This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Just to repost my comments below since this thread is more directly related:

My first impressions of this article essay: First, I am a bit surprised by what appears to me to be a serious lack of consensus and theological grappling in the last few hundred years with this issue. The meat of what Florovsky says the Church says about this issue is from St. Cyprian and the Blessed Augustine. I expected more later development.

Second, It would appear to me that Augustine's theology can really only apply to "close" schism - to a Church that has split off over a single or restricted group of issues. Augustine assumes that the sacramental life of the schismed Church is in fact the same as the Orthodox Church. Fast forward 1500 years. What does the "sacramental life" of most protestant churches have to do with the Church's? Very little, as far as I can tell. The Episcopalian’s are now crypto Unitarians. To talk about the "validity" of Episcopalian sacraments is to stretch the meaning of sacraments beyond anything Augustine could have imagined, IMO.

Augustine theology seems to give us a way back from Schism - a way to heal a division when there has been a real repentance on the part of the schismed Church. I can see it applying to a real healing of the Great Schism between the Church and Rome.

It seems inadequate (IMO) to the protestant situation. I think that final statement by Met. Philaret, while of course a profound affirmation of Faith in the work of the Spirit (and for us to not be anxious), and a sign of just how silent modern Orthodoxy is on the limits of the Church...

"Fr. Florovsky is delineating two different, though not contradictory or irreconcilable, approaches to the limits of the Church..."

I would totally agree. So why was this article linked as proof that there is an inherent contradiciton here rather than a paradox?

Cparks? :)

So why was this article linked as proof that there is an inherent contradiciton here rather than a paradox?

Because the two most common approaches in Orthodoxy are the "Greek," ie-baptize everyone because there is no grace outside the Church, and the "Russian," which explains reception in terms of "economy," rather than as Fr Florovsky explains it here. There is a difference between what Fr Florovsky argues for here and the common economic approach to ecclesiology.

"Because the two most common approaches in Orthodoxy are the "Greek," ie-baptize everyone because there is no grace outside the Church, and the "Russian," which explains reception in terms of "economy," rather than as Fr Florovsky explains it here...."

Even granting the generalization, I think one can argue that those bishops that adovacate for "re-baptism" do not neccesarily say that "there is no grace outside the Church" nor do those bishops who advocate reception by Chrismation only claim anything close to the branch theory.

I think both approaches can co-exist, if we look at each catechuman on a case-by-case basis rather than claiming there must be only one uniform way of receiving converts from non-Orthodox yet Christian communions. "There is no grace outside the Church" and "we can't say where the Church isn't" are not mutually exclusive propositons. YMMV.

"The Episcopalian’s are now crypto Unitarians. To talk about the "validity" of Episcopalian sacraments is to stretch the meaning of sacraments beyond anything Augustine could have imagined, IMO."

With all due respect that is grossly simplistic, and imo false. Actual Anglican teaching is clear on issues like the Holy Trinity, the Chalcedon formula, and so forth. The problem in the Anglican church is not what the actual teaching of the church is (female priests aside), but that heretics within the church are allowed to get away with false teaching and the misrepresentation of Anglican doctrine.

The church my wife and I attend has an orthodox understanding of the Trinity and of Christ, as well as the sacraments, and so I cannot see how it is a stretch to see us as schismatic but not heretical and without grace.

Christopher: It seems inadequate (IMO) to the protestant situation. I think that final statement by Met. Philaret, while of course a profound affirmation of Faith in the work of the Spirit (and for us to not be anxious), and a sign of just how silent modern Orthodoxy is on the limits of the Church...

I agree, and I think that's why Florovsky characterizes his essay as just a beginning.

I understand that Fr Florovsky later moved away from openness to Augustinian ecclesiology. At least that is what says Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna says:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/florovsky.aspx

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/florov_thoughts.aspx

Shawn,

I can I see a sense that you might be right. To the extant that Episcopalian’s are now de facto congregationalists – each parish church being it’s own source of Doctrine and authority – then one would have to take it on a parish by parish basis. Even granting this, it is hard to argue that the Blessed Augustine’s theology pertains to this set of circumstances. Yes, recognizing true Doctrine in regards to the Holy Trinity is important, but throwing out (or simply ignoring it) the whole Ecclesiastical Doctrine of the Church? This is no longer a simple schism based on a single or small set of issues. To put it another way, the common ground between the “sects” and the Church that the Blessed Augustine was trying to reconcile was quantitatively and qualitatively closer that even the “best case” Episcopalian parish that you describe. This of course puts to one side as to whether Episcopalians can actually be what I am calling “de facto congregationalists”. On a personal note, being a formal Episcopalian myself, It is my sincere hope and honest prayer God continues his saving work among orthodox Episcopalian’s such as yourself.

Karl,

What practical theological principles (are there really any other kind? ;) do you propose, or rather see in the Tradition, as a starting point for this "case-by-case basis"? Lurking behind my question is that suspicion that what you are really proposing is a commitment to pastoral "economy" where the Church really has no doctrine except to say that it is up to the individual will of each pastor.

