“With the season of Lent upon us, bishops in London and Liverpool have come up with a new kind of 40-day fast. Along with the aid agency Tearfund, the bishops have launched a carbon fast. Instead of giving up chocolate, how about giving up on plastic bags or incandescent light bulbs?” Hear the whole thing on NPR.
HT: Scott Carson
AGAIN: Turning from the ancient to the modern, can you give us an overview of the state of Anglicanism today?
It is important for me to explain just a little bit how the Anglican compromise has resulted in such interesting things in terms of structure, which has so much to do with the current problems. The more conservative elements of Anglicanism tend to be its most Protestant elements, and its most liberal elements are usually people who think of themselves as highly catholic. . . .
The heart of the Anglican compromise boils down to putting St. John Chrysostom and John Calvin in the same pew. But neither one of those men want to be there. There are things on which they do not agree with each other, and they would not compromise. And yet the Anglican compromise tried to have both sides of a Protestant and ancient equation be equal. You simply can’t pull that off.
People need to understand that there are very strong parts of Anglicanism that are rigorously Protestant. Some of the liveliest Anglicanism you will meet in the world is thoroughly Reformed, very Calvinistic. This is the John Stott and J. I. Packer wing of low-church Anglicanism. In that context, you will find a heavy emphasis on congregationalism. They will be very Protestant, and this is probably the most conservative and biblical part of modern Anglicanism. That’s where, for the most part, you had the missionary societies that went to the Third World. Then you have the traditional branch that would be called Anglo-Catholic, which would deny or water down a lot of the Protestant side of the compromise and put a much heavier, more Roman emphasis on ecclesiology, on the role of the bishop, on church tradition as a part of interpreting Scripture as opposed to sola scriptura—a very consciously Catholic element. . . .
….Right now, what we have is two groups of true believers who don’t want to compromise. It’s so interesting that sexuality ended up being the line in the sand, when it could have been—and I argued it should have been—the Resurrection. Why when Anglican bishops began to deny historic doctrines related to the Incarnation and Resurrection and salvation through Christ alone, and other critical doctrines, why didn’t the war break out then? Whereas now it has broken out over sexuality.
AGAIN: Why do you think that is so?
TM: My own hunch is that first of all sexuality gets covered in the media, whereas a doctrine about theological language is harder for the press to cover. The other thing frankly is that the theological left has learned how to state its beliefs about Resurrection and Incarnation in a way that sounds OK. And, they’re very hard to pin down. In other words, you could talk about the hope of the Resurrection, but you’ve redefined what all the words mean. You need to understand that Anglicanism defines itself as being united by certain liturgical texts—but you don’t have to all agree on what the words mean. A lot of Anglicans will say it’s important that when they say the Creed, instead of saying “I believe,” most Anglican churches say, “We believe.” Meaning the body affirms this, but it is not necessary for the individual to do the same.
-From Terry Mattingly’s interview in the most recent issue of AGAIN magazine. Terry Mattingly (http://www.tmatt.net/) wears several different hats on a daily basis, all of them linked to religion and the mainstream news media. As a professor, he directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities; as a journalist, he writes the weekly “On Religion” column for the Scripps Howard News Service and serves as the editor of the Getreligion.org project to study religion-news coverage in mainstream media.
The summer 2007 issue of AGAIN magazine is full of articles on Orthodoxy and Anglicanism. There are articles on Saint Cuthbert, CS Lewis, an interview with former Episcopal turned Orthodox journalist Terry Mattingly and much more. The interview with Terry Mattingly can be read online by clicking here. You can order this issue or subscribe to AGAIN magazine here.
You can also listen to lectures of an Orthodox conference concerning an introduction to the basic beliefs of the Orthodox Church for Anglicans at Ancient Faith Radio.
