Orthodoxy and Ecumenism (priests, ritual, tradition, beliefs, homosexuality)

[Scott1]

A good site that provides several essays from all sides of the issue:

http://incommunion.org/articles/essa...doxy-ecumenism

[Elvendon]

I am rather sad to hear that attempts to foster greater union between our two traditions has been less than fruitful and that some of your communities are contemplating leaving ecumenical councils. I can understand why Orthodoxy finds problems with many of the principles of ecumenism (it does, after all, rely to a great extent upon tradition) but I do find it rather depressing that we cannot come to some sort of agreement. We are all Christians after all, and I'm sure Paul would be spinning in his grave to see us all divided as we are.

The main division between the West and East *appears* to be a small section of the nicene creed - we believe that the Holy Spirit eminates from the Son and the Father, for Orthodoxy the Spirit eminates from the Father alone. The other contentious issue, the authority of the pope in Rome, I am sure we agree upon

The reason why I think I am so eager to see some kind of concord and, perhaps, union between our two churches is because I believe that many of the problems that blight Anglicanism - it's low number of active parishioners, it's theological disagreements and general lack of unique character, come from the fact it does not trace it's nature back to a founding individual or group that provides the church with not only a core set of values and theological guidelines that holds it together, but also makes it unique as a church. We are simply a compromise developed to solve a political problem - one which is now largely extinct. Many Anglicans believe we are headed for Schism, something which I would hate to see in my lifetime. What could save my church would be a renewed sense of tradition, identity and theological boundaries. We have these things in our Celtic Christian heritage. However, the guidance the Celts provided is not complete, and we would probably need to impliment ideas from another church's traditions to bolster those we gather from the Culdees. As it was Catholicism which put paid to Celtic Christianity in the first place - it perhaps would be a bad idea to rely upon the RC for help, despite the similarities between our two churches on theology and liturgy. As Celtic Christianity traces it's authority from Apostolic rather than papal succession, I think that a Celt-friendly Anglican communion might be better suited to forging closer links with the East.

So, apart from the Nicene Creed, is there anything else we particularly disagree upon? Though our currently liturgy is mainly taken from Catholic sources, from what I have read of the "core" of Orthodoxy (posted above), I can't think of much that we wouldn't agree about. Care to put me straight?

I really need to stop bothering you guys, hehe

God bless you all

Elvendon

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

So, apart from the Nicene Creed, is there anything else we particularly disagree upon? Though our currently liturgy is mainly taken from Catholic sources, from what I have read of the "core" of Orthodoxy (posted above), I can't think of much that we wouldn't agree about. Care to put me straight?

Quite a lot of small things separate Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy apart from the big issues of Papal Supremacy and the Filioque. Almost all of them could probably be worked out if the first two were solved (and I doubt many of them would be obstacles to a reunification if the two main ones were removed). But are you asking what separates Orthodoxy and the RCC or Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, because the lists will differ somewhat.

James

[Elvendon]

Mainly the Eastern Orthodox - Anglican differences... I'd be interested to know the Roman-Orthodox differences, but it's more important to me to know why we don't fit (especially since I'm somewhere in the middle O_o)

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Elvendon

Mainly the Eastern Orthodox - Anglican differences... I'd be interested to know the Roman-Orthodox differences, but it's more important to me to know why we don't fit (especially since I'm somewhere in the middle O_o)

Sorry to take so long to get around to this. Apart from the two major issues re. the Schism, it's quite hard to say exactly where Orthodoxy and Anglicanism agree/disagree, simply because the Anglican communion is such a broad church. On those two issues alone, i think it's fairly clear. You appear to agree with us with respect to a collegiate rather than monarchical ecclesiology but you appear to disagree when it comes to the Creed (though this is not clear cut either, as I've seen Anglicans argue, as we do, that the filioque is wrong).

I believe that you do, officially at least, accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which is the same as us. However, we have a further two that many consider Ecumenical and which, whether or not accepted as Ecumenical in name are considered just as doctrinally binding. I very much doubt that you accept either of these. Rome, of course, has far more. A big difference here is that the council Rome nowadays considers the eighth is considered by us (and by Rome for about two centuries prior to the Schism) as a Robber Council. The one that those of us who do consider that we have 9 Ecumenical Councils consider the eighth is the one that overruled that Robber Council, as well as condemning the filioque.

I'm unsure of the official position on iconography (if indeed there is one). Low church Anglicans seem to eschew them all (thus denying the 7th Ecumenical Council) whereas high church Anglicans often use statuary, which is forbidden in Orthodoxy.

Another issue would be the Eucharist, again split between high and low churches. The low church tend to go with the usual Protestant symbolic view, the high church with the Real Presence. I'm unsure whether you use transubstantiation, consubstantiation or some other explanation, but we leave it as a Mystery. There's also the matter of using unleavened bread. That is forbidden in Orthodoxy. The Anglican position does not appear clear cut as I've seen both leavened and unleavened bread used (though more often the latter). Then there's the whole matter of preparation for receiving the Eucharist (fasting, confession etc.) which I don't believe Anglicans adhere to at all.

There's a big issue between us and Rome over Marian dogmas (we don't have any and disagree with some of their teachings, particularly the Immaculate Conception), but I'm not sure whether or not this has any relevance even to high church Anglicans.

There are any number of other small differences which I could enumerate between us and Rome and which may or may not have a bearing on our relations to Anglicanism, but it's hard to see which ones are relevant when so many different beliefs are espoused within the Anglican communion (which is, in itself, a problem for us). The two major issues that are peculiar to the modern Anglican church but do not affect our relations with Rome are the attitudes to female ordination and homosexuality, as I'm sure you're aware. Of course, even with these issues it's clear that not everyone in the Anglican communion has views differing from our own.

