Early in the 20th century, some Orthodox leaders were willing to accept the “validity of Anglican orders,” meaning they believed that Anglican clergy were truly priests and bishops in the ancient, traditional meanings of those words.
“It fell apart. It fell apart on the Anglican side, with the affirmation more of a Protestant identity than a Catholic identity,” said Jonah, at the inaugural assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, held in Bedford, Texas.
“We need to pick up where they left off. The question has been: Does that Anglican church, which came so close to being declared by the other Orthodox churches a fellow Orthodox church, does that still exist?”
A voice in the crowd shouted, “It does!”
“Here, it does,” agreed Jonah, stressing the word “here.”
[Comment deleted by Elf – this is not a thread about W/O]
[Comment deleted by Elf – this is not a thread about the RCC]
[Comment deleted by Elf – ad hominem comments directed to other commenters are against comment policy]
All that Orthodoxy teaches doctrinally on validity of orders is that they, the Orthodox, have it. The status of non-Orthodox orders is and always will be only a matter of speculation.
Orthodox recognition of Anglican orders was always provisional and not like the common Orthodox recognition in practice of RC ones.
What some Orthodox churches in the 1920s and 1930s said to the Anglicans was, ‘If you as a group unprotestantise* [i]and join the Orthodox Church[/i] we’ll economically recognise your orders, that is, receive your clergy as clergy’. In the meantime ex-Anglicans are and always have been reordained. Just like Rome does. (*Which in a nice way Metropolitan Jonah repeated.)
Also there’s the story of St Raphael (Hawaweeny), an Orthodox bishop in America 100 years ago who when he found out most Episcopalians were not Anglo-Catholic ordered his flock not to go to Episcopal churches in the absence of Orthodox ones.
So in short I appreciate what Metropolitan Jonah was trying to get at, and it is a continuation of St Tikhon’s friendly relations with American Anglo-Catholics 100 years ago, but I think the metropolitan was not [giving the whole picture], which considering his mostly Protestant audience was understandable (and he probably sensed he was already in dangerous waters challenging them on WO); he was trying to be tactful.
Recently talked to a Greek Orthodox priest who studied at General 50 years ago. Although General wasn’t Anglo-Catholic the period was the high-water mark of ACism in America; Father found many Episcopal priests at the seminary were Catholic-minded and thus genuinely interested in what the Orthodox had to say. He went to a recent reunion and was heartbroken by the change the metropolitan mentions.
I understand that back then when a new presiding bishop was installed the Orthodox bishops in America would come or send priest representatives and like St Tikhon at Fond du Lac happily sit in choir (in their choir habits, not vested) but [i]per[/i] Orthodox teachings not actively take part. Now of course no Orthodox church does that.
On the Episcopal side the Red Book at least used to list the Orthodox jurisdictions and bishops in America.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
[slightly edited by Elf]
Dear “elf,” did you actually read the entire article about Metropolitan Jonah’s comments at the Bedford gathering? It was HE who raised the issues of both Calvinism and women’s ordination as continuing stumbling blocks to Orthdox-Anglican rapprochement in America. I simply wanted to emphasize how important those topics are for our Orthodox fellow children of God, and add my “AMEN”. I feel slapped down for a most unworthy reason.
Dear Elf,
Please forgive this excursus into policy, but I’m not sure I can find the reason given for deleting my comment helpful since I am not able to view it as an ad hominem statement and do want properly to understand your policy…. [edited]
[Monksgate – comments about the nature or character of a commenter fall within the ad hominem prohibition. If there is concern about someone else’s comment then please draw it to our attention.
Broadly comments should address the topic and not other commenters, not be ad hominem in relation to any person although discussion of actions is permitted. Comments which are abusive, intemperately expressed, encourage people to join or leave churches or are otherwise unacceptable may be edited if this can be done easily and are otherwise of merit. If a commenter does not take note of what we say future comments may be deleted or subject to moderation. The same is true of comments which argue with decisions of the Elves.
Generally the aim is to provide a place for Christian discussion which will build up both readers and commenters.
– Elf]
Elf, you’re right; that sounds better and was what I meant.
[url=http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info/]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]