“The inconsistencies in the Anglican Communion were beginning to bother me. For instance, the so-called ‘high’ Anglicans would affirm the Virgin Birth and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, while the ‘low’ or evangelical Anglicans would deny them. They would point to this grab-bag of orthodoxy and heresy as evidence of their wonderful inclusiveness. My ties with the Anglican Church were beginning to unravel, mainly due to these theological inconsistencies, which led to an embarassing lack of doctrinal cohesion.” -In Popes and Patriarchs by Michael Whelton
To My Beloved Clergy and Laity of the Syrian Greek-Orthodox Catholic Church in North America:
Greetings in Christ Jesus, Our Incarnate Lord and God.
My Beloved Brethren:
Two years ago, while I was a Vice-President and member of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union, being moved with compassion for my children in the Holy Orthodox faith “once and for all delivered to the Saints” (St Jude ver. 3), scattered throughout the whole of North America and deprived of the ministrations of the Church; and especially in places far removed from Orthodox centres; and being equally moved with a feeling that the Protestant Episcopal (Anglican) Church possessed largely the Orthodox faith, as many prominent clergy professed the same to me before I studied deeply their doctrinal authorities and their liturgy — the “Book of Common Prayer” — I wrote a letter as the Bishop and Head of the Syrian Catholic Mission in North America, giving permission, in which I said that in extreme cases, where no Orthodox priest could be called upon at short notice, the ministrations of the Protestant Episcopal (Anglican) clergy might be kindly asked. However, I was most explicit in defining when and how the ministrations should be accepted, and also what exceptions should be made. In writing that letter I hoped, on the one hand, to help my people spiritually, and, on the other hand, to open the way toward bringing the Anglicans into the communion of the Holy Orthodox faith.
On hearing and in reading that my letter, perhaps unintentionally, was misconstrued by some of the Episcopalian (Anglican) Clergy, I wrote a second letter in which I pointed out that my instructions and exceptions had been either overlooked or ignored by many, to wit:
(a) They (the Episcopalians) informed the Orthodox people that I recognized the Anglican Communion (Protestant Episcopal Church) as being united with the Holy Orthodox Church and their ministry, that is holy orders, as valid.
(b) The Episcopal (Anglican) Clergy offered their ministrations even when my Orthodox clergy were residing in the same towns and parishes, as pastors. And,
(c) Protestant Episcopal clergy said there was no need of Orthodox people seeking the ministrations of their own Orthodox priests, for their (the Anglican) ministrations were all that were necessary.
I, therefore, felt bound by all the circumstances to make a thorough study of the Anglican Church’s faith and orders as well as of her discipline and ritual. After serious consideration I realized that is was my honest duty, as a member of the College of Bishops of the Holy Orthodox Greek Apostolic Church, and Head of the Syrian Mission in North America, to resign from the vice-presidency of and membership in the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union. At the same time, I set forth, in my letter of resignation, my reason for so doing.
I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices as well as the discipline of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church. I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definition of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulistic is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. I speak, of course, from the Holy Orthodox Eastern Catholic point of view. The Holy Orthodox Church has never perceptibly changed from Apostolic times, and, therefore, no one can go astray in finding out what she teaches. Like her Lord and Master, though at times surrounded with human malaria — which He in mercy pardons — she is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 8: 
… the mother and safe deposit of “the truth as it is in Jesus” (Eph.4:21).
[Here St Raphael details differences between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism with regard to the number, substance, and ministration of the Sacraments.]
I do not deem it necessary to mention all the striking differences between the Holy Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion in reference to the authority of holy tradition, the number of the General Councils, etc. Sufficient has already been said and pointed out to show that the Anglican Communion differs but little from all other Protestant bodies, and, therefore, there cannot be any intercommunion until she returns to the ancient holy Orthodox Faith and practices, and rejects Protestant omissions and commissions.
