For Anglicans

For those Anglicans who may be looking into Orthodoxy I have here some
thoughts on my experience in and study of Anglicanism. Though it was easy to read myself out of Protestantism in general, the via media of Anglicanism remained an attractive option for !uite some time. I found it more difficult to re"ect. I am aware that many godly, catholic#minded people see tremendous merit in staying a part of the Anglican communion, despite the current sad state of affairs. I myself have a great love for some of the treasures in Anglicanism. $owever, I believe that theologically and historically Anglicanism is indefensible, especially when the !uestion %hat is the &hurch' is asked. I apologi(e in advance for the lack of polish on this page of my site. I have not had time to refine the contents herein, as you will see. I offer first some of the key notes from my readings. Perhaps they will stimulate your thoughts in an Orthodox direction. I then offer a )uggested *eading for Anglicans page to take you further.
History and Formation

+ichols, Aidan, The Panther and the Hind: A Theological History of Anglicanism. ,dinburgh- T.T &lark, /001

Anglican church properly seen as a bridge#church 2p. ix, /304 5ore correctly seen as a theological "ustification of a political event 2p. x, 61ff, 784 Idea of &omprehensiveness- creative dialectic never actuali(ed 2p. x, /39#/334: deliberate vagueness, ambiguity written into the ;&P and 10 Articles <,li(abethan &ompromise= 2p. /374 &hurch in ,ngland was in a very real sense the *oman church in captivity from $enry >III?s overthrow until it became its own defiant church under ,dward >I 2p. /64. &hurch of ,ngland not so much a theological idea as a political compromise 2p. xvii, @/4: see also Anox?s point that the church of ,ngland never pretended to be right. It does not regard itself as anything more than a working compromise suited to the needs of the age which produced it. Bater however the people fell in love with the new creation and it became permanent 2p. 660ff of his University and Anglican Sermons4.

Aey summary of his argument 2p. xix#xx4-

The theology of the ,nglish *eformers was built on both Butheran and &alvinist foundations, yet it was never systematically either Butheran or &alvinist. Partly from conviction but mostly from political necessity their theology was poured into an institutional mould which retained large elements of a &atholic structure. As a result, when, in the reign of ,li(abeth, a reflective Anglican consciousness emerges, it sees itself not as a straightforward continuation of the &ontinental *eformation, but as a ?via media.? The history of Anglican pluralism derives from the intrinsic difficulty of defining such a via media, and from the resultant need to leave wide open a wide latitude in the construing of doctrine. Thus the via media idea, intended as a unifiying force for Anglicanism, tended to be disintegrating in practice. It could be used in a classically Protestant direction or in a &atholic direction: or yet again in a Batitudinarian directionCon the grounds that where so much is unclear, little should be insisted on. Again, Anglicans may despair of via media and take refuge either in Anglo#&atholicism <giving it a much larger keel of Tradition for a heaving ship# P5;= or in the idea of %estern <,astern'= Orthodoxy, in each case accepting that the supreme norm for Anglican faith and practice should be provided from outside Anglicanismeither from Rome or onstantinople . Dinally, Anglicans may choose to regard the incoherences 2yet riches4 of their own &hurch as simply a microcosm of those of &hristianity world#wide. In this case they will argue that Anglicanism has no distinctive contribution to make to the coming Ereat &hurch <an Anglican ecumenical and eschatological idea of the &hurchCP5;=- its destiny is to disappear, its triumph will be its dissolution.

