Skip to comments.Metropolitan Jonah calls for Full Communion With New Anglican Province
Posted on 06/24/2009 6:07:43 PM PDT by bobjam
Speaking on Wednesday morning to the ACNA Assembly, His Beatitude, Jonah, Metropolitan of All America and Canada and leader of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), called for a "full... intercommunion" with the Anglican Church in North America. "What will it take," he asked, "for a true ecumenical reconciliation? That is what I am seeking by being with you today."
This marks the potential resumption of an Orthodox/Anglican dialogue that began a hundred years ago between two missionary bishops, St. Tikhon of Moscow and Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac, only to be broken off in the 1970s with the ordination of women. Metropolitan Jonah spoke as the successor of Tikhon, "I come to you as the successor of Tikhon... with the same openness, the same invitation, the same love and desire to unify Anglicanism and Orthodoxy."
What would it take for this reconciliation to occur? The Metropolitan was explicit:.
Full affirmation of the orthodox Faith of the Apostles and Church Fathers, the seven Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed in its original form (without the filioque clause inserted at the Council of Toledo, 589 A.D.), all seven Sacraments and a rejection of 'the heresies of the Reformation."
His Beatitude listed these in a series of 'isms'; Calvinism, anti-sacramentalism, iconoclasm and Gnosticism. The ordination of women to the Presbyterate and their consecration as Bishops has to end if intercommunion is to occur.
These are controversial words, especially given the make up of the Assembly, which is admittedly divided on key issues such as the ordination of women, the nature and number of the Sacraments and perhaps the essential character of the Church itself. Still, the delegates welcomed his candor with applause, perhaps because His Beatitude was self-evidently "speaking the truth with love." Less controversially, he called for a true renunciation of sin and immorality, "We must eliminate any shred of immorality in our lives," not least because sin "kills and maims the soul," likewise immorality, which destroys the soul and "demoralizes our culture." Coming from a faith tradition fully alive to the aggressive threat of militant Islam, the Metropolitan issued the following warning:; a culture demoralized by immorality "cannot stand up to the strict asceticism of Islam."
He then spoke to the current blurring of gender identity. Homosexualism not only "destroys authentic masculinity, it destroys authentic womanhood." Again, "gay ideology is neither from nurture or nature... we cannot accept their lifestyle or validate their unions." These are not something healthy, but "something to be healed". His Beatitude was equally emphatic on abortion, "Abortion not only rips out the soul of the fetus from the body of a woman, it rips out her own soul also... We must stand together in an absolute condemnation of abortion." The Assembly rose in thunderous acclamation. There should be no doubt whatsoever that ACNA stands for the life of the unborn child.
The Metropolitan's words on the unity of the Church were equally well received. We must find, "unity of vision, unity of life, unity of being in Jesus Christ" in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is to be found in true orthodoxy, which means, for Jonah at least, not simply "right opinion", but also "right glory", which is discovered in the worship of God. This gives the faithful entry into the liturgy of the Angels and Saints as revealed to Moses, Ezekiel and St. John, being a true participation on earth in the worship of heaven. The same meeting of heaven and earth is to be found in the Church; this "is not simply human, it is divine," and to be believed in as we believe in Jesus Himself - not merely as a man made institution, who may or may not "like the same prayer Book", but as the organic union of Christians with Our Savior in the Body of Christ. Again, this met with spontaneous applause.
The same approval was given to his Beatitude's description of faith and the necessity of surrendering to Christ.
"Faith... is the knowledge of the heart (that) I have died and my life is hidden in the heart of God... it is only Jesus that matters."
This means a total self-oblation:
"We have to surrender to God in the depths of our being," and this "is that spiritual quest... to be transformed by the Spirit." The corollary of this is radical forgiveness and a giving up of all resentments against those "who have offended... abused... (and) slandered you... When you forgive like that, you liken yourself to Jesus Christ."
This, in the end, was at the heart of Metropolitan's message. He called on ACNA to embrace Christ in His totality - in His Church and Sacraments, in the Faith and Morals handed down by Jesus Himself to the faithful throughout the ages, and in that true repentance which is nothing other than complete surrender of self to the mind and Person of Our Lord. With such a spirit in place, his vision of unity between loyal Anglicans and Orthodoxy may be realized. There can be no question that the invitation is on the table, and the prize is big, nothing less than the recognized integration of the Anglican Church in North America with historic Catholicism. Will ACNA rise to the challenge?
