This morning I received a lengthy email from another Anglican friend from Hillsdale, Peter Geromel, further outlining the Anglican claims to be a legitimate Church. His email--and my response--are posted below. For ease of reading, his comes first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter wrote...
Here is what I have to say and I pray I do not mislead you with any false
info:
I must say that the steps that you say must be taken for an Anglican
congregation to enter canonical Eastern Orthodoxy again have already been done. The
Moscow Synod under +Tykon looked at the book of common prayer and with a few
changes accepted it into practice for evangelizing America. A few changes, such a
stronger epiclesis were attached. These are not a problem really, they are
just "safer". I must make the point that your views about the distraction that
ecumenism brings is selfish and ecclesiastical isolationism. May I point out,
that although our salvation should be our primary goal, the way we establish
salvation within ourselves is not only by personal mysticism but by literally
touching the outside world, by establishing order in disorder, not hiding our
light under a bushel. (Three arguments as to why EO in its present zeitgeist are
protestants. 1) the only universal definition of protestantism is that it is
a church that protests the supremacy of the Bp. of Rome and thus EO is a
protestant church - a cheap shot, I know. 2) this tendency to want to be safe,
reveals an unfortunate desire to not touch the world. Things must be touched to be
healed. tobacco, drinking, etc. all must be touched to be healed from its
fallen state by Christ through us his servants. A floppy bible Christian does not
want to touch these things, but to remain safe. An EO Christian does not seem
to want to endanger losing a tradition by touching other traditions, thus
perhaps losing the purity of their sanctifying system of theosis, (sort of
pharaisical when you consider the parable of the good Samaritan). I agree that one
must be careful to change things of tradition lest one lose something that was
there for a good reason. This is dangerous, but danger is our middle names as
Christian Soldiers! 3) I can't remember the third point.)
A church that is tainted with heresy must be touched to be healed. It can not
simply become exactly like the other "C"hurch just to become safely Orthodox.
If you do make it exactly like the other Church, you may lose an important
part of another tradition that is both Orthodox and helpful to all. And, it goes
against the nature of the ever-expanding light of Christ to simply suck in
other Christians to make them good Byzantine boys and girls. That is not
expansion, in my mind, it is more like a black hole. But I doubt that you can see my
perspective. This touching to heal, to expell the heresy from the Anglican
tradition, is the mission for an Anglo-Catholic like myself. Thus we will not
lose anything Orthodox by dropping our treasure chest of our 1700 years of
English Christianity to go be good Ortho-boys and girls.
--- When I describe myself, I describe myself as an Orthodox Catholic of the
Anglican Tradition. Interestingly, enough, when I speak to a Copt they
describe themselves as Orthodox Christians of the Coptic Tradition. I like the
Oriental Orthodox because they really believe Branch Theory as far as the theory is
important to me. If the EO can acknowledge the Copts as Orthodox, they MUST
acknowledge the Orthodox of the Anglican tradition as such. There really is no
difference.
---- One of your objections is that the liturgy is not consistently Orthodox
all the way through. I do not know if you concur with this objection of yours
or simply say that such an objection exists. I understand that such an
objection to the Anglican Rite exists. The Anglican Rite in its present state is a
quite interesting history. Let me just say that no liturgy is without some
change as it evolves through history, organically as you put it. The Anglican Rite
is organic, it grew, simply put. Anything that evolves unless it deviates
essentially from a previous form, is organic. The point of any liturgy, as you
well know, is that it is essentially correct and has all the proper and essential
points in it necessary for a Eucharistic liturgy - it must have the same
"form" as every other liturgy. The Anglican Rite has this. Furthermore, it is not,
as you might believe an Orthodox liturgy, that turned into a Roman liturgy,
that turned into a reformation liturgy. It is a continuous chain of liturgies
from the Gallican Rite, to the York Rite, to the Sarum Rite, to the Book of
Common Prayer. And this is scandalously simply put. All of these liturgies were
indigenously English. Cramner, when developing the Book of Common Prayer, even
looked back to the Liturgy of St. James to make sure that the Sarum Rite that
he was translating and editing corresponded to the earliest liturgy in form
and such and making additions to make it fit the universal form - including both
an ascending (Roman/Sarum style) epiclesis and a descending (Eastern)
epiclesis - perhaps just to be on the safe side.
