A Message to the Western Rite Orthodox: Stop Fishing for Anglican Converts

From a recent Facebook discussion about the Branch Fact. Why the Continuing Church should be allowed to unify, stabilize, grow and evangelize, free of the predatory designs of the Orthodox diaspora here in the West, and especially of the so-called Orthodox Western Rite. I have to say that this is perhaps the most eloquent and powerful statement I've seen thus far from an Anglo-Catholic perspective rather than an Evangelical Anglican one, and it is my hope that all the bishops of the Continuum will publicly issue a similar statement, as one, in order to stake our claim as the legitimate English Catholic Church operating here in the West and in our historic missions:

"The differences between ourselves and the Orthodox Eastern Church are cultural and historical, not theological. Traditional Anglicanism is the orthodox catholic Church of the West. We differ from the Eastern Churches in matters of discipline and expression, but we hold the fullness of the ancient Faith of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The Anglo-Catholic Church is a Western Church with a thoroughly orthodox liturgy in our own historical tradition. We westerners often accuse the Eastern Churches of the error of ethnophyletism, which is the confusion of faith and culture, yea, the identification of orthodox Christianity with a particular racial or ethnic group. I fear that accusation may be justified. Although the Eastern Churches swear up and down that they are not guilty of this confusion, the common praxis of the Eastern Church betrays an underlying attachment to this phenomenon. For the outsider at least, it appears the Eastern Orthodox behave as though to be Christian is to be Greek, Russian, or Arab. For this reason, I disappointingly believe that Eastern Orthodoxy can never fully proclaim the Gospel in a western society or culture. The Catholic Faith has never been fully incarnated by the Constantinopolitan Churches in a western context. Sometimes it seems our Eastern Orthodox friends are afraid, on a visceral and even subconscious level, of anything Western, fearing the contamination of 'papism.'

Historically, orthodox Anglicanism has enjoyed a very positive and healthy relationship with the Eastern Orthodox, mainly because both Churches have desired to affirm their positions in opposition to the Pope. Both are Apostolic and yet fiercely non-papal. Both Churches are conciliar Churches with the Seven Sacraments. In all honesty I think it must be said that the history of Anglican-Orthodox relations has been one of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' I say this because the Eastern Orthodox, although they have recognised the validity of Anglican Orders beginning in 1922 with the Patriarch of Constantinople, have never really attempted to restore full sacramental communion with us, although such a restoration is not only possible but demanded by our clear theological agreement. The failure points to the aforementioned complex the Eastern Orthodox have about things western, as well as, if I may say it, to our own typical western arrogance (an arrogance which led the official Canterbury Communion utterly to destroy its relations with the Eastern Orthodox by unilaterally introducing the heresy of women's ordination). Our ultimate vocation as Traditional Anglicans is to proclaim and perpetuate the fullness of catholic orthodoxy in western terms and tradition. Now to be fair, the Eastern Orthodox have a very strong justification for rejecting the filioque clause of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which we have received via the sixth-century Latin Church. They also reject the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. For that matter, they require bishops to be celibate and priests and deacons to be married before ordination. They allow up to three ecclesiastical divorces per person. An old adage says that the difference between Catholic Anglicanism and the Eastern Church is 'our ordinations and their marriages.' There is a great deal of truth to this. One theological disagreement is the filioque, which is easily solved by either removing the filioque or re-interpreting it in a strictly Orthodox sense. The latter has already been done as of the 1875 Bonn Reunion conference, which used the doctrine of S. John of Damascus to show that the Father is the sole Origin or Source (arche or aitai or Fons Deitatis) in the Godhead, from Whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, yet the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (dia) the Son. We already interpret the filioque in an Orthodox manner, if we reject the idea of a Double Procession or Double Origination of the Spirit from the Father and the Son as from two Sources in the Trinity. The other matters are ritual or disciplinary in nature. . . .  More precisely we could say: the differences between ourselves and the Orthodox Eastern Church are cultural and historical, not dogmatic (rather than merely theological)." - The Right Reverend Chandler Holder Jones, SSC, Bishop Suffragan of the Diocese of the Eastern United States, Anglican Province of America

Comments

[James B Sinclair]

And here was me thinking the Episcopal Church was The Protestant Episcopal Church! The Supreme Governer of the C of E has to take an oath at the coronation to defend the Reformed doctrine of the C of E. All this chipping away at the Protestantism of the Anglican Church by Anglo Catholics is very disconcerting.

James Sinclair
Jersey, UK🇯🇪🇬🇧

[Embryo Parson]

Zzzzzz.