www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Anglican with Questions about Orders

This is addressed mainly to "Mexican,"

This is a tangent from the "Violence to the Sacraments" thread.

It has been stated unequivocally by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople that Anglican Orders are fully VALID. Yes, he used the word "valid," concerning the matter in an encyclical to world Orthodoxy. I include the whole encyclical below for your reading.

My question is this: As an Anglican preparing for Holy Orders, who do I believe? the posters on this forum who say our sacraments are invalid, or the Encyclical on the matter by an actual Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople?

It seems that Orthodoxy has already made its position clear, straight from the pen of the EP.

Holy Theotokos, pray for priests,
Marshall

Encyclical on Anglican Orders
from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922

The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:

1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history.

2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination - viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All-Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry.

3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders.

4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re-ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches.

I should also add that the following Patriarchates and Metropolia have also explicitly affirmed Anglican orders:

Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1923.
Metropolitan of Cyprus in 1923.
Patriarchate of Alexandria in 1930.
Orthodox Church of Romania in 1936.
Holy Synod of the Church of Greece in 1939.

in Christ,
Marshall

Patriarch Meletios of Alexandria with Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang of Canterbury 8 July 1930
[Linked Image]

Dear Marshall,

You are preparing for Holy Orders? Congratulations! You will be ordained a deacon, a priest?

As you've said, a number of Orthodox Patriarchates have recognized Anglican Orders. However, this is not the view of worldwide Orthodoxy.

There is the view that, at one time, Anglicans went to Russia and received Orthodox ordination and consecration as bishops according to economia principles. I don't know much about that at all.

Another view that I once read an RC theologian express is that since the Anglicans are in communion with the Assyrian Church and Assyrian Bishops almost always are present at Anglican consecrations - the Anglicans now have valid orders. Again, that is whay I've come across.

You would certainly be validly ordained within your own communion. If you believe your communion to be a valid Church with Apostolic foundation - and why wouldn't you if you are going to seek ordination within it - then what should it matter what RC or Orthodox Churches feel about Anglican Orders?

The Anglican "branch theory" of Churches is in place, but, according to the 39 Articles, as I understand them, the Churches of Rome and the four Orthodox Patriarchates "have erred." Does that mean the Anglican Church considers them to be cut off in any sense from the true Church which it believes is itself and some others?

I have know Anglicans who have pointed to their consecrating bishops personal sacramental lineage to show that they did, in fact, have valid orders (this is from the RC perspective as LatinTrad stated) from Old Catholic and even Orthodox consecrators.

But if you have settled the issue of the Anglican Church being a true Church for yourself - what does this issue matter?

You will only worry yourself unnecessarily.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Yes, my priest is going to endorse me to the bishop for the transitional diaconate when the time is right. Our diocese is one of the last three that refuses to ordain women and homosexuals to the priesthood. Our bishop is a devout and godly man. Currently we are in the trenches, though.

You say:
"As you've said, a number of Orthodox Patriarchates have recognized Anglican Orders. However, this is not the view of worldwide Orthodoxy."

Greece, Jerusalem, and Constantinople!!! Come on, I can hardly think of anyone bigger and better. How can these churches be unequivocal about the matter and the rest disagree?

As for the Roman argument with respect to Pope Leo XIII Apostolicae Curae, there have been a few recent changes since then that merit renewed attention:

There was a tradition beginning in 1870 to have 4 Greek Orthodox co-consecrators from the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the consecration of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There have been numerous bishops from the Old Catholic Church (the Dutch Touch) involved in Anglican consecrations. Old Catholic co-consecrators in 1932, 1933 and 1947.

And of course, the Anglican Ordinal has been brought to Roman standards since 1662.

Also the Polish National Catholic Church has been generous to stand in at consecrations as well. These factors bring "renewed blood" in the Apostoic "pedigrees."

Regradless, I hope and pray for unity. Schism is terrible.

in Christ,
Marshall

Another word of mouth thing that I wanted to briefly add to Alex's post.

I heard once about a priest in one of the Traditional Anglican jurisdictions that was received into communion with Rome without being re-ordained, as apparently he could prove that he had been validly ordained.

I wonder if Rome has begun to soften on this issue a little bit due to the widespread infusion of Anglican orders with Old Catholic and Eastern orders.

As far as the Eastern Orthodox are concerned, I think there have been different positions taken at different points in history. As far as current SCOBA practice in North America is concerned, those jurisdictions seem to have a policy of re-ordaining Anglican clergy.