--- Next, as to your belief that the English church "became" heretical after
the Norman Conquest - I find it interesting that you say that those who were
"Orthodox" went to Roumania and Byzantium after the Norman Conquest. I have
never heard this, although I would not be surprised that the Saxons did leave and
go not only from Denmark but from England to Roumania. As I understand it, a
Roumanian ruler asked for help (just as Vortigern once asked help from the
Saxons), to defend Roumania against the muslims??? I assume these Saxons are the
persons you refer to who left England to escape what you describe as the
Romanizing of England. Interestingly, the Saxons, of course, were evangelized by an
earlier Roman ecclesiastical invasion under St. Augustine of Canterbury - an
action sanctioned by a Bp. of Rome who believed himself to be Supreme, if I am
not mistaken. So, that sets your date for the heretical prosletyzing of
England at 600 A.D. These Saxons, as I understand it, used the completely English
liturgy of York. The Sarum Usage was instituted under Norman Bishops. But even
this is extremely Eastern and Orthodox. Remember that although the Normans
might be called Franks, they were from Normandy, near Brittany and could have
been more accustomed to a Celtic style liturgy. The Celtic or Gallican liturgy
comes almost at an embryonic developmental stage to Iraneaus' church in Lyon
from the Asia Minor tradition under which he was taught. (Another reason why our
Apostolic Succession is extremely sound, coming not only from Rome but from
Turkey). The Sarum Usage is extremely Eastern, including not only a rood screen
(western Iconostasis) with very proper Icons (these icons continued through
the Celtic, Saxon and Norman regimes) and with Curtains over the rood screen
and sanctuary at all times or at certain times, such as lent when all icons and
the sanctuary itself would be covered. The Sarum Usage also included fans! for
the deacons to use during consecration. Such things also existed in Ireland.
These are not "Roman" things. Such things continued in a very non-uniform
(allowing for various diocesan and parish traditions) right up to the reformation.
---- Next, as to these bishops after the Norman period being completely
"heretical" and endorsing the supremacy of the Patriarch of Rome. It was never
universal. Remember, please, that before the fall of Constantinople and after that
in Russia - Papal Supremacy is opposed by an ecclesiology that includes a
singular symbolic head known as the Emperor. In Europe all through the Middle
Ages, and especially in the borderlands of the Roman Empire, the rights of a King
versus the rights of the Pope were often fought over. This understanding of
the King as somewhat authoritative on some issues in the Church is perfectly
consistent with Orthodox ecclesiology, unless we are nit picking. Both
traditions of seeing the King as the one who sits at judgement at a council, but
perhaps staying relatively quiet, or reserving the right to pick bishops, yada yada,
although one can argue over what exact rights the King has, is something that
is consistent with Orthodox ecclesiology and comes from the way Constantine
endorsed the Church. Remember that the pagan Saxon king sat in judgement at the
Synod of Whitby. Many Bishops backed the kings against the supremacy of the
Pope and almost all if not all did back the king when it came to the
Reformation. Some bishops in England and elsewhere in Europe were just as uncertain as
any Ortho how much power the Pope really had, again unless we are really really
really nit picking.
--- Therefore, knowing the nature of parishes that are isolated, where a
bishop rarely visits, and that holds traditions as they hold the Faith itself, I
can safely say that there were always parishes that were not "hereticified" by
the Normans, Saxons, or some secret spies from the Vatican - from the earliest
times all the way to the reformation. Furthermore, there were bishops all the
way through, especially in isolated Celtic areas, if not in isolated Saxon
areas, that did not endorse Papal Supremacy or any of those things. They stayed,
they did not all pick up and move to the New Jerusalem at Constantinople.
