Living Church has the main story here.
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.
An autocephalous Eastern Orthodox Church, the OCA was established by eight Russian monks in 1794 on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Known as the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, it was granted autocephaly, or autonomy, by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970. The OCA has 700 congregations, monasteries and communities spread across the United States and Canada.
Metropolitan Jonah, 49, was reared in The Episcopal Church, but joined the OCA while a student at the University of California, San Diego, in 1978. He was elected metropolitan last year as a reform candidate, 11 days after he was consecrated Bishop of Fort Worth.
Asked what the OCA’s stance toward ecumenism might be under his tenure, Metropolitan Jonah said, “If the matter concerns The Episcopal Church USA, then this dialogue has stopped.
“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.”
Metropolitan Jonah said he was seeking a true ecumenical relationship and reconciliation with ACNA, with the goal that this be celebrated in full sacramental eucharist. He formally proposed a new dialog between the Orthodox church in America and ACNA to achieve this unity. He was candid about the issues from the Orthodox side that needed to be resolved, which I appreciated. They are:
-
Full affimation of the 7 ecumenical councils
Return the creed to the original form (no Council of Toledo)
Calvinism as a condemned heresy
Anti Sacramentalism
Iconoclasm
Womens Ordination
Papal Infallibility (RC issue)
Some aspects of extreme devotion to Mary (RC issue, Anglo Catholics reacted to this one)
He said he would probably have something to offend everybody, judging by reactions around me he was probably correct. However, I think his “speaking the truth in love” was appreciated overall by the assembly.
Apparently there will be a joint missions conference in Winconsin October 8-10 by Nashotah House and St Vladimir’s Seminary to begin this process.
Archbishop-elect Duncan accepted the proposal to talk “We have heard a call to communion with God, one another, to unity, to dialogue. We will have much to talk about, and we will talk. It’s been a historic week for Anglicanism and for the Christian Church. The restoration of dialogue is a sign of just how true that is. God is doing a new thing, and bringing us back together.”
Calvinism as “heresy” and seven sacraments does not fly with me. I found his whole talk (what I heard of it, I had to put my kindergartner on the bus during the middle) just odd. It seems to me that dialogue requires give and take – it isn’t something you start by telling the other party that they have it all wrong.
Maybe better than waffling about ecumenism and never getting down to the real issues. So, those are their issues, fair enough IMHO. So we talk, again not a bad thing. I may not agree with some of the issues raised, others in the conference disagreed with other issues. I think we are a long way away from ever coming to a common mind right now. Also I think there would need to be stuff from our side regarding issues we may have! The idea that we are all going to become Orthodox (i.e. a one way street) is probably something that would need challenging.
I think it will take a miracle to build the kind of ecumenical unity that Jonah talked about, but then God does specialise in them, eh? I certainly applaud the intent (with reservations on the perceived one way nature of it).
Calvinism is not a heresy, it is based entirely on God’s Word, not on the traditions of men like the doctrines of Orthodox Church. The use of icons, statues and images in worship is expressly forbidden by the second commandment (and in Deut. 4:15-18). I think this reunion will be long in coming!
God bless Bishop (soon to be Archbishop) Duncan. He just addressed the issue with grace and truth. (I’m listening to his preaching as I type….)
The endorsement by the Orthodox Church is an very important event, I doubt if anyone is under any illusions about complete agreement,
Rick Warren’s words must have made a few hot under the clerical collar as well.
I didn’t hear much of Rick Warren’s talk, the internet kept cutting in and out. I think the recording of it is up on the Anglican TV site now, though.
I watched the recorded version of Rick Warren’s talk and couldn’t find much with which I disagreed. In fact I found it to be quite inspirational and on the mark; perhaps not what we wanted to hear but what we needed to hear. IMHO anyways.
The wonderful thing about *all* these Christian preachers and leaders is that they bear the marks of Christ. The variety of religious perspectives only adds to Christ’s glory.
