Still more on Anglicanism vs. Orthodoxy: first from the longwinded Peter Geromel, with a brief reply from me. This will have to suffice until I get to Boston and again have time to devote myself to such things as theology. For the next week and a half, my life is medical files and sleep, then packing. *sigh* Such is life. Work first, then play.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Jared,
First, I would like to tell you, again, that there are Anglicans who are
fully canonical Eastern Orthodox worshipping according to their rites and
traditions. 1 out of every 10 Antiochian parish is a Western-rite parish. I refer you
to:
http://www.westernorthodox.com/
Next, I will begin with my third reason why modern Eastern Orthodox are
acting like protestants. There is a tendency, very prevalent, to see the Church,
the bride of Christ, as something reserved as holy and blameless like Israel
was. This must be a majorly "pure" community that has held within itself the ark
of tradition or salvation and truth. Let us get real. There is an assumption
for the Eastern Orthodox is that Christ will never let it err and, even if it
does err in small ways, it will always be the "Orthodox" Church until the end
of time. There is no special power that Christ gives to one special Church, so,
although it errs in small ways, it never errs completely. Every church errs
and therefore is equally imperfect as sin is equally to our condemnation no
matter how small. If the canonical EO has ever been wrong, it has been just as
wrong as any other Church, ontologically speaking. It is not the pure bride of
Christ as a body of believers. It can only hope to PARTICIPATE in the Bride of
Christ as it exists in the mind of God.
--- One church may remain steadfast to the Tradition better than another but
here is the problem: The Eastern Orthodox is claimed to be right because its
tradition is kept whole and pure. Its tradition is kept whole and pure because
it is the Orthodox Church. If it did not, it would no longer be the Orthodox
Church... someplace else would be the Orthodox Church, someplace else that kept
and affirmed the tradition untainted. So the Orthodox Church refers to
wherever the Orthodox Faith is continued - not necessarily in any one communion or
body, as you well know. The logic is innately one of participation, a Church is
not holy because God sets it aside as always Holy and thus infallible, It is
THE ORTHODOX CHURCH because it participates in and corresponds to the Orthodox
Faith. And yet, there is a tendency, especially in America to make it seem as
if the Orthodox Faith is pure simply because it is the Orthodox Church and
the Orthodox Church is the Orthodox Church because it is pure. It is a cyclical
argument. The OC is pure only because it is the OC and the OC by definition is
always pure. Therefore wherever a Christian community is pure or right
believing, there is the Orthodox Church. It is not the pure Church because it is the
canonical Eastern Orthodox Church, as you well know. We are not promised that
the Eastern Orthodox Communion continue forever. We are only promised that
the True Faith of Christ will continue forever.
--- EO's tend to look as Calvinists do for an untainted body of believers.
You say that EO has been wrong in the past, but it continues to be pure. Things
do not work in this simple way. Certainly EO repented of its wrong actions,
but it is still not this simple repentence that keeps it pure.
--- This is how things really work. I must make it clear that every Apostolic
Church is called, for example, the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, the Roman
Orthodox Catholic Church, etc. There is a very good reason for this. In the
Early Church, there were orthodox congregations literally right next to gnostic
congregations. These real Christians identified themselves as Orthodox. But
they identified themselves as something else, Catholic. Catholic, as you know,
refers to a biological term for something of the same biological family. It
explains the variety of plants but the uniformity, the universality, of order and
form. This Orthodox Catholic duality is very important. They seem to be
synonymous and redundant but they are not. The Catholic refers, as I said, to the
order and form... it refers to physical look and body. Orthodox refers to right
belief and intellectual recognition of the Truth. Together they are two
halves of a whole. You have here the whole person, the whole bride. You have body
and soul, or in older Greek philosophical language, body and mind.