Two Outstanding Orthodox Publications from England!

and The Shepherd

Faith and Order

&ranmer?s doctrine of ,ucharist and the liturgical rite a real break from the historic catholicity of /7FF years 2p. /6, 1@4. +o single theological orthodoxy: pluralistic: 10 Articles are merely vaguely worded signposts out of troubled waters 2intentionally, due to ,li(abethan )ettlement, so as not to offend either &atholics or puritans : p. 174. Problems with the 10 Articles 2!uoting Peter Toon4- they are patristic when speaking about the Trinity, &hristology and original sin <5ore !estern patristic on the last one- the ,ast would disagree with Augustine?s statements on original guiltGsin=: they are Butheran when speaking about the Eospel and "ustification: they are &alvinist when speaking about the sacraments. 2p. 11: see also p. /84. The 10 Articles lack the central feature of any sound fundamental ecclesiology, namely, profession of a single visible &hurch. 2p. 314. no genuine identity 2p. xviii4. the intention of the ordinal and the nature of the church are highly problematic and a break with catholicity 2p.@84. Hefunct intent is one of the main problems in the validity !uestion of Anglican orders. <these arguments of validity, however, are entirely %estern. On the historic and ,astern view of orders and apostolic succession see the excellent little book by Eregory *ogers called Apostolic Succession, &onciliar

Press, /0064: intent of ordinal purposely vague: deliberate obfuscation of catholic intent. the "aith a clear break from that of the catholic churches of ,ast and %est 2thus negating any real claims to having true apostolic succession4predestinarian soteriology: sola fideism: receptionistGoccasionalist view of the ,ucharist 2$ooker?s view, the classical Anglican position, p. 604: bene esse wrt bishops 2p. 7F, 96, 31 wrt the 10 Articles4: loss of the communion of saints and mariology, etc. <Durthermore, how can a church call itself catholic when it differs so widely on many important matters of the faith. 5any contradictory traditions under one umbrella of comprehensiveness, all in communion together. This is catholicity 'I *emember, the high churchman have always been in the minority within the & of ,.= Other problems with ,ucharistic doctrine 2p. 994-

The difficulty in <Bancelot= Andrewes? argument for the continuity of the &hurch of ,ngland with the pre#*eformation &hurch lies in the fact that the retention of an orthodox view of the ,ucharist as presence# sacrifice and foundation of the hurch does not in itself guarantee that one will have an ?orthopraxy?Ca pattern of rightful action relating one to the rest of the &hurch?s communionCto match one?s words.

view of Tradition is problematic. Hisconnected from a solid ecclesiology 2see Dlorovsky?s $ible# hurch# Tradition or &ongar?s Tradition and Traditions. Hipping buckets vs. "umping in the stream, or to use *onald Anox?s analogy of raking up old dead documents vs. obeying a living voice of Tradition ... having no authority for itself which can claim to properly and divinely interpret scriptures and expel heresy it will cease to be a church. 2p. 98, 33: for the most devastating treatise on the relation of )cripture, Tradition and the &hurch see Jves 5.#K. &ongar, Tradition and Traditions, 5acmillan, /0994: fullness of the faith vs. vestiges. <Dr. Havid Ousley of )t. Kames the Bess- no ability to discipline the &hurch or the clergy. &hurch can?t purge herself from heresy=. +ote comments by ;ishop Aallistos %are in the /091 edition of his The %rthodo& hurch, pp. 1/8#1/0-

Jet there is one field in which diversity cannot be permitted. Orthodoxy insists upon unity in matters of the faith. $efore there can be reunion among hristians# there must first be full agreement in faith - this is a basic principle for Orthodox in all their ecumenical relations. It is unity in the faith that

matters, not organi(ational unity: and to secure unity of organi(ation at the price of a compromise in dogma is like throwing away the kernel of a nut and keeping the shell. Orthodox are not willing to take part in a ?minimal? reunion scheme, which secures agreement on a few points and leaves everything else to private opinion. There can be only one basis for unionCthe fullness of the faith: for Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a united and organic whole. )peaking of the Anglo *ussian Theological &onference at 5oscow in /079, the present Archbishop of &anterbury, Hr 5ichael *amsey, expressed the Orthodox viewpoint exactlyThe Orthodox said in effect- ...The ?tradition is a concrete fact. There it is, in its totality. Ho you Anglicans accept it, or do you re"ect it'? The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indivisible whole- the entire life of the &hurch in its fullness of belief and custom down the ages, including 5ariology and the veneration of icons. Daced with this challenge, the typically Anglican reply is- ?%e would not regard veneration of icons or 5ariology as inadmissible, provided that in determining what is necessary to salvation, we confine ourselves to $oly )cripture.? ;ut this reply only throws into relief the contrast between the Anglican appeal to what is deemed necessary to salvation and the Orthodox appeal to the one indivisible organism of Tradition, to tamper with any part of which is to spoil the whole, in the sort of way that a single splodge on a picture can mar its beauty. <?The 5oscow &onference in *etrospect?, in )obornost, series 1, no. @1, /078, pp. 79@#1.=

