeed Catholic standard by imposing a single culture.

I'll be honest though, whichever one you convert to if you do will require you to affirm that Anglicanism does not have apostolic succession. The EO churches believe you all to be heretics primarily because of female ordination and Anglican views on the sacraments. the RC likewise rejected that the Anglican communion has apostolic succession because of Anglican views on the sacraments; unless you are ordained with the intention to teach the essential nature of confession and transubstantiation you are not truly ordained. This is why the RC believes Eastern Orthodoxy have valid but illict sacraments (they are more or less identical), but the EO believes the RC does not (they think the Pope by proclaiming dogmas like the assumption has overstepped the mark of leadership).

 

An Anglican priest who's blog I follow wrote a post on this issue a while ago. http://conciliaranglican.com/2012/08/14/ask-an-anglican-escaping-into-eastern-orthodoxy/
As I've been hovering between High Church Anglicanism and OrtI asked some Orthodox on anoth forum I frequent what they though of it, resulting in this thread. http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60620.msg1188227/topicseen.html#msg1188227

Except the Copts are not Eastern Orthodox but Oriental Orthodox. There is a difference. And almost all Eastern Orthodox use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for their regular Sunday services, they only exception I know of being relatively recent minority group of Western Rite Orthodox, themselves mostly made of former Anglicans or Catholics who converted. They would argue it is their mutual adherence to the Orthodox faith, not submission to any one Pope or Patriarch, that produces their unity, and in my experience they are much more theologically unified then you make them out to be.

From the EO perspective, it's not quite that clear-cut. The whole idea of those outside the Orthodox Church having valid or invalid sacraments is foreign to their way of thinking. The most explanation I've ever gotten out of them is is that they know what God does within the church but they can't know what he does outside of it. If you look you can find examples of Catholic priest being received into Orthodoxy as priest, and examples of them being received into Orthodoxy as laypeople.

 

Yes BrethernBoy,

The Orthodox are not divided doctinally at all. I used to be Orthodox (Serbian Orthodox), and the ethnic club mindset is a major problem (it sure was for me), but they are all united on the doctrinal issues, which is actually quite amazing considering they have nothing like the Pope or a magisterium.

If any one of the independent Orthodox Churches was to adopt a practice or teaching that was an innovation, the other Churches would break communion with it in a heartbeat.

While most Orthodox Churches have no formal position regarding Roman sacraments, the Church of Russia formally acknowledged Roman orders and sacraments back in the 1600s. Moscow does not reordain Roman priests who convert.

You are correct to state that the Orthodox tend to not make pronouncements on other Churches; they claim to be the true Church, but they hesitate to say what the Holy Spirit is doing outside the Church. Most Orthodox priests I have known have the attitude of, "we don't concern ourselves with what other groups outside the Church are doing."

 

Thank you for your replies.

I was already aware that both the RCC and EO deny the validity of Anglican apostolic succession. On that note, I actually find transubstantiation at the very least plausible. Also, the RCC teaching that Anglicans have invalid ordination long preceded women's' ordination, although if I'm not mistaken the EO quite recently issued a statement that hinted that they may have considered the possibility of recognising Anglican apostolic succession had it not been for women bishops et al.

One of the big differences I have noticed between the EO and RCC is the issue of fideism (as mentioned in my original post), on which I strongly agree with the RCC. This complicates things a bit, since otherwise the EO seems to make more sense (no papacy and the mental gymnastics required for it). Compare the Vatican...

...with my local Russian Orthodox archdiocese:

 

Oh they are, but I'm led to understand that some (not all) cephalous regions do mantain communion with the certain Oriental orthodox churches. I could be mistaken, it's been a good while since I read anything to do with this topic.

Then there is the matter of the ecumenical councils; the Orthodox generally believe there has only been seven with universal authority. There have been councils after Nicea II, but here is the rub; different Orthodox churches can and do disagree with which ones since are sources of authoritative teaching.