Therefore, as the official head of the Syrian Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church in North America and as one who must “give an account” (Hebrews 13:17) before the judgment throne of the “Shepherd and Bishop of Souls” (1 Peter 2:25), that I have fed the “flock of God” (1 Peter 5:2), as I have been commissioned by the Holy Orthodox Church, and inasmuch as the Anglican Communion (Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States) does not differ in things vital to the well being of the Holy Orthodox Church from some of the most arrant Protestant sects, I direct all Orthodox people residing in any community not to seek or to accept the ministrations of the Sacraments and rites from an clergy excepting those of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, for the Apostolic command, that the Orthodox should not commune in ecclesiastical matters with those who are not of “the same household of Faith” (Galatians 6:10), is clear: “Any Bishop; or presbyter or deacon who will pray with heretics, let him be anathematized; and if he allows them as clergymen to perform any service, let him be deposed” (Apostolic Canon 45). “Any bishop, or presbyter, who accepts baptism or the Holy Sacrifice from heretics, we order such to be deposed, for ‘what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?’” (Apostolic Canon 46).
As to members of the Holy Orthodox Church living in districts beyond the reach of Orthodox Catholic clergy, I direct that the ancient custom of our Holy Church be observed, namely, in cases of extreme necessity, that is, danger of death, children may be baptized by some pious Orthodox layman, or even by the parent of the child, by immersion three times in the names of the (persons of the) Blessed Trinity, and in case of death such baptism is valid: — but, if the child should live, it must be brought to an Orthodox priest for the Sacrament of Chrismation.
In the case of the death of an Orthodox person where no priest of the Holy Orthodox Church can be had, a pious layman may read over the corpse, for the comfort of the relatives and the instruction of the persons present, Psalm 91 and Psalm 118, and add thereto the Trisagion (”Holy God, Holy Strong One,” etc). But be it noted that so soon as possible the relative must notify some Orthodox bishop or priest and request him to say the Liturgy and Requiem for the repose of the soul of the departed in his Cathedral or parish Church.
As to Holy Matrimony, if there be any parties united in wedlock outside the pale of the holy Orthodox Church because of the remoteness of Orthodox centers from their home, I direct that as soon as possible they either invite an Orthodox priest or go to where he resides and receive from his hands the holy Sacrament of Matrimony; otherwise they will be considered excommunicated until they submit unto the Orthodox Church’s rule.
I further direct that Orthodox Christians should not make it a practice to attend the services of other religious bodies, so that there be no confusion as to the teaching or doctrines. Instead, I order that the head of each household, or a member, may read the special prayers which can be found in the hours of the Holy Orthodox Service Book, and such other devotional books as have been set forth by the authority of the Holy Orthodox Church.
Commending our clergy and laity unto the safe-keeping of Jesus Christ, and praying that the Holy Spirit may keep us all in the truth and extend the Borders of the Holy Orthodox Faith, I remain.
Your affectionate Servant in Christ,
RAPHAEL
Bishop of Brooklyn, Head of the Syrian
Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission in America
[Issued late in the year 1912; taken from an old book, “The Most Useful KNOWLEDGE for the Orthodox Russian-American Young People,” compiled by the Very Rev’d Peter G. Kohanik, 1932-1934 (pp. 297-303).]
When one arrives at the conclusion that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are the only two churches that have any legitimate claims to Catholicity, one needs to make sure that the history of the church is not his only consideration. For many years I remained in Anglicanism because I could not come to any firm conclusion on the catholicity of Rome or Orthodoxy through my study of church history. I know converts who convert to Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism based on books full of proof texts. One problem with the proof text approach is that one needs to know the context and even sometimes the original language of a quotation in order to discern whether a given author is using the quotation correctly. There have been great historians like Jaroslav Pelikan who converted to Orthodoxy and Robert Louis Wilken who converted to Roman Catholicism. The study of the history of the church can be very complex which makes it difficult for a seeker to make a decision for Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism just based on their own study of history. I am not saying that history is not important to study but that one should not base his decision to convert to Rome or Orthodoxy on history alone.
In considering Rome and Orthodoxy one should consider the theology and practical spirituality of the churches. Here are some theological questions one might one to ask. What is the church’s view of the doctrine of God? How do the different churches understand grace? What are the different views of Predestination and free will? How do the churches understand ecclesiology? Does the filioque (and the Son) affect the doctrine of the Holy Trinity or not? How do these churches understand salvation? Do the churches have the same understanding of the Saints or not? How do the different churches understand the development of doctrine? These are just a few of the theological questions that one needs to ask.
