Topic: Why the Orthodox Affinity for Anglicans?

[PeterTheAleut]

So what? Apart from an apparent fixation you have for communism?

To whom is this directed?

Not to you. Peace

I knew it wasn't directed at me. The context just didn't make clear whom you were talking to, though it seems a bit clearer now. Quoting other people does go a long way toward identifying the parties in a conversation.

[Ebor]

especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce.

Gebre, I am sorry to correct this error, but it was not.  There has been more than one thread on OC.net as well as good histories of Tudor England and other sources that explain the situation.  I will go find a particular thread from a couple of years ago that covered this.

It was a matter of annulment. This was something that had been done for many other royal and noble families and the crux of the matter was having a male heir.

Ebor

[Ebor]

...Especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce....

Actually, King Henry VIII tried to get his marriage annulled after finding out that his wife was actually his half-sister.

LOL. Sister-in-law, you mean.

Yes I caught that just after my time ran out for the edit.

And he did not just suddenly find that out. He was well aware, as was all of the royal court, when he married her.

Your glasses are extremely rosy, buddy.

Please enlighten us with a source for this revelation.

Here is a link to a thread from 2007 in which the real history of Henry Tudor, his older brother Arthur (who would have been king but died young, a common occurrence then) who was married to Catherine of Aragon and the general situation: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13426.0.html

If you have any questions I will be willing to try and answer them.

Ebor

[Ebor]

You'll find lots of Orthodox converts who went through an Episcopalian phase.

While many people around here like to jump on the bash-the-'piskies bandwagon as soon as Anglicanism is mentioned like they get to skip a Toll House for insulting Episcopal clergy (seriously, start a thread about Episcopalians and see how long it takes for someone to say "priestess"), some folks look back at their time in the Episcopal church as a flawed but ultimately fruitful time that helped them come to Orthodoxy. So there's going to be some affinity for the system that, in its own way, helped them come to the truth.

Thank you for this, Agabus. 

And as to people using the word "priestess" since many occupations are not delineated by sex (doctoress? No) and the term is not used by those who are ordained that I have ever encountered and there can be negative connotations to the term, it might indeed be construed to be an insult under a pretext.   

Your comment on the Toll House gave me a chuckle.  Thank you.

[Ebor]

My status is not exactly Orthodox... let's call is complex... but my position now is essentially the same as when I was/am/will be Orthodox... and I do have an affinity for Anglicans. Of course  "Anglican" is not a thing in itself, apart from the actual people that constitute the group. Thus I like some Anglicans more than others. I like some theology more than others. I like some practices more than others. And so forth. It's hard to speak of an entire group as though it's all in lock step, especially one that has tens of millions, and especially when such diversity is allowed within the group. Maybe this diversity plays into one reason I like "Anglicans" though: because I can pick and choose which ones I am talking about when I say I like them. And maybe that's why some people can dismiss them so easily: because they can pick and choose to speak mainly of the ones who do things and say things and believe things they are vehemently against. When I think Anglican I think of people like Ebor. I like Ebor, not just as an intelligent person, but as a religious person. Other people maybe think of Bp. Spong when they think of Anglican.

Gosh.. Shuffle shuffle 

Thank you. That was nice to read.    

[William]

Ebor's glasses are rose-tinted, too.

[Peter J]

especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce.

Gebre, I am sorry to correct this error, but it was not. 

Well, I guess if they're going to say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054, it kinda makes sense for them to also make the above statement.

[Ebor]

Ebor's glasses are rose-tinted, too.

In what way, please?  Would you please explain what you may perceive as historical errors related to the general situation of England, the succession and the Bishop of Rome in the Tudor era?  Or is there some other area in which you think that my "eyesight" is impaired?  I have not addressed anything in the way of "affinity" that I can see.

Thank you in advance.

Ebor

[William]

Ebor's glasses are rose-tinted, too.

In what way, please?  Would you please explain what you may perceive as historical errors related to the general situation of England, the succession and the Bishop of Rome in the Tudor era?  Or is there some other area in which you think that my "eyesight" is impaired?  I have not addressed anything in the way of "affinity" that I can see.

Thank you in advance.

Ebor

Your explanation isn't incorrect but it doesn't really address the moral bankruptness of the whole affair.

[PeterTheAleut]

Ebor's glasses are rose-tinted, too.

In what way, please?  Would you please explain what you may perceive as historical errors related to the general situation of England, the succession and the Bishop of Rome in the Tudor era?  Or is there some other area in which you think that my "eyesight" is impaired?  I have not addressed anything in the way of "affinity" that I can see.

Thank you in advance.

