www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Celtic Orthodox Christian Church

The history of the British Orthodox Church is contested by many people, among whom there are those who insist that the lineage of the present primate only really goes back to his predecessor Mar Georgios, who was nothing other than a vagante of an Old Catholic ilk. I saw a photograph he sent to the author of a book on independent bishops. In this photo he was dressed in Anglican convocation attire, looking very Cramnerian indeed - hardly Orthodox!!!

This dubious figure, who lived in London, used to have people travel in Glastonbury to post his mail and ensure the Glastonbury postmark on the envelope. Such was the pretence of the 'see of Glastonbury'.

Such was the concern about this body, and such was the respect for the Coptic pope, that when he visited in Britain around a decade ago, several Eastern Orthodox clergymen (lovers of the Coptic Tradition) urged His Holiness Pope Shenouda not to have anything to do with this group.

The worrying factor is that in the light about serious doubts about their dubious origins, their orders were accepted as canonical and apostolic. The risks here place the perils of people's souls in danger.

This now respectable Copticised group should be treated with care.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

There is nothing particularly Celtic about the British Orthodox Church (Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria) headed by Abba Seraphim, but never mind. The point as to ordinations is that Pope Shenhouda actually consecrated Abba Seraphim to the episcopate and instructed His Grace to elevate each of the clergy to the next highest rank available, so as to place each of the clergy firmly within the Holy Orders of the Coptic Orthodox Church. So whatever about Mar Georgius, there is no doubt that Abba Seraphim and his clergy are fully within the clergy of the Coptic Church. Incognitus

My understanding is the same as Fr. Mark's.

Dear Annie,

Father Mark, as an Old Ritualist, wouldn't think much of the Franciscans either

Alex

Thank you for pointing this out.
If I am not mistaken, their Orders originated with the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which is hardly a vagante organization.

Michael

Dear Friends,

As for all this talk of validity et al., St Augustine once said:

"There are those outside the Church who appear to be inside it, and those who are inside the Church who appear to be outside it."

I don't know why that sprung to mind . . .

Alex

There can be no question of the validity of the British Orthodox orders, as someone previously said, even if they were invalid, they're not now since they were received into the Coptic Church and Pope Shenouda ordained Metropolitan Seraphim. They're too western for some people's tasts. They're to eastern for something called British for other people's tasts. In any case, they are Orthodox. Maybe they're kinda artificial, I don't really know enought to say. They adopted a Liturgy that wasn't historically theirs. They use beautiful Anglican hymns for Communion hymns. They do lots of stuff that people will look down at them for, but they are Orthodox, and their preists are priests. There is nothing wrong about they way they do things, even if they're not how we typically think of Orthodoxy, or even Western rite Orthodoxy.

Dear Coptic Orthodox,

I've met Abba Seraphim at several ecumenical gatherings in London. He is a member of the Society of Saint John Chrysostom (which has co-sponsored the Orientale Lumen Conferences), and he is always delightful company. But, strictly speaking, are they not Oriental Orthodox, or non-Chalcedonian Orthodox? Does not the title "Orthodox" (in common usage) usually refer to Chalcedonians?

Elias

Uhm, no, Orthodoxy consists of Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Great progress has been made in the last while in relations between the two, and both now accept the other's Christologies and consider each other Orthodox. There are more Eastern Orthodox in the world than there are Oriental Orthodox by a considerable margine, but both hold the Orthodox faith, and although each group considers themselves to have the fullness of Orthodoxy, neither would say anymore that the other is not Orthodox. Other than a few fanatics screeming about heresy and not being aware of agreements reached, I've never encountered an Eastern Orthodox who considered me not to be Orthodox for being Oriental Orthodox.

Dear Coptic,

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad to see the point made, as I don't think I remember seeing it in the thread above, that Abba Seraphim was Oriental Orthodox.

Thanks again,

Elias

"Other than a few fanatics screeming about heresy and not being aware of agreements reached, I've never encountered an Eastern Orthodox who considered me not to be Orthodox for being Oriental Orthodox."

This language is unjust and unhelpful. It is not acceptable to use the word fanatics. Does that mean MOST of the fathers of Mt Athos are fanatics - NO they are NOT!!! People of intense faith and integrity await the genuine, canonical and official healing of the break between Chalcedonians and none-Chalcedonians. This really does mean in line with the canons.

To just think that agreements always mean progress is naive. Agreements were reached at Lyons, Florence, Brest and Uzhgorod - but from an Orthodox perspective these were not progressive. I do not mean to undermine Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters here, but speak honestly as an Orthodox monk. An agreement was reached between Metropolitan Sergei and Joseph Stalin. Again... not progress. I am not implying that Eastern-Oriental agreements have anything in common with these, but we must make informed and critical examinations. Agreements by bishops have never been automatically accepted by the laos of the Orthodox Church. We live a life of conciliarity not monarchy. The Athonite fathers issued a well considered memorandum on this issue. It was not the voice of the ignorant fanatics, unaware of agreements, but the voice of men of prayer reacting to agreements in the light of the Tradition and canons of their Church.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Dear Friends,

Yes, the term "Orthodox" has been equally used by both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

The Eastern Orthodox theologians have seen that the Oriental Orthodox Christology is that of St Cyril of Alexandria and it uses his terminology i.e. "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate" etc.

It was discovered that what the Oriental Churches mean by "Nature" is what the EO Churches mean by "Person."

Other points that were formerly points of disagreement were bridged.

For example, the use of the Oriental Trisagion with the interpolated "Who was crucified for us" was condemned by the Eastern Orthodox as heretical.

But then it was found that the Trisagion prayer in the Oriental Churches is NOT used as a hymn to the Holy Trinity, but as a hymn exclusively to Christ!

Ultimately, the findings of theologians must be ratified by the competent Church authorities before they can be accepted.

It is possible for monastics to oppose such authorities and the views of theologians, as occurred in the case of St Maximos the Confessor.

Alex

That's okay - lotsa folks think Franciscans are kinda weird!

Again, I tend to agree with Fr Mark on the following general observation. I prefer consensus to conflict - but human history is full of instances where treaties and agreements intended to bring people together actually tore them even farther apart.

Dear Annie,

So you are saying "let's strive to agree but let us be careful lest our agreements lead to deeper separations?"

Alex