"To the extant that Episcopalian’s are now de facto congregationalists – each parish church being it’s own source of Doctrine and authority – then one would have to take it on a parish by parish basis."

I dont think this is true either. In fact, like the first comment I responded to its a cartoon caricature of the state of affairs in the AC. The official teaching of the Anglican church is clear on issues like the Trinity and the nature of Christ. And it should be on that teaching alone that the Anglican communion is judged. That some parishes choose not to adhere to that teaching is one thing, (this would also be true of the Roman church remeber, so what the difference?) but to claim that we are in a position where every church is simply making it up for themselves is totally false. The vast majority of Anglican churches, especially but not exclusively those in the third world, adhere to Anglican doctrine. Orthodox Anglicans are not a minority, we are the majority. Judging the situation by the US alone does not do the Communion justice.

A citation from one of the links Fr. Kimmel references above:

Protopresybter Georges Florovsky:

Third, this new book [i.e., a bioagraphy of Fr. George, Georges Florovsky, SVS 1993, ed. Andrew Blane] very fairly sets forth Father Georges' ecclesiology: that the Orthodox Church is the true Church established by Christ and the Apostles and that the heterodox Churches are not "equal to it" or possessed of its Grace. But it fails to show the extent to which, in his later years, Florovsky was in some sense "anti-ecumenical." Not given to humble admissions of error, he nonetheless once told me that he felt that the ecumenical movement had deviated from its original purposes and that he was perhaps wrong to have been one of its most famous proponents. He was not, as some claim, an advocate of joint communion; did not recognize the validity of non-Orthodox sacraments; and certainly did not concelebrate with non-Orthodox-something which he flatly condemned. Indeed, he even came to disavow a suggestion, in a study which he wrote on the sacramental theology of St. Augustine, that the Orthodox Church might look to the Bishop of Hippo for a model in approaching the sacraments of non-Orthodox Christians: a suggestion which some unscrupulous ecumenists still claim as a "blessing" on their attempts to distort the Church's teachings about non-Orthodox sacraments.

And from Further Thoughts on the Ecclesiology of Father George Florovsky

As for Mr. _____ references to Protopresbyter George Florovsky's article on the boundaries of the Church, it should be pointed out that this was written at a time when Father Florovsky was not only young in his experience of ecumenism (more than sixty years ago), but represents a view which he later disavowed and which is not, in fact, consistent with his mature understanding of the Church. It was a heuristic piece by a young man who came to far different views later in his career. Not only did he support St. Cyprian's ecclesiology in later works, but he also later expressed critical conclusions about the ecumenical movement and misgivings about a wider view of the Church's boundaries. I should also say that, great though this wonderful theologian was, he is NOT a Father of the Church, and his opinions, while worthy, are not definitive or dogmatic. This is a dangerous error to make: setting the speculation of a theologian against the ecclesiology of a Father whose views were ratified by an Ecumenical Synod.

"where the Church really has no doctrine except to say that it is up to the individual will of each pastor."

I think the Church does, in fact, have a doctrine. It is "we know where the Church is and we don't judge or know exactly where it isn't." I've stated all along that I think there is a paradox here, rather than a clear cut contradiction or need to reject one side or the other categorically.

Now from a stricly patristic and historical perspective, I think St. Cyprian's position is quite persuasive on paper. But the early Fathers who make this case weren't dealing with post-Schism Christendom either. Thus the need for nuance and a recognition that "the 'validity' of sacraments among schismatics is the mysterious guarantee of their return to Catholic plenitude and unity." There is a big difference between the Arians and Nestorians who were Orthdox and rejected it vs the pious heterodox Christian laymen who frankly doesn't even know about Orthodoxy and never rejected it in the first place. That difference means, for now, two "contradictory" apporaches.

But in the end, it really is up to the bishop to practically apply the Church's teaching in his diocese.

We laymen can bemoan the apparent "contradiction" and seeming "disunity" among the bishops on this issue, but obedeince to one's local bishop is the only thing that matters in this case. God will decide the rest.

Shawn:

If I may . . .

I was once an Episcopalian, and indeed my coming to grips with the reality, as I then and now see it, of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole was an extremely unpleasant experience. Indeed, as I was leaving ECUSA, I thought briefly about trying to stay in Anglicanism via the AMiA, but ultimately found I could not do so.

I say that only to hopefully convey the deep respect I have for my orthodox Anglican friends who are still in, and wish to stay in, ECUSA and/or the Anglican Communion.

But canonicity is not predicated upon believing correct dogmas alone. The validity of sacraments--which is merely another way of saying "the Church's discernment of that which is truly the Life of Christ she has been given and must pass on"--is predicated not merely on right doctrine, but also, indeed, primarily, on communion with the Church. In other words, the reason Rome or the Orthodox judge Anglican sacraments to be invalid has less to do with juridical considerations and more to do with whether or not Anglicans actually commune with Christ's real Body, the Church. In other words, it's not about what you know, but whom you know--and here I mean know in the intimate sense of union in God with one another.