Ebor

Your explanation isn't incorrect but it doesn't really address the moral bankruptness of the whole affair.

Such as...

[KostaC]

I have a question:

Of all the Protestant denominations, why does the Orthodox Church seem to have more affinity for Anglicans than all others? The Anglican church seems to have deviated further from Orthodox values than any other mainstream denomination. They even elect homosexual "bishops." So, I am confused as to why we Orthodox seem to profess more kinship with Anglicans than other Protestant denominations - especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce. All I can surmise is that the Anglicans are at least sacramental, but the Lutherans are too. And I personally have more respect for those that deny the sacraments than for those who profess to validate the sacraments while teaching demonic heresies. Can you guys help me understand? Forgive my ignorance.


Selam

I was going to respond to this last night, but I thought that anything that I had to say had already been said.

But that's never stopped me before, nor will it in this case. My own personal reason for having been an ardent Anglicanophile (until recently) was that I saw High Church (and conservative) Anglicanism as sort of the closest denomination of Western Christianity closest to us, and a close friend of mine and a visit or two to Washington D.C.'s Saint Paul on K Street really hit that notion of mine home. It seemed like a match made in Heaven, it did; they don't have the idea of One Bishop to Rule Them All, they retained the old Sarum Rite, they believe that the consecrated host was truly the Body and Blood of Christ without trying to prove it logically and stating that is a Sacred Mystery like we say, what wasn't there to love (It didn't help that at the time, I loved reading about the English Civil War and my Britanophilia grew stronger as I tried to get in-touch with my Northern Irish roots because I resented being simply known as "the Greek" and nothing more)? Plus, the book written about the Cathedral of Holy Wisdom in London that the dean of the Cathedral gave me really showed me that traditionally, Anglicanism was Orthodoxy's strongest ally. It wasn't the Church of England sending in Jesuits to convert our folk to Catholicism by coercion or force, nor was it the Church of England that sent in embassadors to try to gain the ear of His All Holiness in order for him to change our theology so that it would be more pleasing in their Church's eyes like the Lutherans and Calvinists tried to do. Hey, they even let us open a church in London and gave us our own college at Oxford (called rather imaginatively, "the Greek College of Oxford"). I also read in a book I found on Google that Protestants zealously tried to convert Greek immigrants without a church in the area to their own sect, whereas the Anglicans of these United States actually played it rather cool and tried no such thing. The Anglican Church truly seemed to be made up of nice people, friendly people.

But then of course, well Anglo-Catholics don't make up the entire Anglican Communion, and Latitudinarianism gave us all the variations of Anglicanism that we see today. The bishops decreed that the faithful without churches in the Great Plains could no longer attend Episcopalian churches as substitutes, and the love between our Churches became unrequited.

Also, I do not think that we can simply chalk up the birth of the Church of England to a divorce. The divorce was simply the casus belli for the King of England to assert his dominance over the Church in England, much like the King of France had done with the phenomenon known as Gallicanism. When the Pope of Rome was afraid to grant him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon because the backlash from Iberia might be too much for the Church (and possibly Western Europe as a whole) to handle, well Henry formed the Church of England as a response. England's journey into Protestantism wasn't a convenient excuse for Henry, as there had been Reformers in England and Scotland alike (I know that there's a site at the University of Saint Andrews where a Reformer was burned at the stake before the foundation of the Church of England, and the Lollards were considered proto-Protestants), so again, Protestantism in England doesn't owe its creation to the divorce between King Henry VIII Tudor and Catherine d'Aragon. Simple nitpick, though, religion always seems to be a complicated issue, and if you can sum up an event and all that means in a sentence, I personally believe that it might not all be true.

[PeterTheAleut]

especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce.

Gebre, I am sorry to correct this error, but it was not. 

Well, I guess if they're going to say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054, it kinda makes sense for them to also make the above statement.

They? Who are they? Gebre speaks only for himself.

[JamesR]

Probably because for a period of time, union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening, but then the liberalization occurred and ruined it. I suppose the affinity for Anglicans is probably rooted in the lost hope that maybe the closeness we once had will return.

[JamesR]

I have more of an affinity for atheism and irreligion than I think I do any other group. Mostly due to the fact that I used to feel the same way they did for quite a while. Maybe it's the same with the Orthodox and Anglicans. I know many of the Orthodox converts here went through some Anglican/Episcopal Liberaldox Larry stage. I guess it's not too surprising that many of them would feel close to the Anglican Church.

[TheTrisagion]

especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce.

Gebre, I am sorry to correct this error, but it was not. 

Well, I guess if they're going to say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054, it kinda makes sense for them to also make the above statement.

They? Who are they? Gebre speaks only for himself.