Perhaps, I couldn't really comment on that. To Catholics anyone who attempts to minister who isn't in communion with Rome can intentionally be sharing authoritative teaching (if they parrot the views of Rome) but they still do so illicitly by being in schism. The Pope is Christs vicar, his very representative on earth. Pre-Vatican II it was widely thought and taught God would not "act" outside the church unless against the non-Catholics, now it tends to be more ambiguous (largely I suspect because the RC hopes a reunion where the EO where they submit to Rome is on the cards at some point in the future)

 

That's exactly the letter I was referring to With that aside there was prior to that a similar agenda between some more traditionalist inclined Anglicans and Orthodoxy but womens ordination was the final nail in the coffin that lead to an absolute no never.

Perhaps you might find it interesting to know that of the four Cardinals who got together to investigate the claims to Apostolic succession three of them came to the conclusion the Anglican communion did have it, it is thought by historians the main reasons the Pope decided otherwise was because acknowledging the succession existed might reduce converters to Rome and because though they were of the succession they were thought not to be teaching Christian doctrine when it came to sacraments.

It all comes down to Matthew 16:18 really doesn't it? A Catholic would argue that a Church without Peter (i.e: the Pope) makes less sense. If the Pope is the rock, there can be no Church without the rock as it's keystone, and one cannot say Christ is the keystone alone when Christ has specifically designated Peter as the rock.

..Natural law though I admit is messier, I've always been one of the more irreverent of Aquinas's readers. A good book on this topic is Cardinal Sheehan's Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine. Unfortunately it does seem to be out of print at the moment (I looked up on Amazon and they seem to be charging rather ridiculous prices for it) but it was used as the standard Theological text in Catholic Schools for a good fifty years and explains it well.

I did manage to find a portion of it online readable for free that is relevant, perhaps it may ring true for you http://www.catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.pdf

God bless!

 

On the way out of the door of Rome i wondered a little into the land of the orthodox.
Now i loved; it was beautiful, reverent and powerful.
For me at the ones I did go to they where great people. That being said there was an ethnic barrier.
In the end I am a westerner. I grew up in America who culture and attitude is western. I knew western history and the development of the church in the west. For me it seemed out of sync to pray in arabic or greek. It us so rooted in there culture I knew i was always going to be outsider.
So I embraced western Christianity. I belong to a church who does not do any of the liberal funny business. I can not worry about the larger Anglican world. I can only worry about my poor little soul. So i support my church. Do all i need too. I try to be the best example if my faith to friends and families.
And I follow the news. Ya it is getting. Soon we will lawn furniture as bishops.

 

Apparently, some of the Western Rite Orthodox use a Liturgy based on the American 1928 Book of Common Prayer. http://orthodoxwiki.org/Liturgy_of_St._Tikhon_of_Moscow

 

It might be useful to note that there is no Western Rite available in my city, or anywhere remotely within reach.

Could you give a source for all of this?

 

Certainly, I do have to apologize though. It seems I mixed up the numbers of the Cardinals investigating Anglican claims and another case concerning the oriental Orthodox.

Of the eight members of the panel investigating the matter of Anglican orders, four of them were in favor of recognizing them.

One key element in the new context for the evaluation of Anglican orders today is that in 1978 the Vatican archives were opened through the year 1903. This has brought to light documents that show that the decisions of Apostolicæ Curæ were arrived at through a more complex process than we had previously imagined. The process, it must be admitted, is not so important as the conclusion. However, it is helpful to observe the process. The documents now available to scholars definitely confirm the existence of two distinct groups among the eight members of an apostolic commission appointed by Leo XIII in January 1896 to reexamine the validity of Anglican orders. Leo's commission was divided, and four members of the commission believed that a 'historic continuity' with the medieval Church in England could be traced in modern Anglicanism. In 1896 Vatican opinion on the invalidity of Anglican orders was not as solidly negative as we once imagined, prior to 1978. It would not be to our purpose to comment on the opinions of the four members who were in favor of invalidity because these arguments found their way into Apostolicæ Curæ. Almost unknown today are the positions of the papal commissioners who concluded positively in favor of the orders.3

For example, one member of the papal commission, Louis Duchesne, believed that the practice of regarding Anglican orders as null and void did not derive from 'an ecclesiastical sentence' given in full knowledge of all the facts in the case. For a second commission member, Pietro Gasparri, the material succession of Anglican orders was intact. A third member, Emilio De Augustinis, held that the ordination rite of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer safeguarded the substance of the sacrament of order, and that the formula Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, contained in the 1552 book, was a valid form of Catholic ordination. A fourth member, T B. Scannell, believed approvingly that 'true Roman caution' had prevented the papacy from making a definitive negative judgment on Anglican orders in the sixteenth century.....