--- In the Early Church, these Orthodox Catholic congregations, or
bishoprics, were all over the world, having many different languages, traditions, and
philosophical explanations of the Faith. The Eastern Orthodox trace their
Orthodoxy all over the place Geographically, wherever the True Faith was - as well
they should. But they woefully believe that all the Apostolic churches
elsewhere to have fallen into error. That is only because the Greek Church decided
that if other Churches were not proclaiming the Faith in the same way as they,
using the same philosophical language system as they, then it was wrong. One
example of this is the Desert Fathers' tradition. The Desert Fathers in Egypt
were Coptic Orthodox Christians. Their theological language system was that of
the Syrians. The EO claims that The Orthodox Church is in Egypt and it is
claimed that suddenly after the 4th council it is no longer there. Sorry, the Desert
Fathers given a chance, given their tradition of explaining the Faith, would
most likely have affirmed that there was one nature in the word made flesh -
thus they were monophysites and "heretics". The best example of this is St.
Cyril of Alexandria who, dying a couple of years before the 4th council, did not
get kicked out of the Church after the 4th council, but all the bishops who
were trained and influenced by him and went to the same seminary as he did were
kicked out. It is known beyond a shadow of a doubt that he would have been
considered a Monophysite but supposedly all his friends are heretics and yet he
is a Saint. It is not that the Egyptian Church fell into heresy over the short
period of two years but that the Greek Church had a disagreement about a
explanation of the same Christological belief and they had more votes than the
other bishops. These monophysite bishops did not acquiesce to their explanation
and were voted out of the "Church"... But as can be shown this does not matter a
damn as to whether they are really Orthodox, because Orthodoxy is not
submitting to one group of bishops with more votes than everybody else.. though it
might be nice if it worked that way. It is a matter of participating in one
single Faith.
--- These Churches all confirmed, despite those varying explanations, the
same Faith. This, like the day of Pentecost itself, was the undoing of the Tower
of Babel. We do not undo the Tower of Babel by making the whole Church
understand the Orthodox Faith in a Byzantine way, through Greek theological language
systems. We undo it by looking the devil right in the Face and proclaiming the
Faith in multiple languages and explanations. I.E. it is not a physical,
outward, and readily noticeable appearance of unity, but an inward and spiritual
unity of belief. This spiritual refers to the dual definition of mind and soul
- my spirit (my mind/soul incomprehensibly) affirms the Creed first and
foremost and not my outward tongue (being able to "wrap my tongue around the words
and language" and understanding the words with my physical/rational mind).
Therefore, the Apostolic Faith and Creeds is a simple language proclaiming those
things which are beyond words. (And by the way, the Eastern Orthodox have
recognized the 4th ecumenical council as a misunderstanding of language and
philosophical systems and right now Copts may receive under partial communion in the
United States - although the proclamation of Chalcedon is still perfectly
accurate).
--- So we have the dichotomy of Orthodox Catholic referring to right Body and
Soul. This is very helpful, Catholic is the "outward and visible sign of the
inward and spiritual grace" (Anglican definition of Sacrament, identical with
that of the Non-Chalcedonian Syrian Orthodox "Holy Sacraments are tangible
signs designated by the Lord Christ to proclaim divine grace"
http://www.flash.net/~malel/SOChruch.htm). This grace gives the power to believe unearthly
things, the Orthodox things. In this way, I can look at an Anglican Church across
the street and say, that parish, because of its woman priestess at the altar is
not Orthodox (Neither would it be Catholic if it had a priestess, but that is
not the point). I say instead that this is only a gnostic church that worships
in an Anglican way (sometimes they don't even do that).
--- Orthodox and Catholic are just as important as one another. The form and
order provides the grace to have faith in the Orthodox truth. The form and
order can still be there and the belief can be false - this would be a lights are
on, nobody is home situation. Another situation is this, an ELCA lutheran
"bishop" dresses up in miter and crozier, but he has not apostolic succession, he
has not been consecrated and ordered to receive the divine grace, the real
'clothing' of his body has not been touched and ordered. This falls into my next
point.