In the words of another Anglican writer- It has been said that the faith is like a network rather than an assemblage of discrete dogmas: cut one strand and the whole pattern loses its meaning.? <T. 5. Parker, ?Hevotion to the 5other of Eod?, in The 5olher of Eod, edited by ,. B. 5ascall, p. 36.= Orthodox, then, ask of other &hristians that they accept Tradition as a 'hole: but it must be remembered that there is a difference between Tradition and traditions. 5any beliefs held by Orthodox are not a part of the one Tradition, but are simply theologoumena, theological opinions: and there can be no !uestion of imposing mere matters of opinion on other &hristians. 5en can possess full unity in the faith, and yet hold divergent theological opinions in certain fields. This basic principleCno reunion without unity in the faithChas an important corollaryuntil unity in the faith has been achieved# there can be no communion in the sacraments. &ommunion at the Bord?s Table 2most Orthodox believe4 cannot be used to secure unity in the faith, but must come as the conse!uence and crown of a unity already attained. Orthodoxy re"ects the whole concept of ?intercommunion? between separated &hristian bodies, and admits no form of sacramental fellowship short of full communion. ,ither &hurches are in

communion with one another, or they are not- there can be no half#way house.
Some Old Journal eflections

If we as Anglicans believe and confess ?one, holy, catholic, and apostolic &hurch? what do we mean by this' ... %hen we Anglicans speak of ?)cripture, Tradition, *eason?, or when Peter Toon <one of my professors at seminary during this time= speaks of ?the Tradition of $oly 5other &hurch? I am often left wondering "ust what is meant by this. It seems to me that Tradition within Anglicanism has always been a very slippery and ever#changing entity. Aren?t I correct in stating that within Anglicanism there is really no consensus on "ust what this Tradition is except the general concept of via media towards all things' Is our Tradition supposed to be ,li(abethan, &lassical, Anglo#&atholic, Bow, $igh, ;road, Biberal . . .' Durthermore, when I read about the $oly Tradition of the ,astern &hurch it is often vastly different from how we would define Tradition. In matters of soteriology 2&alvinismI4, spirituality, the ,ucharist, sacramental G cosmological worldview, and ecclesiology 2"ust to name a fewI4 we are often very far from them. Ours seems to be a Tradition that is, in the main, clearly Protestant and greatly weakened at its very foundation by the ,Ii(abethan )ettlement, among other things. If we claim ?Tradition? as our guide it seems to me that we don?t mean the same thing as the undivided &hurch did, and the catholic churches of ,ast and %est still do. )o who is right' Durthermore, can Anglicanism sustain itself as a viable catholic ?branch? of the &hurch 2given one accepts the so#called ;ranch Theory at all, a /0th century invention4 if there is no consensus on what defines Tradition' ... ,ven if we are able to return to the Anglicanism of the &aroline divines 'hat is going to stem the same heretical tide that has so distressed our hurch in the recent decades# or (eep it from re)ecting its catholic identity all over again* I have to ask myself a hard !uestion- 'hy are 'e trying to (eep Anglicanism alive' I mean, why not return to our &eltic roots when we were essentially the ;ritish Orthodox &hurch' The Orthodox &hurch in America 2O&A4 publishes a little booklet entitled ?)aints of the ;ritish Isles.? Hoes ,&L)A <,piscopal &hurch, L)A= have anything like this'I The official calendar of the Antiochian Archdiocese of +orth America commemorates the likes of Koseph of Arimathaea, Alban, &olumba, Aidan, Patrick, ;rigid, and Havid of %ales, as well