Therefore, up until the reformation we have good evidence to say that there was
an Orthodox "underground" or remnant in England the whole time. I can project
that this was the case by knowing the nature of churches in general and by the
actions and stances that bishops tended to take. This, you must admit, is a
very hard point to prove. The records showing how individual bishops felt about
Papal Supremacy, Purgatory, etc. are hard to find. Even if the "in" bishops
endorsed such things, there are always dissenters who do not "stoop" to playing
politics and getting in good with the king. We do know that there were
priests' riots over the orders from Rome to be celibate and that priests continued to
marry in isolated areas for years. Do you think a deliberate neglect of a
Papal command would be disobeyed if every priest believed the Pope to be Supreme?
--- Nevertheless, speaking about the nature of the Church, how can the
Church, in its undivided sense, be geographically located. It can be very noticeable
one place or in one communion, but there are many times when Orthodox bishops
have subsisted in many places among outnumbering heretics (this is actually
more the norm). The distance from England to the East is far and communication
confused even today and so how can one expect a bishop in England to be in
communion with a Church that he truly agrees with (if enough contact allowed such
things to be agreed upon) and to be official and canonically in comminion
with it and not simply be in communion with the "True Church" as it exists in the
mind of God? I.E. if a bishop in Scotland were "really Orthodox" how could he
"submit" to Constantinople. It is mind-bogglingly impossible to build such
relations. The best thing to do is what we do today in the Anglican churches, we
submit ourselves to a truly Orthodox bishop within our Traditition and say to
Hell with the heretics of today - Where the (Orthodox) bishop is, there is
the Church. This is all one can do. Basically, for a laymen to be Orthodox in
England during the Middle Ages he could not be in communion with Constantinople,
he could, however, be under a right believing Bishop or Abbot. Which happened
all the time. The English Church during the middle ages was never completely
"heretical". Those who endorsed Papal Supremacy may not have even understood
it as Romans today would or as the Italian bishops hanging around Rome during
the Middle Ages did. Remember France saw Papal Supremacy as simply a way to
make Italian bishops better than everybody else (England and elsewhere often felt
the same way), thus they turned it around on Rome with the Avignon popes.
(The Orthodox Church is never Geographic, those who are not heretics and are
truly Orthodox are all over the place. The battle of Christ and Satan is fought
over and over again, parish by parish, like the cities of France during the War
of the Roses. Sometimes this parish in this location is right-believing,
sometimes it is not. You really must give up this Fairy Tale view of the Eastern
Church. The Orthodox believers were sometimes here and sometimes there and never
in all the East all the time and Western churchmen were not all heretics
after a certain point. And in the same way the case can be made that in far off
England as well as areas of France, Germany and Scandinavia the same was true.
--- During the Reformation, there were three schools of thought. "Catholic",
Lutheran, and Calvinist. The Bishops of England all agreed to leave the see of
Rome. The "Catholic" bishops, with Henry VIII, wrote the ten articles - which
outlined almost all the things that made England Orthodox, rejecting what you
would object to in the Roman Church. The Lutheran school took over and was
debating with the Calvinist side. Lutheran Theology, if understood not in the
way Lutherans do today, but as it was first put forth is pretty Orthodox. German
Lutherans lack the understanding of Bishops! But England never accepted all
of Luther's theology. Despite the failure of talks between Lutherans and EOs -
Anglicans use a lot of Lutheran language but expound a pretty Orthodox view of
things - if you read the Articles of Religion correctly. All that the
Lutheran Anglicans did was make it clear that Roman extremist practices, that they
saw in England, but moreover had heard about in the continent, would cease.
These Roman extremes u would object to and these Lutheran Anglicans expounded a
much more mystical view on the sacraments, fighting the Anglican "Catholic"
party who wanted to retain the theological language of the Dominicans and
Franciscans. The Calvinists basically helped the process a little but hurt it more.
They had some good points, but given a true Calvinist's view on only being with
other "saved" people, they exited the Church of England rather quickly. I
hazard to state that what Calvinist phrases and explanations stayed in the Church
of England could be argued to be Calvinist statements that understood in an
Orthodox way are perfectly Orthodox (There is no time to go into this now).