....Why did Leo XIII reject the historical arguments of four members of his commission? The recently opened documents in the Vatican inform us that Pope Leo XIII apparently decided that the issue of reconciliation with the Church of England was not a matter of historical continuity alone. More importantly, to the pope, validity was a matter of sacramentology and of ecclesiology. The new documents suggest this interpretation of Apostolicæ Curæ: Greater weight must be given to theological and institutional unity between Rome and Canterbury than to the proof of historical and sacramental continuity.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...glican/anglican-orders-in-catholic-church.cfm

 

i have a great fondness for EO and, as an AngloCatholic, find a much closer connection to it than RCism. However, the move is only a good fit if you can swallow the whole dog, the good parts and the bad. For me, I don't really care about ethnic barriers. After all, Anglicanism is just as ethnic (hence the name). It's the doctrines that pushed me back. I honor both Scripture and holy tradition, but the reformer in me could never square making the two equal authorities. Scripture is supreme and tradition is derivative. If you disagree, then perhaps EO would fit. I see scripture declaring two sacraments, not 7. I see scripture laying out a pattern for the lords supper (bread and wine received separately) the EO follow a different pattern. I see scripture lay out a threefold ministry, and the EO have layers upon layers of ministerial titles and hierarchies. I see in scripture that we are saved by grace through faith, and the EO follows a path of works. I see in scripture that the Holy Spirit proceed from the son just as surely as from the Father, and the EOC refuses to preach that. I see in scripture multiple creeds in use in the early church, but the EO refuses to confess any creed but the Nicene. If you see different, then perhaps you'll do well in EO.

But I'd suggest you take a good last look at beauty of Anglicanism before pulling up stakes. There's something that drew you here and something that has kept you.

 

Dear brother Neasag,

I was rereading some of the works of JeremyTaylor and his letter to a lady who had converted to Roman Catholicism raised an argument that I thought might help you in your discernment. His question to her and mine to you is what is it that appears deficient in the Anglican Church? Consider his words:

"What can be supposed wanting in order to salvation? We have the Word of God, the Faith of the Apostles, the Creeds of the Primitive Church, the Articles of the four first general Councils, a holy Liturgy, excellent Prayers, perfect Sacraments, Faith and Repentance, the Ten Commandments, and the Sermons of Christ, and all the precepts and counsels of the Gospel; We teach the necessity of good works, and require and strictly exact the severity of a holy life; We live in obedience to God, and are ready to die for him, and do so when he requires us so to do; We speak honourably of his most holy Name, we worship him at the mention of his Name, we confess his Attributes, we love his Servants, we pray for all Men, we love all Christians, even our most erring Brethren, we confess our sins to God and to our Brethren whom we have offended, and to God's Ministers in cases of Scandal, or of a troubled Conscience. We communicate often, we are enjoyned to receive the holy Sacrament thrice every Year at least; Our Priests absolve the penitent, our Bishops ordain Priests, and confirm baptized persons, and bless their people and intercede for them; and what could here be wanting to Salvation?"

What is it you that isn't found in Anglicanism brother?

 

I love Anglicanism and I don't regret leaving the Orthodox Church, but if I might add my two cents here, one of the biggest issues I had with Orthodoxy is the ethnic division in the United States and the culture club atmosphere, but the issue I have at present with Anglicanism is the theological diversity. I love Taylor's works, and if all Anglicans agreed with what he wrote, that would be wonderful.