He left out openly gay clergy and married bishops.
That is one misleading headline!
Metropolitan Jonah is only calling for the resumption of discussions, NOT for Full Communion!
Big, big difference!
No, I think that’s in there when he calls for their return to the Seven Councils.
He can’t knock them on the head quite so openly, not this early anyway.
Yes, parts of ACNA have women priests. They are in the minority. With the right approach, we can isolate it and grandfather the whole thing out.
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.
FReepmail Huber or sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by Huber and sionnsar.
Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue
Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15
K, any take on this?
There will be trouble with these as the parishes I represent that are coming out are modified Calvinists and there is a question as to the number and efficiency of the sacraments. That holds true with a number of parishes that are part of the Anglican Church in North America.
This needs to get in line after Jurisdictional unity.
You have your Anglicans confused. The new Anglican Church of North America was formed by groups that left The Episcopal Church just because it shows its rejection of Scripture, exactly by ordaining openly homosexual clergy (and bishops...). These are people who have sacrificed a LOT in order to leave the apostate TEC. Many if not most of the ACNA congregations and bishops are being sued by the deep pockets of TEC...
The Orthodox have many married clergy—why one would absolutely exclude Bishops from marriage doesn’t seem consistent with either scripture or ancient tradition.
Anglican founding documents, especially the Thirty-nine Articles, are very Reformed however, and Anglicanism has been, since the 1500s a kind of “Reformed Catholicism.” Hence there is very little chance Calvinism (read ‘Reformed’) will be condemned by any Anglican body any time soon...
Just to be clear, ALL the groups and individuals making up the ACNA condemn homosexual behavior—and they certainly do NOT ordain active homosexuals.
As I tried to state above, that’s the main reason (or the straw that broke the camel’s back...) they are separated from TEC.
Thank you. I stand corrected. In my defense, I don't keep up with endless schisms in the Protestant world.
The Orthodox have many married clergywhy one would absolutely exclude Bishops from marriage doesnt seem consistent with either scripture or ancient tradition.
You are right. I suppose they could work something out, given that it is a discipline and not a matter of theology. In the East the bishops are drawn from monastic ranks (and an occasional widowed priest), so celibacy is a given (Orthodox priests must be married before receiving holy orders, so widowed priests cannot re-marry).
But, again, this is discipline more than theology, so I agree that this should not be an obstacle no matter how alien it may seem to the East.
Anglican founding documents, especially the Thirty-nine Articles, are very Reformed however, and Anglicanism has been, since the 1500s a kind of Reformed Catholicism. Hence there is very little chance Calvinism (read Reformed) will be condemned by any Anglican body any time soon
Now we are talking theological "meat" and I'd say no amount of chewing on this morsel will get the Orthodox to swallow it. That in itself makes even raising the issue of any intercommunion dead on arrival.
Yes, I gathered that much. But why do they "ordain" women?
RE our discussion yesterday, the Metropolitan believes the seven sacraments are indeed important...
“K, any take on this?”
I’m a bit surprised it was Met. Jonah who spoke to the Anglicans. If this new group is actually interested pursuing thee discussions, they would do better to be speaking with +Demetrios and +Philip. Beyond that, I think the Orthodox Church is open to anyone who wishes to embrace Orthodoxy.
As I have said to you, s, it has been my experience that Episopalians take to Orthodoxy much easier and quicker than people from other particular churches or ecclesial groups. There is a remnant of a very ancient Anglo Orthodox mindset there which flowers in an Orthodox setting, though to the extent that this group is made up of bd’s (good to see you bd!) clients, I don’t see a wholesale acceptance of Eastern Christian theology which of course is the sine qua non of any unity.
The experience of Orthodoxy with the reception of large groups here in America has been mixed. When thousands of Carpatho Russians came into Orthodoxy in the late 19th century, that worked out fine. The reception of a large group which styled itself as “Evangelical Orthodox” in 1987 has been, at best, a mixed blessing. The Carpatho Russians were all but Orthodox anyway; the Evangelical group is still very, very Western in its mindset and tends to preach a Western, even Protestant sort of atonement theology which while probably not heretical, is foreign to Orthodoxy. I’d say the conservative Episcopalians fall somewhere in between, but much nearer the Carpatho Russians than the Evangelicals.