I can guess that you might respond to this description with something along the lines of a "branch" ecclesiology. And it not here my intent to argue whether non-Catholics or non-Orthodox are/are not Christians, but only to state that the objective determination of canonicity has less to do with right dogma than real communion. Or rather, I should say not that there's a dichotomy, but that there must be both. Rome and Orthodoxy might argue that certain Anglicans have right doctrine, but no Anglican has real communion.

I must stress that, in my current opinion, this does not make you or any other Anglican a non-Christian, but rather that insofar as the Church can make an objective consideration, you do not belong to Christ's Church. (You should know that at the present time, I do not objectively belong to the Orthodox Church.)

I know no matter what I say it will come off as offensive, so I ask your forebearance.

Frankly, I have difficulty unpacking whatever "maturity" Fr Florovksy's thinking might have undergone from what appear to me to be the, um, motivations of those "in resistance" that wish to denounce the "unscrupulous" ecumenists. That's a fight I do not wish to enter.

Anyway, Karl, what you've said most recently here is, I think, basically what I've been saying. Possibly, we're simply experiencing the difficulty of communication in plain text....

"I know no matter what I say it will come off as offensive, so I ask your forebearance."

Its not a case of me being offended. I'm not. Nor am I angry in any way about the comments above. Just to be clear that I'm simply debating the issues to try to get to grips with them myself. So dont panic, I'm not an offended or outraged correspondent :)

My first response was to Karl's claim about the AC being crypto-unitarians. I believe that claim to be false and demonstratably so. And while I may have misread him he did seem to be implying that doctrine was the issue at hand as far as the issue of who is in or out of the Church.

"In other words, the reason Rome or the Orthodox judge Anglican sacraments to be invalid has less to do with juridical considerations and more to do with whether or not Anglicans actually commune with Christ's real Body, the Church."

But what is the claim that we dont based on? After all, Rome and the Orthodox are not in communion with each other, so, from an Orthodox pov, what is the difference between Rome and Canterbury?

And lets widen this a little. What about the Oriental Orthodox? Are their sacraments valid? If so, again, what is the difference between them and Anglicans.

"I can guess that you might respond to this description with something along the lines of a "branch" ecclesiology"

I guess this depends on what is meant. I would say no, I dont support the idea of a branch ecclesiology necessarily, but I cant see why Rome's (or the OO's) sacraments would be considered valid and Canterbury's not. I dont see what the basis for this distinction is. I'm happy to agree that the AC is schismatic, and that the Orthodox alone have the fullness of the faith. But I dont see that this makes our sacraments invalid in and of itself.

I would say that I blame ECUSA for the view that some may have of the AC in general. My hope is that the rest ofn the communion disasociates itself from ECUSA as soon as possible. The election of Gene Robinson, in defiance of the clear teaching of Lambeth, is a disgrace.

"My first response was to Karl's claim about the AC being crypto-unitarians..."

That was Christopher, not me. For the record. :)

Shawn, you say:

"Anglican church is clear on issues like the Trinity and the nature of Christ. And it should be on that teaching alone that the Anglican communion is judged."

I, and the I believe the Church, would (does) disagree. It should be "judged" on a whole host of other important doctrines as well, not the least of which is ecclisiolgy. Also, Rome still has the ability to impose ecclisiastical disciplinie (and regulary excersises it). Do the Anglicans still have the theological basis for excommunicating the majority of American and English bishops (and for that matter the majority of the laity), who have quite simply apostocized? Will they excercise it? If they don't, what exactly IS the Anglican church? That sort of brings us back to point of this discussion, which includes a theological "judgement" as to how the Church sees those outside her boundries - which is what I am really interested in...

Sorry Karl, my mistake.

"Do the Anglicans still have the theological basis for excommunicating the majority of American and English bishops (and for that matter the majority of the laity), who have quite simply apostocized?"

Assuming your claim that they have is true. How do you know? Your opinion about the majority of laity strikes me as conjecture to say the least. I would be impressed if you can read minds.

Also, discipline may well be a good thing, but does that alone prove anything about the validity of our sacraments? Is it your view that a Church's sacraments are valid only if the church leadership excersises discipline? What part of Tradition do you base that view on?

And you have still not answered the question at hand. On what basis do you claim that the AC's sacraments are invalid?

You make a lot of dubious generalisations but you provide no evidence to back them up.

" as to how the Church sees those outside her boundries"

Which part of "the Church" are you talking about? The Greek, Russian, OCA, ROCOR? They all seem to have different opinions about this issue.

No I'm not offended. But I do object to my church's sacraments being called invalid by a person who is clearly somewhat ignorant of the state of affairs in the worldwide AC. You described us crypto-unitarian, which is false, and therefore either a statement of ignorance or a lie. You have failed to back up this accusation with any evidence. You claim to know the minds of most of the US and English laity, a claim which is both impossible and arrogant. You ignore that the majority of AC members and leadership throughout the world do in fact adhere to Anglican doctrine. The liberlas are a minority.