---- So then, we have as you call it, the shaking off of the Roman heresy,
finally, officially and then for the next four hundred years a chaotic fight to
work out the truth of Orthodoxy once the Roman extremes were gone. This
natural process of kicking the heretical Anglicans (complete Calvinists, complete
Lutherans, complete Methodists) out has produced, in the end, the Oxford
Movement - which placed the Orthodox tenants of the Faith right where it should have
been and within FIFTY years established bridges with the Orthodox that are
phenomenal and long-lasting.
--- So you now have the Anglican Tradition's history, in short. There were
always heretics and there were always people who from their mother's lap learned
the Orthodox Faith, as well as they could understand it given the heresy
around them. The English Church has been tainted many times and recovered, while
growing organically and consistently being always very much what it was in the
beginning, the Orthodox Catholic Faith in the Anglican Tradition. We have been
tainted, but so has the Eastern Orthodox Church. We have maintained an
Orthodox tradition and so have you.
--- I now have to fight another heresy, it is not a big deal. I know what the
Orthodox Catholic Faith is and I know how to live it in the Anglican
Tradition. I grew up in it. You are the convert. We are called to fight for this Faith
and to touch disorder and through Christ bring order and thus we shall need
to pray so that we might be living solely on Christ. When we pray and live
solely on Christ we are deified. I ask you to throw off any sense of staying
"Safe" and to stop having ecclesiastical isolationistic tendencies. Embrace your
Coptic brethren and when we Anglicans have once again struck the heretics down
(ordination of women, homos, etc.), maybe you can see the Orthodox among us and
embrace us too.
Love you man,
Peter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I replied...
I appreciate the time you took to write this email. I learned a lot which I had not known before. As
I'm sure you already know, my fundamental position is unchanged by what you say. If the English have
always had an Orthodox remnant, complete with at least one bishop, then we can speak of a reunion and
restoration of communion. Otherwise, any restoration of ties between us must come as a conversion of
Anglicans to Orthodoxy. What that would look like practically, how much of Anglicanism could be
retained, would depend on the bishop.
On to the points you raised.
I cannot agree with your statement that "the way we establish salvation within ourselves is not only
by personal mysticism but by literally touching the outside world" or at least with the manner in
which you seem to mean the statement. It is true that it is our calling as Christians to participate
in God's work of redeeming the world. But that work must begin within, not without. Truly, all
creation groans, but it groans waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. Truly, it will be
through us that creation is healed and sanctified, but how can we lift up the created order to
communion with God before we ourselves are sanctified? The battle will be won or lost within--we must
conquer the passions, die to ourselves and beg the mercy of God with all our being FIRST. Then and
only then will we finally and fully permit God to work through us in the world--only then will our
touch bring healing. If we are premature in this, we will destroy ourselves. St. Seraphim of Sarov's
words on the subject are oft-quoted, but no less true for that frequency: "Acquire the spirit of
peace, and thousands around you will be saved." What you say seems to condemn even monasticism. If
you are willing to do that, you have no claim to Orthodoxy whatsoever.
When you speak of our refusal to "endanger losing a tradition by touching other traditions" I fail to
understand what precisely you desire from the Orthodox. If you want us to talk to you, we are
perfectly willing to do so. We have no fear of touching you. But what you sometimes seem to demand is
that we change ourselves to accomodate you. It is as though the man beaten by robbers demands that
the Good Samaritan beat himself and collapse in the road beside him. What good will that do either of
us?
As for your other charge, we do not proselytize against other Christian communions. We offer haven
and rest to those who are weary of the battles they face in those communions, the straight path to
those who value their own salvation higher than anything else. And how can we do anything else if, by
helping those who enter our churches "become good Byzantine boys and girls," we aid them on the path
of salvation and America renders up to God more saints and the light of Christ shines more brightly
in their Byzantine, yet American lives.