As one who spent 9 years as a priest in an Old Roman Catholic Church I find this thread quite interesting. The way I have understood this issue, that there was a time that some of the major Orthodox Churches did accept Anglican Orders, but as years have passed they tend to back away from accepting them and today you would find few canonical Orthodox Churches giving them recognition. Alex made a point that I have mentioned before on other threads. If your orders are recognized as valid and licit in your Church, then who care's what another jurisdiction thinks. They are valid for you and your jurisdiction and that is the important thing. My orders as an Old Roman Catholic were certainly valid from the Roman Catholic point of view, but at the same time illicit, again from the RC point of view. From an Orthodox point of view they may or may not exist and I accept that as a perfectly valid opinion from their point of view. I guess what I'm saying is don't worry about what others think if you believe you have that vocation, are convinced that Anglican orders are valid and your Church is willing to ordain you. Don

The fact that conservative Anglicans take comfort in Old Catholic, Polish National, and Orthodox pedigrees indicates that Apostolicae Curae is correct.

Apostolicae Curae did not say that the current ordinal lacks proper form--merely that the succession had been broken while the Edwardian ordinal was in place, because THAT ordinal lacked proper form. (I know that most of you know this already--just wanted to clarify).

Maybe the fact that Marshall is concerned about the validity of his orders indicates that he is beginning to wonder if he is really in the right place after all.

Official Episcopalian/Anglican support for contraception, abortion, homosexual acts, and priestesses might have something to do with it.


LatinTrad

I don't think that he himself had questions about the validity of Anglican Orders but their relation to Orthodoxy.

It is really not charitable to be triumphalistic about the Anglican Church and it's struggles.

I am not rejoicing in the struggles of the Anglican Church.

I apologize if I gave that impression.

Only Marshall himself can answer this--but I thought that his initial question indicated a concern about the validity of Anglican Orders, particularly when he asked, "whom should I believe?" (--see top of thread--)

Note on "triumphalistic":
I do not know what "triumphalistic" means. It is one of those words like "fascism" and "theocracy" that get bandied about, and used as bludgeons against those who believe in the existence of objective truth.


LatinTrad

Dear Marshall,

Sorry if I upset you - I didn't make that up, but said what the actual position of world Orthodoxy is.

There is no universal Orthodox position on Anglican Orders - or RC orders for that matter - notwithstanding what the EC has said.

The EC is not analogous to Rome, as you know, and, as Father Don has said, the Orthodox have tended to back away from all this since.

I accept that if one is ordained by someone with valid orders from a communion that has them as mentioned here: Old Catholic, Polish National Catholic, Assyrian, Orthodox (by economia) - then one is validly ordained.

Your point on the 1662 ordinal is not exactly correct - we had a major Catholic and Anglican ecumenical meeting here last year and Rome has yet to recognize Anglican orders. But the Cardinal who was here did say that if the Anglican Church "alters" some points in its Common Prayer ordinal, then recognition will be discussed.

You sound like you belong to a Continuing Church? I'm sure that your particular Anglican church has valid orders from the Roman Catholic point of view - I'm sure your bishop, being conservative et al. would have them.

I know some Lutheran priests in Europe who have, as they have told me, received ordination from Orthodox bishops on the "economia" principle.

John Wesley himself petitioned the EC to receive consecration as a Bishop (A Rumour of Bishops).

Sergius Bulgakov also promoted the acceptance by Protestantism of the Seven Mysteries/Sacraments and a hierarchical Priesthood, with veneration of the Saints et al. at the World Council of Churches.

Needless to say, the Council didn't like the idea . . .

In any event, if your church ever goes "overboard" with what you yourself would consider to be heretical views, remember that you will always have a place in the Anglican Use of the Catholic Church OR the Rite of St Tikhon of Orthodoxy!

Alex

It is true, of course, that in the twentieth century there were many statements by various Eastern Orthodox Local Churches which read as if those Churches recognized Anglican Orders. However, when presented with actual cases of clergy ordained in the Anglican communion seeking to exercise their orders within the Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox authorities invariably require an absolute new ordination (provided, of course, that they wish to have the former Anglican cleric as an Orthodox cleric). Incognitus

I see in the above picture from 1930 that the Archbishop of Canterbury is wearing an engolpion. I thought this was only a recent phenomenon among Anglican bishops, but I guess not!

Dave

Dear Chtec,

I thought that was called a "Panaghia" and an "Encolpion" is a Cross with relics contained in it.

?

Alex

Engolpion is a pectoral image but need not be one of the Theotokos. A Panagia, however, is a pectoral image of the Theotokos. Incognitus

Incognitus took the words out of my mouth, err, fingers.

the Chtec