And whenever I have challenged you to back you claim up you shift the debate. First it was because we were crypto-unitarians. Now its because of a lack of discipline. Conveniant.

Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

So again, my challenge, on what basis do you make the claim that the AC's sacraments are invalid? Please answer the question at hand.

Sometimes by the time you do, several others have posted and the conversation has moved past you.

I stand by my assertion, or more accurately description of ECUSA being crypto Unitarians. Other's much more knowledgeable than me have pointed to the parallels between the history of the Unitarians in the early and middle part of the 19th century with today’s Episcopalians. David Mills and others has written much about the "conservatives" and their basis over at Touchstone and elsewhere. So yes, I believe it rather a plain and bald fact that there are significant doctrinal differences - if nothing else in the fact that doctrine has to be lived and believed to mean anything at all, otherwise it is just an abstraction. The Episcopalians so obviously reflect modern Epicurean man in their thinking and life, I really have no idea what it means to say that they "rightly believe in the Trinity". The very nature of Truth, Dogma, etc. is so skewed in such a worldview. Can we really imagine the Blessed Augustine asserting the "validity" of such a body?

Shawn,

I see from your last post that this topic is getting too close to home. I am sorry I offended you, and this will be my last to you. Having been an Episcopalian for a number of years, and even a lowly church secretary, I have had the pleasure of knowing many many Episcopalians. I also grew up a Unitarian Universalist- and was one proudly so through young adulthood! So, I can say through my own experience (limited it is I grant) that there just is not that much difference, in heart or mind, between the majority of Episcopalian’s your average Unitarian. Generalization, yes, but they do have their place. There just was no substantial difference between them on all significant issues, including the nature of God, the nature of man, etc. As I said in my last post, others have drawn historical similarities.

As far as your last question, "what basis do you make the claim that the AC's sacraments are invalid" Your right in pointing out the seemingly Orthodox ambiguity on this question. I find this ambiguity troubling, but I don't have too much anxiety over it - I try to have Faith like Met. Philaret. I can say, with out any doubt or ambiguity, that your bishop does not communion with my bishop...

Oooo...too much to read. This Baptist is gonna take his Reformed self back to his own work. I have a sermon to preach Wednesday evening. I'll post it on my blog. Feel free to come over and beat the heretic down.

"I stand by my assertion, or more accurately description of ECUSA being crypto Unitarians."

And still no evidence.

"I see from your last post that this topic is getting too close to home. I am sorry I offended you, and this will be my last to you."

You didint offend me. You made factually incorrect assertions.

" Generalization, yes, but they do have their place."

Except when levelled at the whole worldwide AC, this one is clearly and provably wrong. You "evidence" is that A: you were once an Episcopalian, and B: you think you saw some similarity between the UU and the people you met in ECUSA (ECUSA is not representative of the whole Ac). However, to go from that to what you originally said, which was to accuse the whole AC of denying the Trinity, is absurd nonsense.

"The Episcopalians so obviously reflect modern Epicurean man in their thinking and life"

Again this is a gross generalisation based on your limited experiance of the American church alone. I would be interested in the reaction of Anglicans in Africa and elsewhere suffering persecution if you said this to their faces.

Sorry, but I just dont think you have the right to make sauch genralisations based on little more then your own opinion. To make the claim that the Anglican Communion is crypto-unitarian, and that our sacraments are invalid, based on nothing more than your limited experience of ECUSA, displays a stunning arrogance and lack of Christian charity. It is an insult to those who struggle for the soul of the church, and an insult to those Anglicans suffering persecution and death for the faith.

Now let me be clear, I am not saying that reasonable criticisms of aspects of Anglican culture in the US and England are wrong. I have quite a few myself. But that is a far cry from what you were indulging in.

Shawn:

The simple answer is this: the Anglican Church is not part of the Church; it is a schism from a schism. As such it is twice removed from the only Body which gives life in the sacraments.

This, of course, is the Orthodox view. The Roman Catholic view would simply be that the Anglican Church separated itself from the Church (Rome), and therefore lacks the formal validity (not least of which is communion with the bishop of Rome).

This does not deny that certain portions of the Anglican Communion still believe in most of the core dogmas of the Church (as you mention, Trinity, atonement, divine/human natue of Christ, etc.). But as I've mentioned previously, it takes more than doctrine to make a church part of the Church.

The simple answer is this: the Anglican Church is not part of the Church

See, Clifton, this is why I think people think we're being sneaky when we say, "we don't know" and "we know where the Church is, but not where it isn't." The reality is that we're perfectly willing to make statements about where the Church isn't.

ChrisP:

On the contrary, to state that the Anglican Church is not part of the Church is simply to state the obvious: there is no measurable, objective way that the Anglican Church is part of the one, visible Church Christ established.

But it's not being sneaky to say that Anglican Christians, and other Christians outside the one visible Church, are, indeed, Christian, or that their sacraments might be validated, not by their own ecclesial bodies, but rather through the incorporation in the life of the one, visible Church. To "allow" these the name of Christian is to state that salvation is always and ever a mystery. There are some things we can know about it, but also things we are never privy to.