Our unity as Christians will never come from details of doctrine though, for our ongoing health, we are obliged to discuss them, even argue about them, while searching the Scriptures. They are necessary for our maturity and continuing growth but they are not ‘the main thing’, the ‘main thing’ being the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the First and Last, the Risen One, our Saviour. Our true unity comes from him only.
I know, by saying this, that I have raised questions about our rejection of the apostasy of the ACoC and TEC. But my answer to that is that these groups have crossed over the line, replacing Christ’s salvation and his Lordship with the spirit of this age.
I mostly agree with you Irena, except that, as our Archbishop (love the sound of those words, btw – “Our Archbishop”) said – many of the things that his Beatitude brought up are things that divide us, as Anglicans, and I just don’t think that this was the appropriate venue to be talking about it. I especially don’t appreicate the one way aspect of his talk. It seeme to me as if he was laying down conditions on us before he was even willing to talk, and as if he was assuming that we all eventually want to become capital O orthodox. I confess my protestant heart was saying “well he can go whistle” while I was listening to him.
It is my understanding (as an ex-Protestant) that there have been many years of talks between Anglicans and Orthodox. Anglicans don’t seem to have as many lines to cross as Orthodox, so the talks usually end in frustration with the Anglicans being more open and accepting than the Orthodox. The Orthodox are happy that the Anglicans represented at this conference are drawing the line on some things, which does lead to division with those who don’t. Divisions are sad, and the more liberal side thinks the other side is mean, and the conservative side thinks the other side is too wishy-washy.
Metropolitan Jonah is saving time by laying out the unchanging position of the Orthodox (though some don’t care as much about some of the issues he raises as others). There may be some things to compromise on, such as Western Rite liturgy that St. Tikhon approved, but we always make the Anglicans upset when we wont compromise on the others. Anglicanism has been influenced by the Reformation and has a different philosophy on the “Development” of doctrine than the Orthodox do.
I’m glad that there are talks which I think are spurred by Anglicans who are upset that there haven’t been enough boundaries. So how Traditional do you want to end up?
I’m not sure I understand – Anglicans may have been influenced by Protestantism but the confession is not Protestant: it is episcopal and apostolic. Affirming the 7 ecumenical councils seems like the only sound basis for ecumenical relations in general – that would also make the communion fully orthodox in the historical sense. Everything outlined here flows from affirming the councils, not becoming an Eastern Orthodox clone. Am I missing something?
I don’t thing that Protestant and episcopal and apolostic are contradictions….
I would imagine the answer to that would be that much of Protestantism – and most especially Calvinism – deviates from the broad ecumenical consensus of apostolic church in its unity – the first thousand years of the church. If the future of Anglicanism is really Presbyterian, then I guess any discussion with the Orthodox would be a waste of time. Back some generations my family on one side had Orthodox roots but were advised when moved to an area without an Orthodox church to attend an Anglican church: some still received an Orthodox funeral when they passed. I guess in those days things were very different, but the assumption was that these were brother communions separated by a rift that would be healed some day – the Anglican priests seemed to think of themselves as ‘o’rthodox.
Confused (#11 & 13), I’m confused. Your definition of protestantism seems to be something other than protesting against Rome and her abuses. Or are you arguing that the Church of England was always in essential harmony with Rome? What is your defintion of Protestantism? Is it founded in biblical doctrine or ecclesiology? Does tradition trump Scripture? Is Wikipedia wrong in placing Anglicanism in the Protestant camp? Do the 39 Articles support sola scriptura and sola fide, or argue against them? When viewed from a world-wide perspective, where do the majority of Anglican lie? Should we exchange Blog names?
I think being in communion also means different things to Anglicans and Orthodox. One aspect is organizational affiliation, but don’t Anglicans practice open communion? So couldn’t a person “under” the Archbishop of Canterbury or ECUSA receive communion at an ACNA Church? So reestablishment of communion would be a complicated issue if the Orthodox agree to commune orthodox Anglicans, while the orthodox Anglicans still communed everyone else. We believe that how a person believes affects how they commune, and those they commune with. To commune at an Orthodox Church, a person has to reject all the heresies of other confessions.
But I will remain as hopeful and open as Metropolitan Jonah.
