His Beatitude, the Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) announced recently that his church has ended its ecumenical relations with The Episcopal Church, and will establish instead formal ecumenical relations with the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).
Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA made the announcement June 24 at a plenary session of the ACNA’s founding convocation at St Vincent’s Cathedral, Bedford, Texas.
Good move.
[blockquote]“We engage in dialogue with Episcopalian traditionalists, many of whom embrace the Orthodox faith,†Jonah told a Moscow-based weblog. “And I personally, and our entire synod, give great attention to bringing these people into the fold of the Orthodox Church in America.â€[/blockquote]
I suppose it’s great for the ACNA to be recognized for its orthodoxy. But the above statement seems to suggest that there is a larger agenda at work than just ecumenical dialogue.
I’m not familiar with the structure of Orthodoxy in the US. Where does the OCA fit in relation to other Orthodox churches? In my mind that has a bearing on the significance of this development.
He pulled no punches, however, as to what MUST be addressed before anything can progress in regard to intercommunion – the Filioque, women’s ordination, calvinism, iconoclasm, the view of the sacraments, etc. I wouldn’t expect him to do otherwise.
Jeff, Alice Linley will fill you in, but very briefly, after the Russian Revolution there were three groups of Russian Orthodox: (1) the Moscow Patriarchate; (2) a rather conservative group who re-organised as the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, also known as the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile; and (3) a grouping of Russian parishes who put themselves under the Ecumenical Patriarch in quondam Constantinople. The OCA was originally the American branch of (3) above, but it alone of the three showed real interest in evangelising and in integrating itself as best it could into local culture while retaining the essentials of Eastern Orthodoxy. For example, it has no qualms about liturgy in English. Consequently it grew quite fast and was granted autonomous status by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Since then it has grown even faster, partly by taking under its wing ethnic groups like the Antiochean Orthodox, who grew out of Arab Orthodox immigrants from Syria and Lebanon. BTW as a RC myself with an Orthodox friend who was always wrangling with me, I always fired back that Orthodoxy was endlessly split and disunited etc. In particular I would point out that there was absolutely no hope of reunion between groups (1) and (2) above, who were bitter enemies etc. Lo and behold they recently announced plans to work together and to progress towards reuniting.
#5, not to be pedantic, but some of your items are incorrect. OCA grew out of what was called the “Metropolia,” which was an arm of the Russian Church that did not break with the latter as a result of Communist influence. However, Moscow did grant the Metropolia autocephaly – self-governance – in 1970, and the newly-independent organization became the OCA. Far from being under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the EP has refused to recognize the OCA’s autocephaly, though the EP and OCA are in communion with each other.
Also: the Antiochean Archdiocese is not “under the wing” of the OCA, but is a separate jurisdiction under the Patriarch of Antioch.
Lastly, ROCOR is not just talking about it but has fully reunited with the Moscow Patriarchate.
anthonyc17,
What’s the Orthodox’s issues with Calvinism?
No. 7, Orthodoxy dislikes Augustine and subsequently Calvin’s interpretation of Augustine, particularly over (amongst other things) the Western notion of Original Sin, which includes Original guilt. Orthodoxy rejects the idea that we are guilty in perpetuity because of Adam’s sin. We inherit his sinfulness but not his guilt. This plays out in Orthodoxy’s understanding of other things as well, such as synergism v. monogerism, double predestination, etc. It certainly also rejects Sola Scriptura in favor of having a place for Holy Tradition.
And anthonyc17 is also correct over the issue of the Filioque clause, which stems in part from some of Augustine’s analogies of the Trinity, which Orthodoxy rejects.
A slight correction: Augustine isn’t “disliked” by the Orthodox, per se (they refer to him as Blessed Augustine, after all). It would be more accurate to say they are guarded when it comes to certain aspects of his theology.
No. 10, fair enough.
Although I know more than one Orthodox priest who as used stronger language than “dislikes” in reference to Augustine.
“there is a larger agenda at work than just ecumenical dialogue”
Absolutely. Metr Jonah was quite up-front about this in his address to the assembly. He said that the goal of the dialogue was not simply “mutual understanding” but full agreement in the faith, leading to full communion in the sacraments. That doesn’t mean “sheep-stealing,” it means the two Churches recognizing one another as fully orthodox and apostolic Churches. It’s a hard goal to reach, but if you think about it it’s the only goal that makes ecumenical dialogue worthwhile.
“What’s the Orthodox’s issues with Calvinism?”
Just about everything that is distinctively Calvinist about Calvinism: predestination, total depravity, teaching on the sacraments, etc. If you are interested in the Orthodox take on these issues, you can read the decree of the Orthodox council that condemned Calvinism as a heresy (Council of Jerusalem, 1672). It is on the Web at [url=http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html]this site[/url].
Whatever the details might be, the big picture is that TEC is more isolated than ever and at least one important Orthodox jurisdiction has given its imprimatur to the ACNA.
I heard his words, but unless someone has an official transcript from Met. Jonah’s office, it’s unclear whether he meant “…bringing these people into the fold of the Orthodox Church in America.†or “…bringing these people into the fold of the orthodox church in America.â€
#14, From Met. Jonah’s comments today at the ACNA Assembly, I would assume the latter of your two options. He spoke at length about the richness of Anglicanism and what it shares with Orthodoxy in “the Great Tradition.” In his very forthright admonitions about what would need to change, Met. Jonah never once said Anglicans should walk away from their heritage, but that we should work toward its restoration and hence reconciliation with our Orthodox brothers and sisters.
