“The barrier which prevents our full communion seems to be that the Anglican Church has seven problems that need to be addressed. Since you consider us already to be a body of Christians, joined to God through Christ, the head of the Church, why are these issues not seen as problems of the Church as a whole as opposed to an Anglican problem?”

He answers,

“Well, that is exactly how we need to look at it. It’s really. Ah. Instead of seeing the Anglicans as a separate body from us we need to see the Anglicans as part of ourselves and that there are these particular issues that need simply to be resolved.”

How does this compare with the Vatican’s position, also reported on this blog? Namely, that views “Anglicanism as a spiritual patrimony based on ethnic tradition rather than substantial doctrine and makes clear that it is not a historic “church” but rather an ‘ecclesial community’ that strayed and now is invited to return to communion with the Pope as Successor of Peter.”

Shouldn’t the Metropolitan said that the Anglican Church is an “ecclesial community,” sociologically speaking, with a spiritual patrimony based on ethnic tradition but that it had long ago ceased to be a historic and Apostolic “church.” Our invitation is for them to return to communion with the One Holy Church. Obviously, Archbishop Duncan already believes he is part of the One Holy Church. So the Metropolitan couches talk of reunion in terms of “fuller communion.” But this is not correct from a dogmatic point of view. It is a form of the “branch theory.”

Instead the Metropolitan says, “we need to see the Anglicans as part of ourselves.” This is accompanied by waffling on our doctrine in regards to the non-Chalcedon Churches who may have an acceptably Orthodox doctrine of the two natures of Christ, but explicitly accept mono-phylitism.

I am confused.

As Mr. Barnes say in his correspondence:

As you know from my book, I agree that we can call these people Christians, that their lives have been changed by God, and that among the heterodox we can find many examples of Christ-like virtues and lives lived for His Glory. But all of this can be explained in a Patristic way as the visible effects of external Grace, the operation of the Holy Spirit upon men and women who–perhaps to the shame of many Orthodox Christians who have the Grace of the Church but do not fully actualize it in their lives, I being chief among them–responded to a degree that warrants admiration, if not hope for their eternal salvation. (One should not, however, take this too far. Why did these men and women, who were well educated and acquainted with the Orthodox Church to one degree or another, remain apart from Her? I think there’s a difference between innocent ignorance and conscious rejection.)

Orthodox ecumenists, however, do not accept this Patristic explanation for reasons that remain a mystery to me. In its stead they offer anti-Patristic theories that undermine the Church’s ecclesiology, theories which, among other ill-effects, trickle down to Diocesan policies that proscribe the reception of converts through Holy Baptism. What a grave disservice to those dear souls who are joining the Church!

And again in another article on his website:

Anyone familiar with the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920—the charter document for Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement—will quickly realize that much more is implied in the Constitutional Basis [of the WCC] than a sociological entity [when refering to “other churches”]. This Encyclical is addressed “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere.” Reference is continually made to the “Christian body.” At one point we read:

Secondly, that above all love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches, so that they should no more consider one another as strangers and foreigners, but as relatives, and as being a part of the household of Christ and “fellow heirs, members of the same body and partakers of the promise of God in Christ” (Eph. 3:6)….

Such a sincere and close contact between the churches will be all the more useful and profitable for the whole body of the Church, because manifold dangers threaten not only particular churches, but all of them. These dangers attack the very foundations of the Christian faith and the essence of Christian life and society.

The Encyclical closes with an appeal—in unquestionably “organic language” —to all “churches” to respond to this ecumenical invitation. The Patriarchate hopes that

we may proceed together to its realization, and thus “speaking the truth in love; may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Eph.4:15,16).

There can be no doubt that the 1986 Chambesy Statement, in its affirmation of the WCC Basis, has in mind the same concept of “churches” as the 1920 Encyclical. We must therefore ask how the claims that the Orthodox churches (or rather their ecumenical diplomats) have remained “faithful to her ecclesiology”—can be true?

They were eventual brought into the One Church, perhaps a bit hastily, by the Antiochene Archdiocese of America. Certainly they may have needed “more catechesis.” This is what I see the most wise Patriarch Jeremiah doing in his dialogue with the German theologians. My question is why this catechism was not administered in the case of the EOC by the Ecumenical Patriarch or at least one of his eminent bishops or theologians? Their dismissal and even rejection by the Ecumenical Patriarch, whom they flew to see, seems, well, un-ecumenical.

Of course there is another side to this story I will not go into.

It reminds me of the story about Met. Jonah. When he first inquired about Orthodoxy at the local OCA parish a man answered the phone and asked him if he spoke Russian. When Jonah said that he didn’t the next thing he heard was a dial tone. I find this heart breaking and thank God that when I went in search of the Ark of Salvation the phone wasn’t hung up on me, or the door shut in my face. I am very glad that God put in my path wise and generous and fatherly men like His All Holiness Patriarch Jeremiah.

The Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church is one and undivided and lacking nothing and all Christians aught to be reunited with her. Thus good Orthodox bishops should kindly and hospitably welcome all who find themselves outside the Church to join her and not put up obstacles to their most necessary conversion.

I believe that is what Met. Jonah is doing and I am very happy for it.