We can know, for example, that the Orthodox Church is the one visible Church Christ established. And we can know that those outside the visible boundaries of that Church are not so far as we know part of the Church. But we do not know what work God is doing in them.

As long as we state these things clearly up front, I can hardly see how it is that we are being "sneaky" or otherwise dishonest. Ours is not to take away the offense of the Truth, nor to do away with the paradox of Grace. Ours is simply to be faithful to both.

As staunch a "Cyprianite" as Blessed Hieromonk Seraphim could yet acknowledge that Protestants were Christians, and that God was mysteriously at work outside the boundaries of the Church. The (hopefully soon to be formally recognized as a) saint was well able to hold both facts in tension.

Slow down a sec, Clifton. My point was that it's very easy to make a statement such as you did (as we all do) and have it come across as, "so, you don't think I'm a Christian?" I mean, really, I don't think it's so hard to understand how a person can hear "you are not part of the Church" and "we don't know where the Church isn't" and think "contradiction" instead of "paradox." If you tell someone they're not part of the Church, having them react by thinking you're saying they're not really a Christian seems pretty normal to me.

I'm Christian.

Just thought I'd share. Hang in there gang, this is a great conversation.

Tripp:

I dunno, I'm hearing that you sort of revel in this "heresy" thing . . . ;-)

CP:

Well, sure, non-Orthodox will take Orthodox pronouncements as "triumphalistic," but then this is a given. The difference, it seems to me, is the honesty with which we communicate the Orthodox conviction. If we come off as "oh, well, you're Christian anyway," then in non-Orthodox, Protestant ecclesiology, what's the point of being Orthodox? If we come off as "good grief! you're not even Christian," then I think we do unnecessary damage and may be liable to wearing millstone necklaces.

So, in my view--and I grant you I speak as one objectively outside the Church--it seems we must always maintain the tension, when we speak generally to non-Orthodox. In particular scenarios we may prudentially choose to emphasize one or the other point of the paradox, but must do so without deception or judgementalism.

Heresy? Hearsay! Huh. My accent makes these words sound an awful lot alike. I should look into that.

Keep up the good work.

To quote Florovsky:

"It is necessary to hold firmly in mind that in asserting the ‘validity’ of the sacraments and of the hierarchy itself in the sects, St Augustine in no way relaxed or removed the boundary dividing sect and communality. This is not so much a canonical as a spiritual boundary: communal love in the Church and separatism and alienation in the schism. For Augustine this was the boundary of salvation, since grace operates outside communality but does not save. (It is appropriate to note that here, too, Augustine closely follows Cyprian, who asserted that except in the Church even martyrdom for Christ does not avail.) For this reason, despite all the ‘reality’ and ‘validity’ of a schismatic hierarchy, it is impossible to speak in a strict sense of the retention of the ‘apostolic succession’ beyond the limits of canonical communality."

In a sense, it is easier to know than to dogmatically define the Church. I look at a Hindu, temple, and I "know" that is not the Church - though God is there as we pray every day "Who art everywhere present and fillest all things". I look at a Episcopalian church and I "know" that is not the Church. I even "know" that it is not a simple sect, it is even farther away than that. But I find Augustine does not help me, because he presupposes a narrow set of differences. Who else can I turn to for a dogmatic explanation? Met. Philaret does not really add anything except to say all this will be worked out in the Eschaton. To that I say "duh!", in that it's a truism - everything will be worked out in the Eschaton. I don't really see how to move forward at this point - without an injection of some reliable Dogmatic principles from Tradition that is not currently on the table...

"it seems we must always maintain the tension..."

Bingo. Well said Clif.

Just to throw a monkey wrench in the works so to speak...It was not very long ago that the Orthodox were singing a very different tune concerning the validity of Anglican orders. I only have a 19k connection (or somehting like that now)so I can't get a link, but if you have a second go to Project Canturbery and look for the link to the Anglican Communion's relationship with Orthodoxy and see what they (the Orthodox)had to say about validilty of Anglican Orders...I think you will find a little differnce in tone...not withstanding parts of the A.C.'s decision to ordain women...but it comes at validity from a slightly different, more charitble point than what I see here. It is interesting to note how much discernment is done regarding this issue solely on the basis of personal experience and private judgement...which is most assuredly soft footing for such profund agruments...esp. when Salvation and faithfulness are being questioned and tossed about with such assurance. Please do not take this as a defense...I fear for my salvation daily as well and stive to discover the boundries of the True Chruch with each and every day...with each and every prayer.

Jeff is correct, in that it was not that long ago that there seemed to be much different take of Anglican church from most Orthodox. However, as he admits (women's ordination) much has happened. Also, I think the Orthodox have become better informed and more experienced with the heart and mind of most heterodox - there is plenty of evidence of a certain naiveté, starting with the EP's 1920 letter that started the modern ecumenical movement. Go and read that letter, and tell me what a "feast" means in most protestant churches today?