Andrea (#15), do you know if the Orthodox Church has a list of heresies something akin to the Council of Trent?
Confused (#13), what do you mean by “Calvinism”? It is a term that is thrown around very loosely (sort of like protestantism) and can mean quite different things to different people. Some who would claim to be Calvinist would likely share little in common with Calvin. So, how would you define the term?
Metropolitan Jonah was not open. He stood up, as a guest of ACNA, and basically gave an ultimatum, seeming to assume that of course we all want to be Orthodox. One priest I know who was there described it as a “drive by”.
Any baptized Christian who loves Jesus and is able to recieve communion in his or her own church is welcome at an Anglican Lord’s Table, and that is how it should be.
Warren,
The Seven Ecumenical Councils were called to refute various heresies which the Bishops believed would destroy the Church: Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Iconoclasm (7th Ecumenical Council) to name a few. That is the reason that the Nicene-Constantinoplean Creed and the statutes regarding icons were drafted. The Apostle’s Creed leaves room for Arianism (and the Jehovah’s Witness). The Councils determined what a Christian must believe about Christ and consequently His Mother, to commune in the Church. For instance, anyone who didn’t confess the two natures of Christ according to the Council of Chalcedon could not commune. This caused the first major split in the Church with the non-Chalcedonians or Oriental Orthodox Churches, though relations with these Churches have warmed quite a bit in recent centuries.
Around the time of Martin Luther, the early Reformers sought recognition from the Patriarch of Jerusalem by sending him their Augsburg Confession. The three responses by the Patriarch are a good summary about how Orthodoxy differs from Protestantism. Calvinistic Determinism is one of the main issues that the Patriarch could not accept. Here’s a link providing the responses to the Lutherans which are remarkable to me in that it shows that little has changed. Be warned, the introduction is from orthdoxinfo.com which presents Orthodoxy’s strictest side and uses the word “heterodox”.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/jeremiah.aspx
I will say that there has not been an Ecumenical Council since our split with the Roman Catholics in 1054, much less since the Reformation, though various synodal pronouncements since then are considered orthodox. Therefore the Orthodox, while believing that it alone maintains the fullest expression of the Truth about Christ, has had to resign itself to the validity of other Sacraments since the schism, and most tone down the language. Heresies are still heresies, but “heretic” in most cases is seen as too inflammatory.
Kate,
I first began to appreciate the necessity of a more precise explanation of Christ and the Church through my marriage with a man from “The Way International”. He said he believed Christ was the Son of God and rose from the dead to save us. According to many verses in the Bible, it seemed to me and my Protestant family at the time that that was enough to be “saved”, even though he didn’t believe Jesus was God. He went to a Trinitarian Bible Church with me and was allowed communion while he kept his disagreements quiet, which was easy to do since no one asked in the four years he went there. He finally left the Church saying that every time he came close to investigating the Trinity the devil made life too hard for him. My journey to the Orthodox Church comes mainly from my disillusionment with individual interpretations of the Bible, and the lack of investigation into people who deem themselves worthy of Christian communion. Jesus’ deity is more hinted at in the Bible, but the statement of faith from the Church depends on it. You need more than “the Bible tells me so” when talking to a member of a cult – which is a sect who defies “traditional” interpretation of Scriptures. We need the authority and the clarity of the Church to back up our beliefs.
Metropolitan Jonah has promised continued talks, so that does not seem “drive-by” to me. I appreciate someone who doesn’t mince words, but that may be because I’m impatient. Cut to the chase!
Also, we need to commune with purity of belief and practice, which is why we stress affirming the original Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the confession of and repentance from sins before partaking.
Apparently the excerpts in the above link have been changed since I last read it to mainly address the Scriptures, the Councils and the Father’s decisions on the filioque addition, and in the conclusion, when the Patriarch ends up frustrated with the Lutheran disrespect of Tradition in favor of individual interpretation, he addresses the Sacraments, the invocation of the Saints, the monastic life, and icons.