The problem is, in Anglicanism today you will find Calvinists, Arminians, Charismatics, some groups so low-Church (Sydney comes to mind) where they don't want to even wear the surplice, and others so high-Church they are nearly Roman Catholics without the Pope. I am currently seeking a new jurisdiction to belong to because I can't accept being in communion with dioceses in the ACNA which ordain women. The ACNA is really not a Church as such, but a federation of churches and dioceses, each with its own autonomy.

If a diocese, say Fort Worth, cannot accept the ordination of women but can be in communion with a diocese that does, why not be in communion with a diocese that allows Gay marriage when you won't allow it? I don't see the difference. I love the Anglicanism of Laud, Taylor, Cosin, Ken, Andrewes, but it is increasingly difficult to find.

 

Hi Peter! Glad to see you on this side of the fence.
The difference as I see it would be that the one is a grievous moral sin, and the other is a mistake in the ordinance of the church. It doesn't carry any hint of moral degeneracy in it. Well-meaning people in the post-gender world of today can be honestly mistaken by it. We don't need to accept their decisions, but neither are we obligated to revile them, when our task is to gently explain the error and put them back on track. I'm in the REC where we understand others can mean well, and simultaneously absolutely reject any female ordination.

 

stalwart i had no idea you were a member of the rec.can you give insight into what its like? is it low church? how does it differ from the acna proper?

I also agree with you. The homosexual thing is a departure of scriptural proscriptions and is completely incompatible with holy writ.

Female clergy on the otherhand is a misguided and mistaken practice that runs counter to catholic tradition and certainly isn't endorsed by scripture. However, if we are to follow the guidance of the Articles in this area,then ceremonies, including holy orders, are not required to be everywhere the same and the unfitness of the minister for the office does not touch on efficacy of the sacraments. We are told that churches and councils can and have erred. We should endure with faith this aberration until wiser heads prevail.

 

--peteprint:
i would also suggest considering an APA parish if available. i attended one a while back and found it very "catholic" in the line of Laude, Beveridge, and Cosin, without the overly-Romish bent that a number of continuing churches tend to fall into.

 

It's amazing (in one word). It's neither low- nor high- church, words which carry little relevance to us any longer. It is 'right-' church, Anglicanism as it's always been. They've repented of the sins of their original schism, and sought to be a founding jurisdiction of the ACNA. At first they were hijacked by crypto-puritans (as the bishops tell me), hence the low-church associations, which required a very long, painful effort of many generations to right the ship from. Now it is an intensely liturgical, intensely historic jurisdiction. Irrelevant squabbles of low- and high- don't carry a lot of meaning in the REC community, which is a minor miracle all its own. They love the Articles and the Reformation, but detest hurtful biases and parties. They put a lot of effort on spiritual formation, and seminarians are even required to take a confessor, a spiritual director, in order to be formed correctly. The discernment process, starting from becoming a Postulant, is very long and elaborate. Holy Orders are treated very gravely. Seminarians are required to learn Hebrew Greek and Latin. There are a lot of young-ish and youthful pastors. People are starting churches and Classical Schools where children learn Latin from the 1st Grade. It's just an amazing place to be. And they occupy a prominent place in the ACNA. They militantly reject female ordination, and yet they don't treat others with hostility; conscientious objections are treated fairly. ACNA is currently undergoing a hugely-important study on Gender and Holy Orders which will decide this matter on the ACNA level once and for all, and an REC bishop is in charge of it.

 

Dear friend,
The point is not what any one Anglican believes but what the Catholic and Apostolic Church believes?
For two thousand years the Church in this country has held to the Catholic Faith, Christ's Revelation, the canon of Scripture ,as many Ecumenical Councils as necessary, (7). Those people who do not hold the faith are not Anglicans. We have to believe, Christ didn't ask if we were comfortable.? Rather we are asked if we believe?.

 

I appreciate that WO and Gay marriage are not quite the same, but I still believe that wrong is wrong (not trying to sound harsh). I saw pictures of Archbishop Beach recently standing next to some women priests and deacons and while I have the utmost personal respect for him, that really sours me on the ACNA.