Maybe the most important questions deal with the internal spirituality of both traditions. What are the different spiritual disciplines or practices of the two traditions? How is fasting practiced? How is confession practiced? How important are icons in a Christian’s spirituality? How nourishing or encouraging are the Orthodox and Roman Catholic communities to your soul? Look at how each celebrates Lent, Pascha (Easter) and other feast days. I think that the beauty of the liturgy and worship are to be considered as outward expressions of something internal in the churches. I think also one needs to learn about the distractions in each tradition (both have their unique problems) and consider whether or not these distractions will keep one from pursuing theosis or sanctification. I think one should also consider how each tradition treats the dying? Look at the liturgies used for a funeral. Maybe one could attend a funeral in each tradition to see the differences. One can discern these spiritual practices by talking to priests and to the different members of these churches. The most important thing might be to visit a number of different Roman Catholic and Orthodox parishes in order to get a sense for the spirituality found in both traditions. It is hard to grasp a church’s spirituality just by reading books.
One of the things that my wife and I considered in our journey was the spirituality of our children. We knew that we wanted to enter a tradition that we could pass on to them and that hopefully they would pass onto their children. One of the issues for us was paedocommunion. It was important to my wife and me that our children be able to partake of Holy Communion and to participate fully in the worship of the church. We did not want them in the nursery but in the worship service fully participating with all the saints. If you’re considering Rome or Orthodoxy don’t just study the history and theology but also the practical spirituality of the two traditions. I think that the spirituality of a tradition may influence the way that tradition understands church history.
“One hundred Episcopalian, Canadian Anglican and Orthodox Christian clergy and laity, some from as far away as Bar Harbor, Maine; Denver, Colo.; Lakeland, Fla., and Toronto, Ont., attended “Faith of Our Fathers: A Colloquium on Orthodox for Anglicans” Jan. 29-30, 2007 sponsored by St. Andrew House Center for Orthodox Christian Studies.
The colloquium was designed to explain Orthodox Christianity to Episcopalians and Anglicans, according to the Most Rev. Nathaniel, Archbishop of Detroit and the Romanian Episcopate of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), and founder and president of St. Andrew House. Ancient Faith Radio recorded the sessons and is happy to make them available for download. Please do not make copies or sell the material without the consent of the St. Andrews House Center for Orthodox Christian Studies.
These recordings are made possible by Ancient Faith Radio, a 24 hour a day internet based Orthodox radio station. Listen for the best in Orthodox liturgical music, quotes from the Fathers, lectures, interviews and more. Ancient Faith Radio - Timeless Christianity 24 hours a day.
I highly recommend listening to Fr. Patrick Reardon’s lecture on culture. Click here.
Private judgment takes on different forms. The broadest use of private judgment is when people make choices that they are to take responsibility for. This form of private judgment seems unavoidable because human beings are given choices that they must decide on. Private judgment can also be related to the “me and my Bible” approach to reading Holy Scripture. This is when a person just sits down and reads his Bible and asks, “what does this passage mean to me?” A more sophisticated form of this approach is when a person reads his Bible with a commentary or two and comes to his own conclusions of what the given Bible passage means. So the meaning of the Bible is his opinion of what the Bible says. This is the approach of many Protestant and cult groups like the Jehovah Witnesses.
I thought that I avoided this “Bible and me” approach as an Anglican priest. I did not rely on my private judgment, but on Holy Scripture as the tradition of the Church throughout the ages had interpreted it. But one day I came across the journey of Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware and my eyes were opened that my theology was dependent on me and not the Church. I had actually not escaped the “me and my Bible” approach. Here is the quotation from Bp. Ware that God used to allow me to see one of the major Anglican problems.
