It was suggested to me that I give a bit of history from the writings of Metropolitan Hilarion of the External Affairs Department of the Moscow Patriarchate, then focus on the Continuum, and finally to open the floor to any of the questions you may have, keeping in mind that having established the Western Rite Vicariate in The Russian Church Outside Russia, we are still growing into our identity.Read the rest here.
The first difficulties in relation to the Church of England emerged in 1992 when its General Synod agreed to ordain women to the priesthood. The Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church came out with an official statement expressing regret and concern over this decision as contradicting the tradition of the Early Church. One might ask why our Church should have concerned itself at all with this matter?
By the early 90s the Protestant world had already ordained many women pastors and even women bishops. But the unique point here was that the Anglican Community had long sought rapprochement with the Orthodox Church. Many Orthodox Christians recognized the existence of apostolic continuity in Anglicanism.
From the 19th century, Anglican members of the Association of Eastern Churches sought 'mutual recognition' with the Orthodox Church and its members believed that 'both Churches preserved the apostolic continuity and true faith in the Saviour and should accept each other in the full communion of prayers and sacraments'. Much has changed since.
HT: Fr. Anthony Chadwick
7 comments:
From the 19th century, Anglican members of the Association of Eastern Churches sought 'mutual recognition' with the Orthodox Church and its members believed that 'both Churches preserved the apostolic continuity and true faith in the Saviour and should accept each other in the full communion of prayers and sacraments'.
Is this not the rub? It doesn't matter what any association, or the members thereof, think about whether Orthodoxy should recognise the Church of England as a Sister Church. What matters is whether the Holy Synods of the Churches in question (including the CofE), after long prayer, reflection and examination, agree that it is so. I think that the fruits of that 19th Century rapprochement between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy have been wholesome and numerous, but I seem to recall that it ultimately failed because when the Orthodox bishops began to make enquiries of Anglican bishops who were not part of this East-West ecclesial summit, they discovered that the Holy Synod of the Church of England held within it a multiplicity of theological opinions on matters that, from an Orthodox perspective, should be beyond question? I haven't studied this period of ecclesiastical history for a while though, and I may be misremembering.
Nope. You remember correctly! There is a notable pastoral letter from St Raphael of Brooklyn, at one time favorable towards the Episcopal Church, stating that he had discovered that those with whom he had been speaking were not truly representative of the totality of Anglicanism, and that it was impossible to have dialogue with Anglicanism as a whole until it had managed that dialogue within itself and come to a common theological mind.
If anything, this is more true than ever. "High" Anglicanism won many battles, but it utterly lost the war for the soul of the Anglican Communion: which may be diverse, but definitely is not Catholic in the sense the Fathers used the word.
I believe Father Anthony is quite right: the best, indeed, the only way to be faithful to all that the brightest lights of Anglicanism taught -- and sought -- is to come within the shelter of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Orthodox, be it Eastern or Western. That is why I did so 11 years ago.
An interesting comments box discussion is taking place at Virtue Online, where this article has been posted.
What do you mean by "interesting"? I rarely visit VOL and when I do (as on this occasion) I only read the articles. The comments used to contain enough vitriol to scar my eyeballs. Have things improved?
Have things improved?
No. The article is well worth the read. The comments by and large are not.
That's what I thought, Herr Blogmeister. I've read the article, but I think I'll stay away from the comments.
I used to be completely against the idea of WR in the Orthodox Church, but I've changed my mind recently. Not for usual reasons. Having gone through Lent with a collection of perfectly burnable liturgical translations it occurred to me that the WR folks (assuming they can steer clear of Latin enthusiasts) have the solution: liturgies that require *no* translations. Not Slav or Greek translator however good or (mostly) bad can touch them. That is a singularly beautiful thing. No Narthex Press, no schismatic Boston monastery spouting faux KJV English. If the WR people advertize that fact they will attract more sympathetic people.
Post a Comment