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church.   

[PeterTheAleut]

especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce.

Gebre, I am sorry to correct this error, but it was not. 

Well, I guess if they're going to say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054, it kinda makes sense for them to also make the above statement.

They? Who are they? Gebre speaks only for himself.

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church.   

Are you quoting me or Peter J?

[TheTrisagion]

Peter J, sorry.

[Peter J]

especially since the Anglican church was essentially founded upon the sin of divorce.

Gebre, I am sorry to correct this error, but it was not. 

Well, I guess if they're going to say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054, it kinda makes sense for them to also make the above statement.

They? Who are they? Gebre speaks only for himself.

Touche.

They Some Orthodox say that the Roman Catholic Church was founded in 1054.

[Peter J]

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church. 

Hold on a sec, I just need to make a quick phone call ...

Okay, what were you saying about the Jesuits?

[TheTrisagion]

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church.

Hold on a sec, I just need to make a quick phone call ...

Okay, what were you saying about the Jesuits?

Why do you think the emminent scholar, Jack Chick, is in hiding?  It is because of the illuminati Jesuit plot to stifle the truth about the Whore of Babylon.  

_{I especially like the part about jesuits sneaking into Bible Schools to subvert them.  Brilliant!}

[Agabus]

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church.

Hold on a sec, I just need to make a quick phone call ...

Okay, what were you saying about the Jesuits?

Why do you think the emminent scholar, Jack Chick, is in hiding?  It is because of the illuminati Jesuit plot to stifle the truth about the Whore of Babylon.  

_{I especially like the part about jesuits sneaking into Bible Schools to subvert them.  Brilliant!}

What if Jack Chick is a Jesuit agent provocateur?

[TheTrisagion]

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church.

Hold on a sec, I just need to make a quick phone call ...

Okay, what were you saying about the Jesuits?

Why do you think the emminent scholar, Jack Chick, is in hiding?  It is because of the illuminati Jesuit plot to stifle the truth about the Whore of Babylon.  

_{I especially like the part about jesuits sneaking into Bible Schools to subvert them.  Brilliant!}

What if Jack Chick is a Jesuit agent provocateur?

The plot thickens!  dun-dun-dun 

[PeterTheAleut]

Nonsense, the RC Church did not start in 1054. I quote the esteemed and much learned scholar, Jack Chick.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible. That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles. That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools. Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Now we know the TRUTH about the Roman Catholic Church.

Hold on a sec, I just need to make a quick phone call ...

Okay, what were you saying about the Jesuits?

Why do you think the emminent scholar, Jack Chick, is in hiding?  It is because of the illuminati Jesuit plot to stifle the truth about the Whore of Babylon.  

_{I especially like the part about jesuits sneaking into Bible Schools to subvert them.  Brilliant!}

What if Jack Chick is a Jesuit agent provocateur?

The plot thickens!  dun-dun-dun 

If you wish to pursue this theory any farther, please do so by starting another thread. Thanks.

[Nicene]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

[JamesRottnek]

Probably because for a period of time, union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening, but then the liberalization occurred and ruined it. I suppose the affinity for Anglicans is probably rooted in the lost hope that maybe the closeness we once had will return.

I'd like to see any actual evidence that it was close to happening.

[FormerReformer]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

[Nicene]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

They being?

[Peter J]

Probably because for a period of time, union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening, but then the liberalization occurred and ruined it. I suppose the affinity for Anglicans is probably rooted in the lost hope that maybe the closeness we once had will return.

I'd like to see any actual evidence that it was close to happening.

It never was. Sure, Anglicans and Orthodox had very good relations before WO in the 1970s; but to say that "union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening"? I'd call that classic reductivist thinking.

[FormerReformer]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

They being?

The ACNA is the conservative break-away from the Episcopalian Church here in America. GAFCON is the international conservative Anglican effort to place some distance between the more conservative churches in the communion and the liberal elements of the West and work around Canterbury's waffling.

[Doubting Thomas]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

They being?

The ACNA is the conservative break-away from the Episcopalian Church here in America. GAFCON is the international conservative Anglican effort to place some distance between the more conservative churches in the communion and the liberal elements of the West and work around Canterbury's waffling.

Yep...^^THIS^^

[primuspilus]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

They being?

The ACNA is the conservative break-away from the Episcopalian Church here in America. GAFCON is the international conservative Anglican effort to place some distance between the more conservative churches in the communion and the liberal elements of the West and work around Canterbury's waffling.

They're half-way home to Orthodoxy 

[FormerReformer]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

They being?

The ACNA is the conservative break-away from the Episcopalian Church here in America. GAFCON is the international conservative Anglican effort to place some distance between the more conservative churches in the communion and the liberal elements of the West and work around Canterbury's waffling.