To my knowledge, the Orthodox do not yet acknowledge the Copts as Orthodox. If we ever do, it will be
by acknowledging that that which divided us all those centuries ago was a mistake in translation, not
a heresy, that indeed they never ceased to be Orthodox. I do not think that it is possible to say
that about the Church of England.
The matter of English exiles in Romania and Byzantium came from Dr. Cuneo at Hillsdale. I have asked
him repeatedly for more information, but he has thus far failed to provide it (while asserting that
it does exist and he just needs to call somebody in England to get it). If the information is false,
or is such as you posit it might be (that is, not religious exiles but mercenaries), I apologize for
using it.
I do not question the pedigree of the Book of Common Prayer. The issue is the trappings and baggage
that have come to be associated with it over so many years, the context in which it continued to
evolve after the Schism and the English Reformation. I would, as I said, dearly love to see it
re-incorporated into Orthodox worship. I am uncertain how that might successfully be accomplished.
Whether or not individual parishes might have existed untainted and free of heresy seems a little
beside the point. A parish needs a priest. A priest, to be ordained, needs a bishop. You address this
later, but I wanted to clarify. I am certain that there were parishes that held out for a long while
against incursions by Roman episcopal authority, but I am unconvinced that England retained a line of
Orthodox bishops refusing to bend the knee to Rome, holding the faith inviolate, from the Battle of
Hastings until the English Reformation. Possible? Perhaps. Proven? Not yet...not to me. If such can
be demonstrated, then, as I said before, I would gladly would recognize the legitimacy of the
Anglican Church--as, indeed, beset by heresies, but also as retaining a faithful remnant at all times
that never ceased to be Orthodox.
Bishops are funny things. As you yourself quoted St. Ignatius, "Where the Bishop is, there is the
Catholic Church." But once you lose a Bishop, to death or heresy, you need another Bishop to
consecrate a successor. And, for the Orthodox, Apostolic succession is not merely a matter of being
able to trace a line back to the Apostles. Each Bishop must be Orthodox. Bishops persisting in heresy
are no longer bishops. To my knowledge, then, if a local church lapses into heresy, it must go to
another local, still Orthodox church, to an Orthodox bishop, in order to be received back into the
Church.
Back to the previous then--if you do indeed assert that there existed a fully Orthodox line of
Bishops in England (not necessarily even a consistent line in one single see...it could pass from see
to see, of course), then you're not arguing Branch Theory, as I understand it, you're simply saying
that there has always existed an English Orthodox Church with no means of communication with the
other Orthodox Churches in the East. And if that's the case, then we can indeed talk about a simple
restoration of communion.
You are very strong in your assertion of this. I hope to God that it is in fact true. Indeed, if
there is a ghost of a chance that it is, then there should be serious talks between your bishops and
mine, and I deeply regret that there are not.
For myself, I believe no fairy tale about the Orthodox Church. It did and does have serious problems.
But in every generation, there have been fully Orthodox bishops, priests and laymen within, so that
there has never been a need for a Reformation, but only for a victory of the faithful over heretics.
You are right, I am a convert. I am still very new to this faith I have embraced as my own. But, for
all its faults (which I understand far better now than I did two years ago when I converted) I see
the fullness of God's grace at work here more evidently than ever. If what you claim for yourself is
true, then the same fullness works within the Anglican Church, and you are my brother. But merely the
fact that a faithful remnant in England COULD have existed is not enough. It must be proven,
historically, doctrinally, or in some other way. Perhaps the Orthodox could even accept an Anglican
Bishop into communion with them if his doctrine and that of his flock were shown to be fully and
completely Orthodox, granting the mere possibility of a legitimate Apostolic succession as
sufficient. That would be a heady day for both of us.
But enough of speculation. I am grateful to understand better precisely what you are claiming for the
Anglican communion. I pray that, one day, you and I may be united visibly in One Church and One
Communion. Until that day, I am, and remain,
Your brother, estranged or not, in Christ,
Anthony Cook
posted by Fr. A at 1:21 AM
0 comments