--- I unfortunately must call you a third heresy, a Donatist. Miss Eleanor
Pettus at Hillsdale (Fr. [of blessed memory] and Mrs. Berger's granddaughter),
an Anglican misplaced in Lutheranism, said to me something to the effect that
the apostolic order must not work because it allowed Bishop Spong to operate
unimpeded (somehow a Lutheran synod of pastors democratically excommunicating
would work better -go figure). Next she said that it seemed to her that a man
who denied the Faith must lose his authoritative grace and must go through
something to get that grace back. I, point blank, said that this was Donatism. You
yourself said that if there was not a continuous chain of Orthodox bishops
then this would not qualify the English Church to have maintained an Orthodox
remnant throughout its history. This is not the way things work. I should have
pointed out to Eleanor that her own Augsburg Confessions declare against
Donatism that the worthiness of a minister does not depend on his own grace but on
the merits of Christ. The 39 Articles also declare this, as do the Church
Fathers. I made the argument that there might have been an Orthodox remnant in
England to humor you, not because I really care.
--- This is why I do not care. Even if the Anglican Church did not maintain
its Orthodox beliefs for say, 300 yrs after the reformation and until the
Oxford Movement they could regrasp their Orthodox belief and be perfectly Orthodox
later on. This is possible because the Anglican Church retained its Catholic
Order. As I have found time and time again, retainment of one's Catholic Order
naturally leads one back to Orthodox belief. In the same way, the Nestorians
who at one point may have had a bad way of describing Christology, now no
longer cling to something any different than what the Universal Christology
believes - namely, true God and true Man and not two Hypostases and two ousia. Maybe
they were heretics before and it can be argued that they have found the right
belief again, their maintaining right order now makes them Orthodox Catholic
again (if indeed they ever were not).
--- Furthermore, when one is consecrated a bishop, one is "ordered" in a
certain way. One is ordered in a physical/spiritual way to be a certain kind of
vessel for divine grace. And "Thou art a priest forever after the ORDER of
Melchizadek". The Church recognized this and at the council of Nicea insisted that
three bishops stand in consecration of a bishop because the physical touching
and formation through grace was so important for the maintainance of Orthodox
belief. The belief is important, but I would hazard to guess that the ordering
is more important. This is the basis of Orthodox belief about baptism and
other sacraments, you do it when the faithful are children because the
intellectual explanation is not as important as the ordering, which assists right
belief. It is grace that gives us intellectual understanding, not understanding that
gives us grace!
--- Let us say this, if we make a regular Mario into a Fireball Mario, we
have changed the order and form and the abilities of the Mario. A Fireball Mario,
(the Fireballs will be the Holy Ghost dividing the word of Truth so we shall
call him Bishop Fireball Mario), Bp. Fireball Mario may not use his fireballs
correctly. That would not cease to make him a Bp. Fireball Mario, that would
make him a bad one. He might be blinded by bad beliefs and shoot Luigi with
fireballs and not the bad guys or he might not use them all. This does not change
the order. This is why the Church has made it quite clear that if the right
form is used to change the order of the person to receive certain grace, than
the belief does not have to be there to continue Apostolic Succession. Remember
also that this Succession is the new covenant continuation of the
geneological lines of the tribe of Levi which made one a priest no matter if one turned
around and worshipped Ba'al. A bishop might be a bad brick in the wall of the
faithful, but he is still a brick. He might be analogous to a bad "human being"
but the bad human being can still beget another human being.
--- The extension of what Donatism really means deep down comes from the
issue of baptism. Baptism is a reordering of the fallen nature. It is done once
according to the Nicene Creed because that reordering is taken care of the first
time. It does not mean that the person will be sanctified for the rest of his
life. He has only been ordered to receive certain grace. If he refuses it
later then he's damned or he repents later and ascribes once again to the
Orthodox belief - this is precipitated by grace, of course. Rebaptism is Donatism and
just happens to be exactly what the Baptists do. The problem Baptists have is
the idea that intellectual belief is more important than the action that
infuses grace. A Baptist says, "you didn't believe in Jesus well enough the first
time. You do now, so let's baptise you." Unfortunately, the EO requires
re-chrismation and re-ordination. (5th reason why EO in its present state is too
protestant) This is bad because it denies the power of the previous ordering and
since that power is God, it denies the power of God. Catholic Christians
should not be treated like normal methodists when they accept the Orthodox faith
and go under an EO bishop. I have heard that the Oriental Orthodox also do this
and this is unfortunate. OO may even require rebaptism. Conditional
re-baptism, re-chrismation, and re-ordination is ok... conditional is just making sure
and it takes on more the practicality becoming a vassel of that bishop. In the
Anglican Church I think we deal with it in the exact right way. If you have
already been baptised and confirmed elsewhere you are "received". For us,
confirmation is not only understood in the Lutheran way of accepting the baptismal
vows yourself as well as becoming an "adult" member of the church, which seems
a little Calvinist to me, but the receiving of the Holy Ghost. The Confirmand
is affirming his beliefs and the bishop is confirming it - the Chrismation oil
goes with it. Although some form of chrismation oil is also applied during
baptism (which is a recent superfluousity that needs to be worked out). But
again, the EO way of dealing with "converts" is wrong. It is a Baptist kind of
thing because it says that you have not believed in Jesus the right way so we
must order you the right way again. Therefore, your whole view of submitting to
the Orthodox faith is screwed up. The Catholic ordering comes first and then
the Orthodox Faith follows. Anglicans emphasize Apostolic Faith and Catholic
Order... this makes us Orthodox. Since the Orthodox Faith is participated in and
not actually being, (you may participate in a form, be remade in the image of
an order, be a member of it, but no church can BE the form), one who has
Catholic Order may attain by grace to the Orthodox belief, (excluding the false
belief that the Eastern Orthodox Church embodies wholly and exclusively that
belief).