Jeff is incorrect as to "much discernment is done regarding this issue solely on basis of personal experience and private judgment". This thread has been anchored by Flovorsky's detailed discussion of St Cyprian's and Blessed Augustine’s theology. Perhaps Jeff feels the Fathers to be nothing in Holy Tradition. Perhaps in his tradition (I don't know what that is) they are.

As to the alleged uncharitableness, it must be said again and again and again (and apparently, a few more times after that) that honest and heart filled meditation and discussion of the VERY REAL differences between Christians IS NOT unloving or uncharitable, or even impolite!!! In fact, it is the only way difference are to be overcome, if that is indeed God's will (that they be overcome).

I must be honest Jeff, where is the backbone in what you say - where is the manly honesty and honor (virtues our Lord calls us to) in saying it is "uncharitable" to for Christian's to discuss something that is a plain fact: that we are not in communion with each other, and we are so because there are real and substantial differences between us, probably around the very core of our Faith?? And how are those real and substantial differences ever going to be overcome if we are all just a bunch of frightened ninny's who think the highest virtue is to never "offend", never offending anyone who might be ever lay claim to be called a "Christian"?

My wife say's sometimes I am too direct. I agree, and this is my sin. However, I think if "ecumenism" is going to mean anything at all, and bear any fruit (and let us admit the great pile of chaff that it has yielded so far, and Glorify God Who will burn that chaff away as so much nothing that it is,) is it not going to be between honest men dealing with reality as it truly is...

Christopher:

Speaking for my friend and brother, Father Jeff, he is an Anglican priest, serving in ECUSA in the South. I can vouch for the fact that Father Jeff is firmly anchored in the Anglo-Catholic expression of Christian faith.

Father has, if I may so say, not only a backbone, but a somewhat long one at that. Father stands over six feet tall and is not one I'd like to meet in an alleyway in the dark.

Father is not so much rejecting legitimate differences, as I can well attest. He and I have expressed our differences to one another quite strongly, but withal pray for one another and each other's families.

Father Jeff and his wife are soon to be new parents, and I am grateful he has commented here.

An Episcopal priest of "Anglo-Catholic expression of Christian faith", who does have knowledge of the Fathers, Church history, and current "ecumenical" situation today. Well then, then I am even more perplexed. What exactly is his basis for his assertion "discernment is done regarding this issue solely on the basis of personal experience" or "Salvation and faithfulness are being questioned and tossed about with such assurance." I look back over the thread and see nothing of the sort. I see the exact opposite. Perhaps I read too much into his words and he could explain...

Christopher,
Perhaps I can explain a bit. What I alluded to (and poorly at that I see) is that there are certain comments within this thread on this particular post that seem to point more to personal experience and private judgement more than they do teachings handed down by the Church. Within this thread was taken to be implied and qualified by the word 'much'...I by no means meant to say the Church Fathers were guided by personal experience thereby cheapening your arguments defining the Church.

I too (or perhaps I alone) have faith that there is no salvation outside of the Church. So to my mind and understanding of Salvation, when you say so and so or those people are clearly outside of the Church, you are effectivly judging them as a body as not being recepiants of salvation (with the understanding that the mercy of God extends outside the Church in ways that we know not).

By uncharitable, I did not mean to imply unchristian actions...I meant to imply that rulings on bodies of faithful concerning salvation are a bit more complicated than a quote or two from the Fathers and personal experience with a certain body...or that it perhaps difficult to have a discussion of this magnitude without oversimplifing it. I pointed to the East/West talks to show exactly that. I take no offence that you consider me and my ministry outside the Church...I applaud your struggle and honesty...I am in in the same struggle and daily stand in fear and trembling...and when we come down on places of faith, we must be honest...but before we condemn others to be invalid or outside the Church and outside of salvation we must be ready to stand before the great throne of judgement with our proclaimations.
I really have enjoyed reading this debate and I have been given a lot to think about. Perhaps I entered into the conversation when I shouldn't have...perhaps I am out of line and way of mark...perhaps I did not clearly understand what I read before commenting...if you find me to be in error please know that it is not my intention to cause offence...
Under His mercy

jeff: So to my mind and understanding of Salvation, when you say so and so or those people are clearly outside of the Church, you are effectivly judging them as a body as not being recepiants of salvation

And we Orthodox are obligated, out of charity, if nothing else (though that's certainly not a bad motivation, is it?) to frame our interaction with folks who understand things in this way so as to not unecessarily cause them offense or confusion about what it is we're saying.

Ok, not sure what the point is still, but that's normal ;)

Jeff,

"By uncharitable, I did not mean to imply unchristian actions...I meant to imply that rulings on bodies of faithful concerning salvation are a bit more complicated than a quote or two from the Fathers and personal experience with a certain body...or that it perhaps difficult to have a discussion of this magnitude without oversimplifying it."