“Many Bishops and divines of your communion are and have been quite orthodox. But what of that? Their opinion is only an individual opinion, it is not the Faith of the Community. The Calvinist Ussher is an Anglican no less than the bishops (whom you quote) who hold quite Orthodox language. We may and do sympathize with the individuals; we cannot and dare not sympathize with a Church … which gives Communion to those who declare the Bread and Wine of the High Sacrifice to be mere bread and wine, as well as to those who declare it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. This for an example — and I could find hundreds more — but I go further. Suppose an impossibility — suppose all the Anglicans to be quite Orthodox; suppose their Creed and Faith quite concordant with ours; the mode and process by which that creed is or has been attained is a Protestant one; a simple logical act of the understanding… Were you to find all the truth, you would have found nothing; for we alone can give you that without which all would be vain — the assurance of truth. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church, 70-71 (italics in the original).
There is much in this quotation but I came to see that many of the beliefs that I held as an Anglican which I shared with the Orthodox were just a matter of my own private opinion and were not the beliefs of the Anglican Church. My theology (dogma) was just one opinion among the many in Anglicanism. Then it hit me that the parishioners under my care were not hearing Anglican theology but just my opinion of what Anglican theology should be. The parishioners sitting under my teaching were building their salvation on mere opinions. I knew that I should not build a parish on mere opinion but on what the church teaches, but the Anglican Church does not teach what I was teaching but only allowed it amongst other contradictory theologies. The only way I saw that this dilemma could be fixed is to convert to the Orthodox Church where my theology would be what the Church believes and not just one theological opinion among many. There is also the problem of Anglican theology’s ability to bind the conscience which I will talk about on another post. To make a long story very short, I brought this reason to the vestry (parish council) but it was not a good enough reason for them to start considering Orthodoxy, so I resigned as their priest and my family and I started to look toward the Orthodox Church.
If one wants to read about the different contradictory theological schools in Anglicanism then I recommend The Panther and the Hind by Aidan Nichols.
Note- I first read the quotation above in Bp. Kallistos Ware’s essay on his journey to Orthodoxy but the quotation is from a letter Alexei Khomiakov wrote to Anglican theologian William Palmer on Nov. 28, 1846.
One blog that helped me deal with my Anglican doubts and struggles was Pontifications. Pontifications is a blog written by Fr. Al Kimel who is a former Episcopal priest who has recently converted to Roman Catholicism and has since been ordained a RC priest. In the early days of Pontification, Fr. Al shared his growing doubts of Anglican catholicity and his thoughts on Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. This blog attracted very talented thinkers from Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism which made for some good discussions on catholicity. Fr. Al went to Rome and I went to Orthodoxy, but we both share the same concerns and critique of Anglican catholicity. His blog no longer allows for the great discussions that it was so well known for, but he still has a page dedicated to his thoughts on Anglicanism which can be read at Pontifications.
.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is Latin for the law of prayer is the law of belief or paraphrased your prayer forms your belief. This idea was hammered home to me in seminary. It is probably the most important thing that I took away from my seminary education. I wanted my beliefs to be formed through my praying of the Anglican liturgy in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). Many of the prayers have roots in the ancient liturgies with a few Protestant revisions made by the prayerbook’s compiler Thomas Cranmer. The prayerbook struggles in a few places it is intentionally vague but the overall ethos that one gains from praying daily praying the prayers in the BCP is a very ancient one. If one prays these prayers often, I believe it will form in them with a very Benedictine ethos. As many of you know St. Benedict’s Rule is rooted in the tradition of the Desert Fathers. So the closest thing in Anglicanism to Orthodoxy is her liturgy. The Anglican liturgy formed my beliefs and ethos more than any theological book ever did. It was through my daily praying of the BCP that prepared my very being for a conversion to Orthodoxy. It was often during my praying of the liturgy that theological doctrines would become clear to me. One day during Holy Communion at Holy Cross we were confessing the Nicene Creed when it hit me that the church is “one and catholic”. What did we mean that the Catholic church is one? I had thought about this before but all of the sudden in the middle of the liturgy it hit me that my branch theory understanding of this is problematic. In my next post I want to explore the “Anglican branch theory” and what I, as an Anglican, believed about how the one church is catholic.