Re:Metropolitan Jonah is doing now what every other Orthodox bishop should have been doing for the last century, and should be doing now.

You are right on the “Mark”…LOL

If we had our act together, we wouldn’t have enough buildings to house all the Anglicans that would be coming our way. That became obvious to us at our Colloquium on Orthodoxy for Anglicans, recordings of which can still be heard at :
http://www.orthodoxdetroit.com/conferencerecordings.htm

There is a thirst for knowledge about Orthodox Christianity out there, one which we have not even begun to cultivate. Your other comment is also exactly correct: we have done such a miserable job of explaining who we are, and what we believe, that most people think of Jewish when you mention the word “Orthodox.”

Are these people really looking to become Orthodox? Who knows. I know this: if we approach them with the attitude of strict conversion, we will probably fail…which is why we took the approach of “Offering what we have, in an effort to allow them to heal.” This was the attitude expressed by Abp Nathaniel, and was the theme of our conference.

From our press release: ““’Faith of Our Fathers’ will be an opportunity to explain who we Orthodox are to our Anglican brethren, and to show our love and concern for them in their time of trial,” Archbishop Nathaniel said, referring to doctrinal divisions within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, and among the member churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. “We hope Orthodoxy might be a salve that can help begin a process of healing,” he said.”

Metropolitan Jonah did exactly the right thing going to talk to this group. And to those naysayers above, I doubt the thought of “needing attention” or pretending to be “the” leader of the Orthodox Church in this country ever even occurred to him.

Best Regards,
Dean

No wonder most Americans know more about Islam than they do about Orthodoxy. Can you blame them?

Your observation is the flip-side of what I think is interesting about the OCA-ACNA encounter.

The ACNA is recognized by some minor and some major bodies in the Anglican Church. In particular, and most significantly, ACNA is recognized by the conservative Nigerian Anglican Church, which I believe, has 1/3 of the Anglicans in the world. This kind of recognition could lead, at some unspecified long future date, to the acceptance of the ACNA as THE representative of Anglicanism in the U.S.

Regarding the OCA, the more non-Anglicans that think the +Jonah is THE representative of Orthodoxy in the U.S., who knows, it may one day come true just by the force of saying it over and over again (no matter what the Greeks think). After all look at the name!

Greg

Frankly, it doesn’t matter anymore what the mainstream Episcopalian Church says or thinks. They gave up their moral authority years ago. Met. Jonah is quite right in dismissing them.

Moving back to the Bible, if your objection prevailed, Jesus would never have spoken to harlots and sinners.

Here’s just a few that you didn’t mention:

1) Freemasonry, is this condemned by the Church or not? I’d like a simple yes-or-no answer. Many priests in the more worldly parishes will simply refuse to give an up-or-down answer.

2) Why so much discrepancy in the liturgical order? (i.e. Antiphons, Litany of the Catechumens, etc.). Depending on the jurisdiction, the Liturgy of Chrysostom can last anywhere from 45 minutes to almost 2 hrs.

3) the Rite of Catechumenate. Some have them, some don’t. Of those that do, the duration lasts anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes.

As far as moral standards, you touched on a few, marriage being prominent. But at the risk of flogging a dead horse, abortion pretty much remains the elephant in the room, with the GOA lauding Senators Sarbanes and Snow, even though they voted to uphold President Clinton’s veto of partial birth abortion. And of course, the absence of the vast majority of Orthodox bishops and clergymen from the annual Right-to-Life march is nothing less than a scandal.

For someone that’s interested in evangelism, this causes no little measure of distress. Trying to explain these differences to inquirers causes a lot of chagrin. Anyway, we need to be very humble about our attainments. Unfortunately, that even includes doctrinal “unity.”

The ANCA talks as if they are meeting, in +Jonah, the leader of the Orthodox Church in the United States. As every reader of AOI knows, the Greek Orthodox would dispute the belief that the OCA is THE representative of Orthodox Christians in the U.S.

On the other hand, +Jonah gives the distinct impression that when he is addressing the ACNA he is taking to THE Anglican Church in the U.S. The Episcopal Church would certainly dispute that belief.

Greg

Yes, at least now. I am referring especially to the following:

You would show that all our doctrine is yours, and indeed, at first sight, you seem quite right. Many bishops and divines of your communion are and have been quite orthodox. But what of it? Their opinion is only an individual opinion, it is not the Faith of the Community.

Are we of one mind on anything today? Do not most of the postings on this site indicate just how rampant personal opinion is at all levels of the Church (lay/monsatic, clergy and bishops)? These differences of opinion indicate a vast difference in understanding of the nature of the Church in all her aspects from evangelization and soteriology to ecclesiology itself. Even in a seemingly simple thing such as how to apply the cannons on multiple marriages, there is vast divergence. Not to mention, fasting, frequency of confession, the list goes on and on.

Met. Jonah specifically pointed out three different ecclesiologies present in the United States right now. Is that an indication of one faith, one community? Not to me.

In the 19th century during Khomiakov’s time it may have been better, but I suspect it was just less obvious.

Certainly now Khomiakov’s comments describe very well the state of the Orthodox Church.