I trust that Met. Jonah isn’t anticipating an expansion of “Western Rite Orthodoxy”. That won’t fly among even the Antiochians. Otherwise, I think the OCA metropolitan has set out the usual requirements for becoming Orthodox and this new group may well want to consider it.
Metropolitan Jonah was once an Episcopal priest and he is the successor of St Tikhon (whom the Episcopalians are adding to their calendar of saints next month). He, more than anyone else, can serve as a “bridge figure” between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy,
I took the time last night read the 39 Articles of Religion again. It is interesting to note that Article XIX declares the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome to have erred. It does not say anything about the Church of Constantinople. It is important to know that Anglicans have never had problems with the Orthodox. No Archbishop of Canterbury was ever murdered in the name of Orthodoxy (unlike Archbishops Cranmer and Laud).
The ACNA Constitution affirms the the teachings of the first four councils of the undivided Church and the Christological clarifications of the fifth, sixth and seventh councils. Icons are not unusual in Anglican churches, but they are not central to worship like in Orthodoxy.
I think the biggest obstacle for Anglicans embracing Orthodoxy is not theology, but culture.
Why don't you state what the Anglican theology is (if there is such a thing as one Anglican theology) and Kolo and I can tell you if it is cultural, theological or both.
I was already reminded on this thread that the Anglicans are predominantly (the operant word!) Calivinist in their theology. That in itself is a DOA difference that preculdes any interocmmunion unless one side gives up its theology in all but dogma of Trinity and Chriostology.
Where do Anglicans stand on Mariology? Intermediate state of the souls? Original Sin? Real Presence? Sacraments? Procession of the Spirit? And so on.
I would say that Anglicans and Orthodox share a lot precisely in their culture, superficially, and differ irreocncilibly in their thoelogies, exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Anglicans like ecclesial tradition, they are liturgical, and the High Church is in some ways "older" than the NO Catholic Church today.
So, they find a lot in common with the tradition-bound Orthodoxy. But this is just the surface; what's underneath is as different as night and day.
“Metropolitan Jonah was once an Episcopal priest and he is the successor of St Tikhon (whom the Episcopalians are adding to their calendar of saints next month).”
I am aware that Met. Jonah is both a convert and a former Episcopalian priest. I had not heard, but am not surprised, to hear that he claims to be the successor of +Tikhon. The Russian Orthodox Church as well as the Greek Orthodox Church likely disagree.
“He, more than anyone else, can serve as a bridge figure between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy,”
What is it with Western Christians and bridges to Orthodoxy? The Latins have tried that with the Uniates...with absolutely no success at all.
“I took the time last night read the 39 Articles of Religion again. It is interesting to note that Article XIX declares the Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome to have erred. It does not say anything about the Church of Constantinople.”
That’s odd; an oversight perhaps? There is absolutely no difference in the theology of the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem and that of Constantinople. With Rome, of course, there is.
“Icons are not unusual in Anglican churches, but they are not central to worship like in Orthodoxy.”
So I have seen but the Anglicans at least of Elizabeth’s era and for a couple of centuries thereafter were committed iconolclast heretics.
“I think the biggest obstacle for Anglicans embracing Orthodoxy is not theology, but culture.”
I agree with Kosta. There is a sort of Anglo Orthodox mindset surviving in Anglicanism extending back to the pre-Council of Whitby era. That makes it easier for Anglicans to become fully Orthodox than for others. Culture at other levels, as in ethnicity, is another matter entirely. That can be a problem but with a little humility it can be overcome. Theology is the real problem. Yours is sort of an amalgam of Latin and Reformed and as such really is very, very different from Orthodoxy. Met. Tikhon may wish it were otherwise, but its not and the OCA is in no position whatsoever, especially since the reunion of ROCOR with Moscow, to change that.
All ACNA groups currently have a moratorium on ordaining women—because conservatives like me believe it is both against scriptural instructions from Saint Paul, and universal tradition. At the same time, they are not un-ordaining any women either—and female ordination proponents see the current moratorium as temporary...
The reason some individuals and leaderswould like to ordain women—even though they are evangelical, and take the bible seriously—is, I think:
A) They don’t take Saint Paul’s instructions as cross-cultural for all time...they see them merely for the church at that time, not ours (a hermanuetically very dangerous place to be, IMHO—especially for New Testament passages.)