They had originally posted a more detailed account of Orthodoxy’s problem with determinism, but so far I’ve only found this description on another paper,
“Over a thousand years later, Jeremias II, Patriarch of Constantinople, would take up this refrain in his response to the Lutheran theologians of Tьbingen regarding the Augsburg Confession. First, Jeremias quotes at length from ChrysostomТs Twelfth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Antiochene Father asserts that ‘All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered . . . For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us.’[32] Linking the concepts of sin and virtue to free will in a manner similar to Nyssa, Jeremias sets the stage for his discussion of faith and works by averring:
I declare that everyone is capable of virtue. For whatever a person is not able to do, he is not able to do even if forced. But if a person is able when forced to do what he is not doing, then it is by his own choice that he is not doing it.[33]”
(http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/Justification.htm)
I still think it was inappropriate of him to effectively bash protestantism when he was the guest of a protestant church. That doesn’t seem to me to be the basis of fruitful discussion. He gave me the impression that he wants full communion with us, but isn’t willing to budge an inch to acheive it: all the compromise must come from us. That doesn’t fly with me.
Yes, we do need other Christians around us to help us interpret scriptures. That doesn’t mean that “the church” as an orgainzation has been right about everything for all time, nor does it give the church the same level of authority as scripture.
Andrea (#18), I’m not familiar with all of the ecumenical councils, but I do have a reasonable sense for why they were convened and the historical role they have played. That said, a succinct summary such as you provided is helpful. Thank you.
My question was more practical in nature. Assuming that the the Orthodox Church desires to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and play a role in adding to the Kingdom of God by more than just baptizing and indoctrinating the children of existing members, how are adult “seekers”, who may have been saturated in evangelical pop culture, brought into the Church? Is there a list of Protestant and RC “heresies” that they are asked to recant or refute as part of the membership process?
In your response to Kate, you characterize protestantism as though it places no importance on tradition. Although you can certainly find this attitude in protestantism, I don’t think it is any fairer a characterization than to say that the Orthodox Church places no value on Scripture and is wholly concerned with tradition (which is the stereotypical view I had of the Orthodox Church). Just because some have too quickly discarded the teaching and interpretation of those who came before us does not mean that we are not called to act like the Bereans and study and show ourselves approved. The old dead guys should also be studied, but I don’t believe that God illumines His Word through their eyes only.
Andrea (#19),
To which one could respond “disrespect for God’s Word in favour of tradition”.
It’s all about context and perspective, isn’t it?
It is very important to commune properly – that’s why the exhortations are in the prayerbook, and why we say a general confession before we partake. It is not, however, up to our priests to determine, in every case, whether or not a person is “qualified” to take communion, other than to insist that communicants be baptized Christians and believers. We do what we can to ensure that people aren’t, to paraphrase the words of the prayerbook, “eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves”, but in the end, it is up to the individual. We don’t have windows into people’s hearts.
There are times when a priest can and should deny communion, but they are rare.
Kate, I’ve been wondering why he was invited in the first place, and what sort of things he was asked to speak about. Perhaps he did what he was asked to do.
On the one hand I guess there are Anglicans who feel more bonded to orthodox tradition, and others who, like I said before, are more influenced by the Reformation. Sola Scriptura is a Reformed doctrine. I thought the Patriarch took great pains to validate the role of Tradition’s harmony with Scriptures, and I can’t do better. But I don’t think the Patriarch addressed in those snippets the Protestant contention with Roman Catholicism, which unfortunately carries over into their view of Orthodoxy. We would agree that not all of Roman Catholic Tradition is correct, and so it does cause one to be on guard against the Church, and to study for one’s self.
Warren,
There are classes, usually conducted by parish Priests, for inquirers into Orthodoxy. For more formal teaching for those more serious about joining, there is a period called the catechumenate that lasts for at least a year in which the person immerses themselves in the services and continues, usually weekly, with classes and individual study. Orthodoxy is quite different from western Christianity, even though on the surface we use a lot of the same language, like “Sacrament”. But when you study them, you see a lot of differences. Even the word “Communion” can mean different things, as well as the elements, or gifts themselves. We use leavened bread soaked in the wine, which the Priest places in our mouth together with a spoon. Many of our disagreements with the Catholics surround this very thing. The Orthodox place great importance in maintaining these small details, and think that deviation causes damage as the Patriarch said. We believe that not all of it is detailed in the Bible so we rely on what was passed down from Bishop to Bishop to keep all these details in tact.