Re: #14 (and #15),
You pose a false alternative: for the Orthodox, there is no orthodox church (or, indeed, no Church) other than the Orthodox Church. In that they are like the Catholic Church, although each church would put it a little differently: whereas the Orthodox Church would say, “we know that the Orthodox Church is the Church, but we cannot say where else the Church may be,” the Catholic Church says (cf. Lumen Gentiun ch.25) “The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church, but elements of that Church exist outside its visible boundary.” Some liberal catholic ecumenists from the 1960s onwards have tried to spin “subsists in” as attenuating the Catholic church’s claim that it is, well, The Catholic Church, but Rome in general and one Cardinal Ratzinger in particular always insisted that this is both a historical and an ecclesiological error, and in the duocument *Dominus Iesus* of 2005 Rome stated authoritatively that “subsists in” means “has its unique subsistence in” the Catholic Church.
Orthodoxy (Eastern) goes better with Anglo-Catholicism than it does with the Anglican faith described in the 39 articles. Nevertheless there are important differences even with the ACs.
Claw,
Exactly what I heard, too. Praise God!
Fr Darin+
I love it that he is called His Beatitude. I want everybody at work to call me that. WAY cool.
Dr. Tighe,
Thanks for your correction. I should have been more specific in what I meant by “the latter.” I didn’t mean to suggest that for the Orthodox there is such a thing as “orthodox” (they are very upfront about this point). Here is a better explanation of what I meant: Met. Jonah didn’t suggest Anglicans should give up their heritage, or be absorbed into his or any other Orthodox jurisdiction, but rather that they would once again learn to be Orthodox within their Tradition and so be reconciled.
His comments about “bringing these people into the fold of the Orthodox Church in America†was specifically directed at traditionalist members of TEC who hold Orthodox leanings. Read the whole paragraph.
Indeed it is, #21. I had a Russian Orthodox electrician at the GM assembly plant where I worked who labored tirelessly to bring me into the OCA. He showed me a program they had specifically aimed at orthodox/traditionalist Eiscopalians.
For more on the OCA, they DO have a website:
http://www.oca.org/
Their site for questions about theology:
http://www.oca.org/QAIndex.asp?SID=3
I wonder if things can really pick up where they left off long ago in the positive ways described here: http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy
Met. Jonah Keeps on surprising people with common sense. As for what it “means” for Anglicans to be Orthodox, one might consider the recollection of Met. Kallistos (then Timothy) Ware, who converted to Orthodoxy in 1958.
His family wasn’t wild about the change. His uncle and godfather was an assistant to then Archbishop of York Michael Ramsay. He got an appontment for his nephew to speak with the archbishop about this matter. Ramsay asked young Ware why he was joining the Orthodox Church? Timothy replied (he says “arrogantly”) “Because it is the true church of Christ on earth”. The archbishop said “I believe that also”. He hoped to get Timothy to stay in the Anglican communion and try to bring it to Orthodoxy, as Ramsay probably tried. You might notice it hasn’t happened. In those days it was unlikely for Orthodox to be as blunt as they needed to be. We had to wait for a clear head like Met. Jonah. The idea of being able to be the best Anglo-Catholic you can and see that that means practically becoming Orthodox (and discarding the Tudor dynasty and all its troubles) seems to me to be in keeping with both sides of that meeting in 1958. Years overdue.
nwlayman,
Fascinating anecdote from +Kallistos; I had not heard it before. I greatly admired Abp Ramsay when I was still Episcopalian (well, I still do, but it’s less relevant now).
If Ramsay hoped to bring Anglicanism to Orthodoxy, the question is why he failed. If he failed because Anglicanism was too deeply liberal, then Metr Jonah’s initiative towards those Anglicans who have rejected that liberalism may have some small chance of success. If, on the other hand, Ramsay failed because Anglicanism was too deeply Protestant, then Metr Jonah will have little chance with ACNA which I fear is an essentially Protestant body.
Hey Chris. If ACNA really is essentially Protestant, then they must not know too much about the man they have chosen for their archbishop. Duncan is much more of an Anglo-Catholic than he is a Protestant.
I have some close A-C friends and I am pretty optimisitic that ACNA will zealously guard the rights of its A-C parishes to contribute and practice their own authentic witness and tradition.
Of course, you may just be saying that enough Protestant individuals are in ACNA that we aren’t going to see ACNA as a whole group reuniting with Orthodoxy (or Rome) then sure that’s so.
I apologise for my errors in # 5 above and am grateful to Phil for correction. It shows the dangers of relying on (creaking) memory. I would, however, point out that I did not say that the OCA broke with Moscow. I said that in effect it was a separate entity after the Russian Revolution. It is interesting that the decree of autocephaly on the OCA’s website is, shall we say, diplomatic on these things. I was hopelessly wrong on the Antiocheans (again apologies) and would have been on safer ground if I had said some Romanians, Albanians and Bulgarians were among the ethnic groups that had joined. However, my blushes are real and I shall try and be more accurate next time I opine.