B) Charismatic Christians have a big influence on Anglicans, as it was the Charismatics that brought evangelicalism BACK into the Episcopal Church in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Charismatics have never been very big on either tight scriptural hermeneutics or, tradition...(quite anti-traditional, actually).
One more thing, regarding all the huge number of splits amidst Protestants: Other than the Methodists, over 200 years ago, and, a small group of evangelicals (called the Reformed Episcopalians) over 100 years ago, there have been no great splits away from the Anglican Communion.
The Reformed Episcopalians Church too, is an enthusiastic part of ACNA—so in a sense is coming home—so really that just leaves us with the Methodists departed.
I wonder what Orthodox would do, if you had the likes of Katherine Schori (or her male equivalent) and her apostate gang—with no chance of being disciplined or removed—ruling over you?
“I wonder what Orthodox would do, if you had the likes of Katherine Schori (or her male equivalent) and her apostate gangwith no chance of being disciplined or removedruling over you?”
No need to wonder what Orthodox Christians would do. Orthodox Christians wouldn’t be in that situation. The ecclesiology of The Church doesn’t allow for it, at least not for long.
He was raised Epsicopalian, but converted in college after reading The Orthodox Way. He had great difficulty in finding an Orthodox priest who would instruct him, very much like the difficulties that Kalistos Ware himself experienced.
Metropolitan Jonah lived in Russia as a monk, and then founded a monastery in California.
Also to comment on one of your earlier postings on this thread, while some former EOC parishes may preach atonement theology, I can state from personal experience that not all do.
Forgive me, brother.
Why even invite Met. Jonah to speak of any intercommunion then? Why not invite him when intercommunion actually might be possible, that iswhen the ACNA is ready to mee t the requirements? Are they hoping that intercommunion will be possible through some horse-trade compromise, with the Orthodox giving up something, and the Anglicans giving up a measured dose to make it even?
Look, whatever the reason(s) for some Anglicans approving "ordaining" women, it's dead on arrival, period. Whether they think Paul's instructions reflect social norms of that time, or whether it's Charismatic snake-bearing, poison-drinking charlatans "speaking" in Klingon, it's a non-starter. No Orthodox Church will take any intercommunion initiative seriously as long as there are Anglicans holding such views, and practices.
There are tens of thousands of "denominations" in the Protestant community, and growing. They all differ in some way from the one's they split from. Schism is routine in that world. Anglican assemblies are a loose heterodox community, theologically and otherwise. Among them are "churches" that actually question or openly deny the divinity of Christ.
Together with all sorts of other theological hyperboles, women "bishops" and what not, who can take this community seriously, or for that matter any of the thousands of "denominations?" How can you be sure what you are dealing with theologically and canonically?
The Reformed Episcopalians Church too, is an enthusiastic part of ACNAso in a sense is coming homeso really that just leaves us with the Methodists departed.
Well, that's my point. Fore the Orthodox there is no room for intercommunion with any religious assembly holding on enthusiastically to any aspect of the Reformed theology, save for the dogma of Trinity and Christology. When we speak of Anglicans or Episcopelians, God only knows which theological brand are we talking about!
I wonder what Orthodox would do, if you had the likes of Katherine Schori (or her male equivalent) and her apostate gangwith no chance of being disciplined or removedruling over you?
The truth, also, is that the Orthodox would never be in such a position. No one forces you to be "ruled" by someone like her (I had to look up sho she is because I never heard of her). If you are properly baptized, you can always return to the Church.
Well, yes and no. He called for discussions which would have the aim of full communion, if, and this is a big if, the Anglicans could show themselves to confess the Orthodox Faith and have sufficient fidelity to orthopraxis.
Among other things, they would have to drop the filioque (and understand why, theologically, not just formally), convince us that their understanding of the Anglican doctrine of the Real Presence conforms to the Orthodox understanding of the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and not permit the priesting of women. There was more to what he set as conditions, but those struck me as the key points.
Basically his point is these seem to really be the sort of Anglicans that Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac was (and mistakenly believed his fellow-Anglicans in those days to be), so talks with a goal of full communion make sense. They may not succeed, but they are worth trying.