as Aristobulus, the first ;ishop of ;ritain whom the ,nglish have long forgotten but the ,ast still remembersI Though we do differ greatly in many areas there is much continuity between us as well. It appears to me at this time in my in!uiry that Orthodoxy is the fulfillment of the highest Anglican ideals- evangelical and catholic. Hid not Archbishop *amsay say that the Anglican &ommunion was ?provisional? by nature' Is it not accurate to say that the Anglican hurch is more a +series of ,historical- movements+ .Ter'illiger/ rather than a viable catholicism' The /F@nd Archbishop of &anterbury, *obert *uncie, stated at the /080 &onference of &athedral Heans that ?our vocation as Anglicans was to put ourselves out of business.? Ho you agree' Is there anything wrong with seeing ourselves as a part that should be seeking to return to its whole, its true roots' Are 'e )ustified in continuing to build a separate +branch+ of the hurch rather than )oining hands 'ith the %rthodo&* 0s not schism a grave sin# one that the 1arly "athers 'rote about e&tensively* !hat are 'e trying to hold onto that 'e can+t find in %rthodo&y' Are we staying away because of matters of personal taste, cultural differences, etc.' %hy not "oin the Orthodox and bring with us the best of %estern culture' It seeems there is much room for a distinctive %estern Orthodoxy. Are we really staying away for the right reasons' I can?t get away from the !uestion of whether or not it is valid, or worthwhile, to try to build up yet another continuing Anglican branch like the *eformed ,piscopal &hurch <I was a member of the *eformed ,piscopal &hurch at the time=. I think about the ,)A <,piscopal )ynod of America, a conversative affiliation within ,&L)A that is attempting to bring about reform and stem the tide of heresy=. Though a noble cause, four years after their /080 convention what has that )ynod produced' Though many of the faithful within Anglicanism appreciate their godly efforts they have had no perceptible influence on ,&L)A or the Anglican &ommunion, both of which continue to head down the path to destruction. Durthermore, the ,)A seems to have no clear sense of direction, and has never <at this date at least= broken communion with those whom they are in disagreementI 2$eresy is not merely holding to a certain unorthodox belief but also being in communion with those who do4 %hat does the ,)A plan to do' Is traditional Anglicanism without &anterbury even viable' Hespite their good intentions is the ,)A destined to become what ;ishop Terwilliger warned of years ago- a splinter group that begets only more splinters' $ow catholic is that'I $ow does this speak to the *,&?s 2or other Anglican spin#off groups?4 situation' $ow catholic is it for groups like these to bring in some outsider who has ?valid orders? 2but is not, and often 'ill not be, after the consecration, even in communion with them4, and have this person ?plug them in? to the apostolic

line and ?grant succession?' This entire ?mechanical? understanding of succession 2typical esp. amongst Anglo#&atholics4 is foreign to the early church and the ,ast today and seems to me to be a real distortion of true catholic practice. The key !uestion that must continually be brought to fore is, +!hat is the hurch*+. A reasonable corollary !uestion is, ?%hat are the nature of the sacraments and how does ,ucharist define the &hurch' $ow is the &hurch constituted and e&pressed'?. It seems to me that it is chiefly done so through the ,ucharist 2the sacrament of both the &hristological and pneumatological aspects of the &hurch4. If ?,ucharist makes the &hurch? then the necessary corollary is that bishops are of the esse of the visible ;ody of &hrist, the &hurch: for only lawfully ordained and authori(ed men 2those truly sent by &hrist through the Apostles- bishops and priests, connected to a visible ?community of believers?, who have apostolic succession of Daith and Order: on this see *ogers? excellent book4 can eucharisti(e the elements and preside over the ,ucharistic assembly of the faithful. The bottom line is this: do Anglican communions have legitimate reasons for claiming to be a part of the hurch atholic# based on the criteria of apostolic "aith and %rder* To my "udgment, on both aspects of succession it would appear not. Jou decide, with the help of Eod. +ote- many of the ideas contained in paragraph two above came from The Anglican G Orthodox Pilgrim newsletters 2>ol. @, +o./ and 6: >ol. 1, +o. /4.
On the !ambeth "uadrilateral# $oncerning Ecumenism