I don't know, I think a couple of Fathers and "personal experience" is a perfectly good place to start. What else do we have really? If it really is so complicated (I am not convinced it is) then the explication of Orthodox Dogma around this issue is going to take some time - but the result might be the same. Perhaps what you really object to is my "personal experience" within the Episcopal church. But why is your experience more valid, or more indicative of the anything, than mine? Objectively, the actions of that body on a whole host of issues is well known. It's ecclesiastical and historical beginnings is known. I confess, the "conservative" Episcopal is one species I don't get. However, I really don't need to do I!!:) I stand corrected - I confess I should have let it pass...

Christopher:
I think where I was in error here was that I was not looking at this conversation as a place to start...I was reading it as final and an ending point...I should not have jumped in so quickly before more prayerfully considering my words and the intention of others.

Personal experience is important and often most objectionable to debate...because it is personal and and is oft taken as 'personal attacks' on things people hold dear, instead of primarily theological, it becomes primarily pastoral (not that the two should ever be seperated, but recognized as such).

The issue of the Church is overwhelming and even moreso in our own day...and I admit frustration at trying to grapple with such a giant...

Under His Mercy

If I may, I'd like to briefly comment on a comment by Clifton above: "But canonicity is not predicated upon believing correct dogmas alone. The validity of sacraments--which is merely another way of saying "the Church's discernment of that which is truly the Life of Christ she has been given and must pass on"--is predicated not merely on right doctrine, but also, indeed, primarily, on communion with the Church. In other words, the reason Rome or the Orthodox judge Anglican sacraments to be invalid has less to do with juridical considerations and more to do with whether or not Anglicans actually commune with Christ's real Body, the Church. In other words, it's not about what you know, but whom you know--and here I mean know in the intimate sense of union in God with one another."

I agree. Anglo-Catholics generally begin with the claim of validity and from there infer that Anglicanism is a branch of the Church. But, writes, Newman, the Catholic begins precisely from the reality of the Church and then infers the validity of her orders:

"Catholics believe their Orders are valid, because they are members of the true Church; and Anglicans believe they belong to the true Church, because their Orders are valid."

The entirety of Newman's note on validity should be read to appreciate the difference between the Roman and Anglo-Catholic understandings of apostolic succession of the validity of Holy Orders:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume2/notex.html

Concerning Fr. George Florovsky, I'd think twice, three of forty times before taking the comments of the Bishop of Etna as enlightening. He seems to have known a Florovsky no one else ever did, and I have a hunch wrote about him only when the great man was dead. The bishop has only the internet and rather few if any flock to preach to, and is unique in his opinions of Fr. George.
For Anglican theology, I imagine an "official" place to look in the US might be the ECUSA web page. It's seeker's center (as pointed out by the Pontificator) has a purely Modalistic, heretical explanation of the Trinity. Elsewhere on the website ther *used* to be several estrogen-soaked wiccan rituals as a substitute for the Eucharist (un-officially, of course!). I don't know if crypto-unitarian quite says it. Just because the '79 prayerbook has a line from Chalcedon about Mary being Theotokos doesn't mean anyone does or has to believe it, and I bet rather few ECUSA laity have had it pointed out to them in the last 26 or so years. If they want to be part of the Church, nothing is stopping them, but they first have to realize they aren't in it yet, and no one who claims to *be* in it will likely tell them otherwise. If it isn't a heretical organization, what would it look like if it were?

Everybody,

Might I suggest that, regardless of what you think of the "two lungs" langauge in the Balamnad Statement, its historical passages reagarding the ecclisiology implied by the Church's baptism and chrismation practises under the very ancient Basilian canons might shed some light on the issue that Florovsky was wrestling with when he entertained Augustian valid-licit ecclesiology.

Indeed, for a long time now, but not necessarily from the beggining, the Chruch has had a tension between the Greek / Cyprianesque/ Re-Baptism /In-Or-Out ecclisiology and the Russian / No-Re-Baptism / Basilian / Proportional ecclsiology. Though the Rudder attempts to knit the two approaches together, the results and the inconsistent practises that have result are less than satisfying for those seeking a clear and coherent Orthodox ecclessioliogy.

To cut to the chase, the Balamand Statement concludes that the Basilian / Russian position better represents the perrenial teaching of the Church East and West both in terms of the amount of time each held sway and in terms of geopraphic predominance. Also, it concludes that apart S. Cyprians writings, which he himself acknowledged to be innovative, the Greek position is only grounded in post-schism, anti-Latin polemicalism (which is quite understandable if you recall the unparalled savagery of the sack of Constantinople -- how could Latin's do that, ratify that, and claim to be Christians?).

I think if you google "Balamand Statement or Agreeemnt," you can find it on the web and draw your own conclusions.