While many of the CANA congregations left TEC, the AMiA congregations were usually new church plants and an unusually high number of their congregants and clergy were never Episcopalians
But AnalogReigns tells me that "ordination" of women in ACNA is on hold (temporarily), and that no one "ordained" woman is being defrocked. In fact, the Anglican Community is chaired by a woman "bishop."
Likewise, ACNA is theology either Reformist or neo-Reformist in whole or in part. The Anglican assemblies are a heterodox group of theologically diverse groups that are (theologically) alien to Orthodoxy. So, the ultimate question, which Met. Jonas didn't even mention, is: Why even bother talking about intercmmunion?
Speaking as a conservative cradle Low Church Episcopalian (Evangelical Wing), I think you’re right as rain.
Our theology is Protestant but our form of Worship is Liturgical. But get underneath the superficial similarities in the Worship there is a world of difference.
For starters, the number of Sacrements, 2 vs 7. No Mariology is another. Some of the “Higher” Episcopalians believe in the “Real Presence” but many don’t.
I think if these people want to become Orthodox they should just do so. Why would they want an “Anglican” Church within the Orthodox Church? Doesn’t make sense to me.
I personally have been attending a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and am very happy with it. It’s very similiar to my old Episcopal Church both in Theology and the order of Service.
And FWIW, I understand their disgust with the Episcopal Church.
“I think if these people want to become Orthodox they should just do so.”
“Why would they want an Anglican Church within the Orthodox Church?”
We wouldn’t, though there is a Rite among the Antiochians which sort of mimics an Anglican liturgy. At one point in time it was thought it might have a future. Turns out most converts want to be fully Orthodox with Orthopraxis, not sort of Orthodox pretending they are still Anglicans.
“Doesnt make sense to me.”
Nor to me.
“Metropolitan Jonah was never an Episcopal priest.”
I appreciate the G2. In my metropolis, his actions are sometimes explained by saying he is a former Epsicopalian priest. Some much for that!
“Also to comment on one of your earlier postings on this thread, while some former EOC parishes may preach atonement theology, I can state from personal experience that not all do.”
I am pleased to hear that. I trust the trend towards Orthodox preaching will continue among former EOC groups. With any luck at all it will penetrate into Ancient Faith Radio.
“Forgive me, brother.”
Never fear! You’ve written nothing you need forgiveness from me for, my brother!
The Episcopal Church (TEC) of the USA is chaired by a woman--and ACNA is made up of the groups which have LEFT TEC, and, like the majority in Anglican provinces world-wide, has NO COMMUNION with TEC. The leadership of TEC is actively suing many (MANY)congregations who have left for their property, and is claiming to defrock...any and all clergy and bishops who have come under the separate jurisdiction of ACNA. In short TEC is doing all in its power to persecute ACNA... SO PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THEM!
TEC with womens' ordination and a woman at the head--and apostate in many (other) ways (such as the approval of sodomy) is the bad guy...ACNA without these, is not. This really isn't all that complicated.
And yes, Anglicans historically have adhered to the doctrines of grace propounded by Saint Augustine of Hippo, and the Councils of Orange (AD 441 & 529), all of which I'm aware the Eastern Churches reject. However, just because we're not Eastern, doesn't make us heterodox.
Anglican Christianity goes back at least as far as Saint Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with his namesake of Hippo, above)of the 500s, and archeological evidence proves Christianity goes back into the 2nd Century at least, if not before, in Britain.
Yes also, thank God, it was reformed (and rescued, really) in the 16th Century, by the grace of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The key figures who reformed Anglicanism in the 1500s were virtually all martyred by fire for their faith.
Good to hear from you again.
Before becoming Patriarch of Moscow, St Tikhon was head of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, which is now OCA. Metropolitan Jonah is currently head of OCA. I know the Russians and Greeks debate which has primacy in America- the Russians cite Alaska and the Greeks cite New Smyrna.
The Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc, often called “Oriental Orthodox”, are historically monophysite. They broke from Constantinole and Rome in 451 because they could not accept the Definition of Chalcedon.
In the 16th Century, while the Western Church, at least on paper, held correct teachings regarding images and invocation of saints, popular piety in the parishes was completely different. By the time of Luther, actual practice regarding images and saints had become indistinguishable from idolotry and polytheism. And Church leaders did nothing to correct it. That is why Protestant and Anglican leaders removed the icons and relics (althought they did not eliminate stained glass windows). Icons are not evil, and in and of themselves have never been held to be evil. It was the excesses of “Romish doctrines and practices conerning them” that prompted Anglicans to get rid of them for a few centuries.
