Are There Churches Outside of the Orthodox Church?
Embryo Parson Posted on Monday, March 21, 2016 at 02:53PM Great article by Fr. Aidan (Al) Kimel and video from Sr. Vassa Larin, which I've posted below, on the untenability of the exclusivistic ecclesiological claims made by many in the Orthodox Church. Greek Orthodox priest and theologian Fr. Emmanuel Clapsis makes a similar argument here. For similar treatments from a Roman Catholic standpoint, see this article from RC patrologist Fr. William Most, and this one from Daniel P. Moloney. Here is the draft document to which Sr. Vassa refers. (The document refers to the Orthodox Church's ongoing involvement in the Ecumenical Movement. Why the Orthodox Church persists in an movement founded and still driven by an increasingly apostate liberal Protestantism is, of course, anyone's guess.)
If this kind of thinking catches on in the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches, it would seem that Anglicans, and especially Continuing Anglicans, might find themselves first in line for consideration of some sort of communio in sacris relationship. I envision this happening firstly and more readily with the Orthodox than the Church of Rome, for all the obvious reasons.
Communio in sacris relationship, I say, not merger; we Anglicans are Catholics in our own right, and accordingly we need no episcopal oversight from Eastern bishops.
Reader Comments (6)
I would also recommend Fr John McGuckin's similar suggestions in his *The Orthodox Church.* He calls the hyper-exclusivity thesis "inhumane."
"We Anglicans are Catholics in our own right, and accordingly we need no episcopal oversight from Eastern bishops."
This is the very reason Western Rite Orthodoxy has, after 150 years of existence, never grown beyond a fledgling dream. Meddling Byzantine bishops, despite their claims to the contrary, have consistently worked to use the WR as a means of conversion and then Byzantinization.The ROCOR WR debacle is a fine example. If WR Orthodoxy is to prosper it most do so independently of the Byzantines, if this means NOT being in "communion" with them then so be it. Groveling at the feet of some ethno-centric bearded Byzantine bishop while kissing a multitude of icons is not the answer. Orthodoxy is dogma not an Greco-Russo-Arab country club with its walls plastered with Sacred Oriental Art.
Spot on, Martin. I am happy that you and, both as former Orthodox, have come to the same conclusion. Western Rite Orthodoxy is a joke, not only to us, but clearly to the majority of the Orthodox, among whom the hostility to WRO is palpable. Fr. Benedict Andersen, a Roman Catholic Benedictine monk who used to be one of the principals in American WRO before he reverted to the RC Church of his youth, had this to say when I queried him on the issue:
Frankly, I don't believe that WRO has much of a future at all. There is simply no common vision. I do foresee eventual ER assimilation, or mass defections to Rome or traditional Anglicanism (the latter, admittedly, has the advantage of a non-exceptional married clergy).
My feeling is that Orthodox ought to be Byzantine, Romans ought to be Roman, Anglicans ought to be Anglican. Uniate projects (and yes, I include here Greek Catholicism and Anglican Use Roman Catholicism) never seem to work out; they always produce a sort of bastardized 'tertium quid'.
This.
I'm hoping that the WRO parishes who use the so-called "Liturgy of St. Tikhon" will eventually find their way to (or way back to) the Continuum, where they belong, under Anglo-American bishops whose succession is rooted in the ancient Catholic Church in England. Based on conversations I've had with him about Byzantine hostility toward the Orthodox Western Rite, I suspect former Anglican Fr. John Connelly, another principal in American WRO, may have given it some serious thought.
Not only is there likely no future for the WRO, there is a certain unseemliness about Westerners going East. There was a discussion about this at a Rod Dreher article in TAC back in 2012. One of the participants had this to say:
As to Americans going to Russian or other Orthodox churches, I would have thought that men deserving of the name would stay and fight for what is theirs. Not slink off to someone else’s church, except under the sort of conditions that led to so many Protestants coming to this country in the first place. Until such conditions obtain here the rubric should be “I’ll take my stand” rather than “I’ll stand over there instead”.
Our friend Stefano, in a comment here that I deleted tonight as partial penalty for some recent misbehavior in OJC combox discussions, said something or other about the Orthodox not believing that we Anglicans have valid Catholic orders. Apart from the boredom with which Anglicans regard this claim from RC and Orthodox quarters, it having been refuted a million times and never been successfully controverted by them (some Roman scholars admit privately that our orders are valid), not only do we Anglicans reject the *need* for the "Byzantine touch" to validate our orders, we don't *want* it. We belong to the Catholic Church in England. They belong to the Catholic Churches of the East. While there is much about their tradition that we venerate, we neither need nor want to be Orthodox. We are Catholic in our own right, and if it's the case that Orthodoxy will not accept our claim, well, then -- and in charity I say this only as a figure of speech - to hell with Orthodoxy. To our own Master we will stand or fall.
Embryo Parson,
if you are going to be spiteful and delete my comments then don't mention my name. You aren't giving me a chance to defend myself.
I see that it is ok for you to make provocative comments like the one about but not for me. So much for the English virtue of fair play!
Embryo Parson,
To clarify my current affiliation I would like to say that I remain an Eastern Orthodox Christian. However, the ethno-centricity and xenophobia of all things Western which permeates Orthodoxy is becoming ever more discouraging for the success of WR Orthodoxy. I am currently exploring all viable options. Having been a communicant of both of the "One True Churches" I must admit I find their claims very unconvincing.
if you are going to be spiteful and delete my comments then don't mention my name. You aren't giving me a chance to defend myself.
I see that it is ok for you to make provocative comments like the one about but not for me. So much for the English virtue of fair play!
You get a chance to defend yourself only if you abide by the rules, which include, among other things, ceasing to post comments after I declare a discussion "officially closed", refraining from the use of incendiary terms like "stupid assertions", and hewing to what I deem the rules of principled discussion, like reading my arguments carefully, not twisting my arguments, and refraining from quibbling and pettifogging. Thus far you've failed miserably on all counts.
Keep in mind that I never invited you here. You appeared here several months ago because you stumbled across my posts critical of Orthodoxy and didn't like what you read, so you made it your goal to "correct" me. Unable to correct me, your goal now seems to be to annoy me. That game is over, I assure you.