In Christ, I write this to all my friends,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Peter,
Unfortunately, I am tremendously under the gun for the next two weeks
before I leave for seminary in Boston, and lack the time to respond to your
email in detail. Two brief points.
The Orthodox argument is not circular. Those local churches which remain
Orthodox are those which have retained valid apostolic succession in keeping
the Faith. Those local churches which once fell into heresy but are now
accounted Orthodox were accepted back by Orthodox Bishops, thus renewing the
apostolic succession you speak so much about. To the best of my knowledge
this is our claim. Many in America may claim otherwise, that the Orthodox
Church holds true doctrine because it is the Orthodox Church because it
holds true doctrine etc. ad infinitum....but this is not true. The Church in
America could easily fall away and cease to be Orthodox. It is that which we
who have embraced this faith seek to prevent.
Your argument that I am a Donatist does not stand, to the best of my
knowledge. The Donatists were condemned for schism, not for the "heresy" of
denying that a fallen, sinful man could still serve valid sacraments. Their
error was refusing to extend the grace usually extended by the Church for
human weakness to those who had succumbed briefly to persecution. And,
indeed, the Orthodox of the time did not accept the Donatist sacraments as
legitimate, as they would have were your argument accurate. We could argue
this back and forth, I suppose. But let it suffice to include two quotes.
First, St. Augustine: Around 418 he wrote to the Donatist bishop of
Caesarea, Emeritus: "Outside the church you may have everything except
salvation. You may have offices, Sacraments, Liturgy, Gospel, belief, and
preaching, in the name of the Trinity; but you can only find salvation in
the Catholic Church" (from the CCEL Dictionary of Christian Biography and
Literature:
http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=wace&bookID=biodict&page=279&view=thml).
Second, St. Basil, from his first Canon, included in the Canons of the Sixth
Ecumenical Council: "Even though the departure began through schism,
however, those departing from the Church already lacked the grace of the
Holy Spirit. The granting of grace has ceased because the lawful succession
has been cut. Those who left first were consecrated by the Fathers and
through the laying on of their hands had the spiritual gifts. But, they
became laymen and had no power to baptize nor to ordain and could not
transmit to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves
fell away. Therefore, the ancients ruled regarding those that were coming
from schismatics to the Church as having been baptized by laymen, to be
cleansed by the true baptism of the Church" (taken from this site,
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch4.html,
an essay on the Orthodox methods of receiving converts. A very educational
read, if you're curious what I would probably say if I had the time).
Hence, as I have said before, if the Anglicans have any claim to be a
legitimate Church, they must demonstrate that they have a true line of
Apostolic Succession, as defined in that Canon. If such cannot be
demonstrated, then the Orthodox Church, if she is to remain faithful to the
Apostolic Tradition, must continue to receive such converts as may come as
she has heretofore.
With all brotherly love, though mingled with mild frustration and haste,
J. Anthony Cook
posted by Fr. A at 9:36 PM
0 comments