“Before becoming Patriarch of Moscow, St Tikhon was head of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, which is now OCA.”
The Russian Orthodox Church is nothing more nor less that the Russian Orthodox Church, no matter where its temples are located. The OCA is not the Russian Orthodox Church in America. It purports to be an autocephallous church, the autocephally of which is not recognized by Constantinople and the majority of the rest of the Orthodox Churches. The Russian Church does recognize its autocephally.
“Metropolitan Jonah is currently head of OCA. I know the Russians and Greeks debate which has primacy in America- the Russians cite Alaska and the Greeks cite New Smyrna.”
That’s not the issue regarding the OCA.
“The Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc, often called Oriental Orthodox, are historically monophysite. They broke from Constantinole and Rome in 451 because they could not accept the Definition of Chalcedon.”
There were and are churches which claim the titles of Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch which are indeed monophysite. They are not the thoroughly and continually Orthodox Patriarchates of those cities which are quite alive and thriving. BTW, there is regular intercommunion between the monophysites and most of the Orthodox churches by economia since the early 1990s.
“It was the excesses of Romish doctrines and practices conerning them that prompted Anglicans to get rid of them for a few centuries.”
What precisely were those practices? Were they any different from the practices of, say, my parish today here in America? Iconoclasm is a declared heresy and given the declaration of the 7th Ecumenical Council, easy to avoid.
“We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of veneration and honor ( timitiki proskynisis ), but not of real worship ( latreia ), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in it the reality for which it stands.”
Who represents the "majority in Anglican provinces?"
In short TEC is doing all in its power to persecute ACNA... SO PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE THEM!
I think it's a little too much to ask of nayone not directly involved in this chaotic "church" to keep track of who is who in it. If TEC is perscuting ACNA, it seems to me the TEC is the power to recon with and the ACNA a victimized splinter.
TEC with womens' ordination and a woman at the head--and apostate in many (other) ways (such as the approval of sodomy) is the bad guy...ACNA without these, is not. This really isn't all that complicated
But "priested" women make both "good?"
And yes, Anglicans historically have adhered to the doctrines of grace propounded by Saint Augustine of Hippo, and the Councils of Orange (AD 441 & 529), all of which I'm aware the Eastern Churches reject. However, just because we're not Eastern, doesn't make us heterodox
Augstine of Hippo is a minor Saint in the Orthodox Church. His teachings on the original sin, grace, etc. were rejected by the East. Augustine's hypothesies were never dogmatized by any Ecumenical Council. The Council of Orange was a local council and therefore not binding on the whole Church.
Anglican Christianity goes back at least as far as Saint Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with his namesake of Hippo, above)of the 500s, and archeological evidence proves Christianity goes back into the 2nd Century at least, if not before, in Britain
What makes it "Anglican" rather than Catholic? As far as I know, the Chuch in England was Catholic at that time. and archeological evidence proves Christianity goes back into the 2nd Century at least, if not before, in Britain
And your point is?
Yes also, thank God, it was reformed (and rescued, really) in the 16th Century, by the grace of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Church in England was "Reformed" before the Reformnation?
I think you are wondering off the topic...
Sorry, but I disagree. I don’t believe it’s possible because Orthodoxy is not going to budge from their Holy Tradition. The Anglicans will have to shift dramatically from their current position on many things doctrinally.
“Turns out most converts want to be fully Orthodox with Orthopraxis, not sort of Orthodox pretending they are still Anglicans.”
Interesting you say that because as a non-liturgical evangelical I wouldn’t have known the difference in liturgies initially anyways. I simply knew that Holy Orthodoxy was the truth, and I wanted to be where Christ and the Saints were. Which liturgy was being served would not have even registered on my radar.
“Interesting you say that because as a non-liturgical evangelical I wouldnt have known the difference in liturgies initially anyways.”
When the Western Rite liturgy was developed, it was intentionally designed for Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. I doubt people thought that there would be any stream of conversions from evangelical Protestantism. Of course evangelical Protestantism has provided very, very many of our converts and as they are non-liturgical, they seem to take to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy just fine, having no preconceived notions about such matters, as you point out.