But, assuming for the sake of argument that the practises required by Basilian canons do embody an underlying ecclesiology that represents the Church's authentic, apostolic teaching (at a minimum, the Basilian canons were appoved at the Qunitisext Council, wehreas Cyprian's scholastic exclusivism has no equal place of honor, unless you consider the Rudder to be on the level of a Ecumenical Council) then, from an Orthodox point of view, Anglicans are schismatics who are "of the Church" (only true Apsotates -- those who deny the Trinity and the Incarnation -- are considered "heretics" and "outside the Church" under the Basilian canons) to be reacieved "in the Church," i.e. the Primitive Apostolic Orthodox Catholicism of the undivided Church retained today in Orthodoxy, by healing unction, not re-baptisim. Of coures, when I say Anglican, Imean a person who confroms to historically authoritative formularies of the communion -- two testaments, four or six or seven councils, the Ordinal, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and all legitimate editions thereof (1662, American 1928, etc.), the 39 Articles, the Lambeth Conference edicts, etc.

Faced with the long-standing Russian practises of Basilian-canon recpetion, Fr. Florovosky logically looked for an explanation that did not compromise the unity and trueness of the Church militant. And Augustine, not Cyprian, provides the only EXPRESS ecclessiology that acheives both tasks. Naturally, Flovosky entertained Augustines approach.

But, despite the absense of an express, written ecclessiology to accompanying the Basilian canons, the Balamand Statement simply teases out the ecclessiology that is necessarily implied by them. That is that schismatic sacraments are valid (contra Cyprian) AND EFFECTUAL (contra Augustine) because healing unction cannot be logically be said to revive baptismal grace where it previously had not existed. In otherwords, the Balamand statement find's Augustine's retroactivation theory is illogical and improbable. Indeed, being based on Cyprian's self-admitted scholastic innovation, the retroactivation theory implies that schismatics that fail to (or are prevented from) returning to the true Church are implicitly damned -- though neither was willing to admit that this conlcusion necessarily follows from their theories, much like the Calvanist who deny that double predestinarianism precludes free will.

Furthermore, in addition to having the merits of setting aside the innovative scholasticisms of S. Cyprian and S. Augistne, the Basilian ecclessiology also meets Florovsky's demand that the unity and trueness of the Church militant be protected by insisting that schmatic sacraments are illicit and therefore constitute a wound against the unity of the body to be mourned and healed when possible.

Viewed from this ancient, Basilian, proportional ecclessiology, the breach in communion between East and West is not necessarily so much an Eastern judgment of damnation upon the West (that judgment is reserved for God alone) but rather an act of tough-love and a disciplinary withholding of communion (some ex-communication is driven by legitimate disciplinary concerns, some is driven by legitimate theological concerns) to encourage our separated Western bretheren to reflect upon the error of their ways and to provide and ark of safety for correct fatih and praxis. Thus, the import of this analyis is that the East-West breach in inter-communion is a disciplinary matter, not a dogmatic one (though non-eucharistic dogmatic differences do exist). Hence, in extraordinary circumstances involving extreme necessity, Latins have been allowed to receive in Eastern Church and visa versa. Two better known historical examples are the last communion in Hagia Sophia and Concentration Camp communions during the Second World War. This type of exceptional practice would absurd and null and void if Cyprian self-admitted innovation were the teaching of the Apostolic Church.

In sum, what I am suggesting is that there is a sense in which all Trinitarian, Incarnational Christian churches are in communion though invisible, spiritual unity in Christ and a sense in which we are not in communion, e.g., visible communion. To use a modern concept, perhaps schismatic Christians ought to be considered real or true Christians in bad standing with the Church, which is not necessarily in-and-of itself damning but which is risky and ought to be repented where practicalable. That is, schism in its ancient meaning (i.e. herectical or herterodox Christian) constitute a state of venial sin, but heresay in its anceint sense (i.e., apostacy) is a mortal one.

More than my two cents worth.

Thanks for that, Matt. Much to digest there.

" For Anglican theology, I imagine an "official" place to look in the US might be the ECUSA web page."

Or it might not, as ECUSA is NOT, and I repeat, NOT the entire Anglican church.

This is part of what I find frustrating about this debate. ECUSA's views and theology are NOT representative of the WORLDWIDE Anglican Communion.

Making judgements about the AC based solely on ECUSA is not valid.

This is not to say that there are not issues within the whole Communion, but to start with ECUSA and finish with ECUSA ONLY tells you something about ECUSA. It tells you nothing about Anglicans in Nigeria, Japan, or New Zealand.

Yes the AC is fragmented. Yes there are huge problems that orthodox Anglicans have to struggle with. But we cannot and should not be judged on what ECUSA says or does.

Shawn

we cannot and should not be judged on what ECUSA says or does.

So long as you continue in eucharistic fellowship with ECUSA, you are participating in her apostasy. To commune at the altar of a given Church body is - by that act itself - to confess the faith of that body. For a time, it is permissible to continue in communion while protesting the errors of doctrine and practice, in hopes of calling the erring Church to repentance, orthodoxy, and orthopraxis - what we Lutherans call in statu confessionis. But that is a temporary condition, measured in months and years rather than in decades and centuries. If you continue in communion with a heretical body after it becomes clear that it will not repent, you are confessing its heretical teachings whether you will or no.

It is now thirty years since ECUSA's definitive break with Catholic faith and order. It is past time to cut them off, for the sake of the integrity of the Gospel.