As for which heresies, Metropolitan Jonah pointed out Calvinism. One also has to accept the institution of the male Priesthood, though there is also the I guess, “spiritual” priesthood of all believers, male and female. Other than that, when one studies Orthodoxy and notices differences with the west, one submits to the Orthodox understanding. When baptized and/or chrismated (anointed with oil) into the Orthodox Church, a person makes a public denouncement of all heresies in general, though the Priest will have already instructed of these in the classes.
In my experience as a Protestant, I was taught to rely solely on Scripture and to distrust the Church. During my conversion to Orthodoxy, I was impressed with how much of Protestant doctrine (tradition) does rely on at least the first Ecumenical Council to define the Trinity, and even the Canonization of Scripture in the fourth century.
I think it takes the illumination of the Holy Spirit for us to recognize how superiorly illumined the ‘old dead guys’ were and still are.
Kate,
I agree with your statement about communing worthily and unworthily. I also appreciate the Anglican’s use of the Prayer Book, which one could characterize as reliance on Tradition. The Orthodox Western Rite uses as slightly modified version of the Book of Common Prayer, which was approved by St. Tikhon in the early 20th Century.
Confession is a Traditional Sacrament, and I believe it is a means of grace, not for condemnation, but for cleansing of sin. I have experienced it as such. I understand that Confession to a Priest is optional in Anglicanism, but it is required in Orthodoxy, though I don’t do it often or thoroughly enough. Lord have mercy.
I wouldn’t call using the prayerbook reliance on tradition. The prayerbook can be changed, and in any case is very dependent on scripture.
Was he invited, or did he ask to attend? I don’t know. In any case, he was a guest of a protestant church.
Exactly. These are things that can divide Anglicans; divisions that we have worked very hard to overcome. To have Metropolitan Jonah stand up in this particular venue and wave his finger at the reformed side, to reopen old wounds and arguments when we are celebrating the beginning of something new and wonderful – was innapropriate at best.
I think Bishops Jack, Keith and John-David would be rather surprised to be considered Protestants.
This is why I think ACNA will fail, as without the Liberals to ally against, the Evangelicals and the Catholics will turn on each other and we shall see the aftermath of St Louis 1977 repeat itself.
If that were the case, ACNA would never have got off the ground in the first place, Liberals to ally against or no. If ACNA is of God, it will succeed. If not, it won’t. If it isn’t of God I wouldn’t want it to succeed.
I guess I’m of the school that appreciates that kind of honesty. Yes, he ruffled feathers, mine included, but never mind that. Better so than wooly sounding words talking of ecumenism that serve no purpose other than to create a facade.
What I’m curious about is if there are grounds to compromise and consider further both ways? In either case I would think this would be a long term project!
It would be good to build bridges short of full communion, recognising what unites us. That would seem to me to be an achievable and helpful objective at this point.
May it please the Lord. The Anglican communion is not the Orthodox communion, as they came out of the fallen Catholic church some 100′s of years ago. The laying on of hands in apostolic session was broken. Reordination and Chrismation must be the standard for genuine conversion. Most of these people are sincere I am sure, but not all. The Orthodox Church should not accept the communions as being the same thing, they are not. Also, the relationship between the Anglican Church of England must be viewed, as they have the same name. The Anglican church of England is dominated by freemasonery. The head of freemasonry is a British royal.
Laying on of hands is a whole lot less important than what is in a person’s heart. There is no biblical warrant for the reverence that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches pay to capital T “Tradition”, yet you will hear very few Protestants pridefully say that Protestants are the only true Christians. I wonder why the reverse isn’t true?
BJD (#31), I guess what you are saying is that, if you don’t pass the EO litmus test for salvation, you’re damned and going to hell – even if that litmus test is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. I’ll stick with evangelicalism.