Drom The Panheresy of 1cumenism, by 5etropolitan &yprian 2,tna, &A- &enter for Traditionalist Orthodox )tudies, /0074, pp. /F#//. %hat follows may seem to be worded in an unnecessarily strong way, especially for those Anglicans "ust beginning to look into Orthodoxy. I encourage you to not see this as Orthodox hatred of Anglicans per se# but a love for the truth and a desire to protect the Orthodox faithful in the face of the ever#increasing problem of ecumenism. To see how the Orthodox view heterodox &hristians see my paper On the )tatus of $eterodox &hristians. The more you read in the Orthodox faith the more you will see how far from the truth much of the Anglican tradition is. I love my Anglican friends, many who are committed to staying with it to the dying end. Jet it remains that I strongly disagree with them and cannot see the Anglican communion in any other way than a heretical bodyCbeing a clear departure from the Orthodox faith. In the year /888, the would#be bishops of the heretical Anglicans gathered in

the Bambeth &onference. In this infamous &onference, they examined the issue of ,cumenical union and adopted the so#called Dour#Point )tatement. This was called a four#point statement because it established four basic points of incorrect belief as the essential prere!uisites of false ,cumenical union- /4 $oly )criptureCas the heretics have received it, but not according to $oly Tradition: @4 the so#called Apostles? &reed and the +icene &reedCas the heretics reckon them, but not as they are understood by the ,cumenical )ynods: 14 the two 5ysteries <or sacraments= of ;aptism and the Bord?s )upperCas the heterodox accept them, and not the other 5ysteries: 64 the acceptance of various bodies of heretical bishopsCaccording to the demands of each nation and peopleI ;ut even these few things the ,cumenists acknowledge only in name and superficially: for as heretics, they deny the truth, as shall become subse!uently obvious. The ,cumenists understand their four points in light of the following three principles of unbelief- /4 dogmatic minimalism: @4 inclusivenss: and 14 the branch theory. %hat do these three new principles of incorrect belief mean' The profanity which is called dogmatic minimalism calls for a unity of faith based on the barest of &hristian dogmas, that is, the barest of truth. This, however, is not faith, but a lack thereof. ;ecause if one is unfaithful in one point, he is guilty of all infidelity 2)t. Kames @-/F4. The principle of inclusiveness entails the impiety of re!uesting toleration for and compromise with heretics: that is, not struggle against heresy, but cooperation and union with heresies. Thus ,cumenism, as a great and inclusive heresy, accepts and embodies every heresy. And the branch theory constitutes the following false teaching. The &hurch is seen as a tree. According to the deluded ,cumenists, the trunk of the tree is the one, undivided &hurch and ecclesiastical truth. The branches are the various heresies, the autocephalous Orthodox &hurches, and different false beliefs. All of these are supposedly e!ual to one another, united like the branches of a tree, and constitute the manifestation of the one &hurch, no single one being the &hurch and none having the entire truth of the &hurch. In short, Orthodoxy is not the &hurch, is not the truth, is not different from the heresies, but is itself one of the heresies of the world. %ith the foregoing Anglican misbelief about ,cumenical unity and union, the belief of the ninth article of the )ymbol of Daith <the &reed= in One, $oly, &atholic <Orthodox=, and Apostolic Daith is abolished. The Dour#Part )tatement of Bambeth is a fourfold ,cumenical delusion. Hogmatic minimalism is a form of anti#dogmatic infidelity. The branch theory is a many#

branched tree of falsehood and nonsense. And ,cumenical inclusiveness is the wide . . .gate and broad . . .way, that leadeth to destruction 2)t. 5atthew 3-/14.