I don't really know what else to write. If you have any specific questions please ask and I'll do my best to answer them. Trying to define the position of Anglicanism as a whole sems to be rather like trying to eat soup with a fork, so perhaps you could help me also.

James

[Elvendon]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Sorry to take so long to get around to this. Apart from the two major issues re. the Schism, it's quite hard to say exactly where Orthodoxy and Anglicanism agree/disagree, simply because the Anglican communion is such a broad church. On those two issues alone, i think it's fairly clear. You appear to agree with us with respect to a collegiate rather than monarchical ecclesiology but you appear to disagree when it comes to the Creed (though this is not clear cut either, as I've seen Anglicans argue, as we do, that the filioque is wrong).

No problem. I think I'd quite like to debate the merits of different attitudes to the filioque at some point, just to fully explore the issues that it raises. I personally don't have many problems with it, as the Father is the wellspring within the Trinity, and so long as you accept all three as equal (which I'm sure you do) I don't see what the problem is. The emination of the spirit from the father alone makes a good deal of sense to me - the Logos and the Spirit each contribute something to the creation of the world - the Logos gives it form and history, the Spirit gives it substance and general character.

I believe that you do, officially at least, accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which is the same as us. However, we have a further two that many consider Ecumenical and which, whether or not accepted as Ecumenical in name are considered just as doctrinally binding. I very much doubt that you accept either of these. Rome, of course, has far more. A big difference here is that the council Rome nowadays considers the eighth is considered by us (and by Rome for about two centuries prior to the Schism) as a Robber Council. The one that those of us who do consider that we have 9 Ecumenical Councils consider the eighth is the one that overruled that Robber Council, as well as condemning the filioque.

I have recently given the councils and the Creeds a quick re-read, and I can't find anything I disagree with, or that contradicts the teachings I have heard spoken of in the church (filioque excepted.)

I'm unsure of the official position on iconography (if indeed there is one). Low church Anglicans seem to eschew them all (thus denying the 7th Ecumenical Council) whereas high church Anglicans often use statuary, which is forbidden in Orthodoxy.

I don't think there is any real official condemnation of Iconography - it was Henry VIII who destroyed most of the icons in our churches, who was not an Anglican. Though those with protestant leanings would prefer not to use them (or any form of representative art) as a contemplative aid, it is not a matter of doctrine.

As for statuary, I think it is only right and proper that your church forbids statuary - you come from a spiritual tradition that worshipped statues as Gods themselves, and so forbidding statuary but permitting icons allowed a focus for devotions but without running the risk of falling into the old ways. I'm not sure it would be entirely appropriate for us though. Also - Anglican statuary is not used for the same purpose as iconography - for us they are merely there for decoration.

Another issue would be the Eucharist, again split between high and low churches. The low church tend to go with the usual Protestant symbolic view, the high church with the Real Presence. I'm unsure whether you use transubstantiation, consubstantiation or some other explanation, but we leave it as a Mystery. There's also the matter of using unleavened bread. That is forbidden in Orthodoxy. The Anglican position does not appear clear cut as I've seen both leavened and unleavened bread used (though more often the latter). Then there's the whole matter of preparation for receiving the Eucharist (fasting, confession etc.) which I don't believe Anglicans adhere to at all.

My local churches all use wafers. The official doctrine (I believe, since it is what I have been taught since I was knee-high to a grasshopper) is that we believe it is symbolic - I can't see there being much resistance to it being declared a mystery however, it's a decidedly Anglican compromise . As for penance, it's the Anglican attitude it is a personal thing between a man and God, and the Anglican liturgy involves an act of confession before the Eucharist. Fasting however, we do not do, I admit. Something to work on perhaps.

There's a big issue between us and Rome over Marian dogmas (we don't have any and disagree with some of their teachings, particularly the Immaculate Conception), but I'm not sure whether or not this has any relevance even to high church Anglicans.

We don't have any either So no problems there (I believe.)

There are any number of other small differences which I could enumerate between us and Rome and which may or may not have a bearing on our relations to Anglicanism, but it's hard to see which ones are relevant when so many different beliefs are espoused within the Anglican communion (which is, in itself, a problem for us). The two major issues that are peculiar to the modern Anglican church but do not affect our relations with Rome are the attitudes to female ordination and homosexuality, as I'm sure you're aware. Of course, even with these issues it's clear that not everyone in the Anglican communion has views differing from our own.

I don't really know what else to write. If you have any specific questions please ask and I'll do my best to answer them. Trying to define the position of Anglicanism as a whole sems to be rather like trying to eat soup with a fork, so perhaps you could help me also.

James

Well, the only core set of teachings to Anglicanism are the Thirty-Nine Articles - though these have no real authority in the wider communion. The only church that adheres to them is the CofE, and even within our church the laity are not compelled to believe in them - only priests have to accept them as "acceptable to God". I personally disagree with several of the doctrines within it (particularly relating to the need for people to believe in the literal Name of Christ - I sincerely doubt our Lord was that vain, and I agree with C.S. Lewis - that Christ has many names.

I personally agree with you. The Anglican Communion needs to decide what makes it unique - originally it was a belief that churches should be nationalised, but this is redundant. It could be the Articles, but barely any Anglicans I know accept them all. For the next few decades, I hope we can find our soul. I hope you Orthodox could help us with that