They're half-way home to Orthodoxy 

More like staying the course of the via media. For the ACNA it's pretty much a reset to 1979 Episcopalianism- some jurisdictions (for lack of a better word) ordain women, Low Church and Evangelical theology is running strong, and the actual authority structure is that nebulous Anglican fudge that has reigned in the Communion since the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. 

[Ebor]

Ebor's glasses are rose-tinted, too.

In what way, please?  Would you please explain what you may perceive as historical errors related to the general situation of England, the succession and the Bishop of Rome in the Tudor era?  Or is there some other area in which you think that my "eyesight" is impaired?  I have not addressed anything in the way of "affinity" that I can see.

Thank you in advance.

Ebor

Your explanation isn't incorrect but it doesn't really address the moral bankruptness of the whole affair.

It wasn't intended to do so. It was to give information about the historic situation.  From there one may expand to other issues.  But when giving information about real people in history I do my best to stick to the facts first.

[Aaron M]

I think we can get along and actually discuss things with conservative anglicans just fine. Out of all protestantism conservative anglicans and Lutherans probably represent the best among them. But liberal anglicanism has stifled any such a thing and has effectively tainted these churches. Perhaps one day there will be a movment of conservative anglicans away from the ever increasing liberality in the anglican church but there seems to be no effort or attempt by conservative anglicans that I can see, in this regard.

See the ACNA and GAFCON.

They being?

The ACNA is the conservative break-away from the Episcopalian Church here in America. GAFCON is the international conservative Anglican effort to place some distance between the more conservative churches in the communion and the liberal elements of the West and work around Canterbury's waffling.

They're half-way home to Orthodoxy 

More like staying the course of the via media. For the ACNA it's pretty much a reset to 1979 Episcopalianism- some jurisdictions (for lack of a better word) ordain women, Low Church and Evangelical theology is running strong, and the actual authority structure is that nebulous Anglican fudge that has reigned in the Communion since the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. 

That I would guess, as a rule the Low Church/Evangelical-dominant ACNA would not venerate Mary or the saints, either.  Shouldn't that be a biggie for dialog with the Orthodox?

[Shanghaiski]

Probably because for a period of time, union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening, but then the liberalization occurred and ruined it. I suppose the affinity for Anglicans is probably rooted in the lost hope that maybe the closeness we once had will return.

I'd like to see any actual evidence that it was close to happening.

It never was. Sure, Anglicans and Orthodox had very good relations before WO in the 1970s; but to say that "union between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism was really close and on the verge of happening"? I'd call that classic reductivist thinking.

There was a personal friendship between St. Tikhon and Bishop Grafton, but when Fr. Nathaniel Ingram Irvine was received in the Orthodox Church with ordination (and presumably baptism and chrismation--but the hangup was on not recognizing Anglican orders), the friendship frayed. The dialogue, such as it was, was polite niceties. In the broader context, Pope Leo XIII had recently ruled against Anglican orders and they were looking for recognition. Relations were further frayed when St. Raphael found out that some Episcopalians were spreading the lie that Orthodox had their bishop's okay to commune in their churches.

[mike]

Relations were further frayed when St. Raphael found out that some Episcopalians were spreading the lie that Orthodox had their bishop's okay to commune in their churches.

AFAIK even St. Raphael had thought so before he realised Anglicans do not treat their agreement fair.

[Peter J]

Relations were further frayed when St. Raphael found out that some Episcopalians were spreading the lie that Orthodox had their bishop's okay to commune in their churches.

That was a lie?

[Asteriktos]

Relations were further frayed when St. Raphael found out that some Episcopalians were spreading the lie that Orthodox had their bishop's okay to commune in their churches.

That was a lie?

Sorta kinda maybe.  See here for part of the story...

[genesisone]

This gets back a little closer to the original question.

I'm still working my way through the television production from 1953 that documents Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. I have reached the point where the service itself is over, and the procession is about to leave Westminster Abbey.

I was struck with the solemnity and dignity of the entire service. It is certainly Anglicanism at its finest. There was much in it that I as an Orthodox Christian could easily relate to. For example, at Communion the prayers we call the Epiclesis were neither heard nor seen by those outside the Abbey, nor was there any broadcast of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh receiving Communion. The intimacy of that moment as a spiritual act was kept that way. ("The doors! The doors!")

We should also note the fact that our Western Rite is able to use the Book of Common Prayer almost untouched indicating that the Anglicans at least at one time must have been doing something right.

Alas, those days are gone.

[jnorm888]

When I was Anglo-Catholic for 4 years I was still reading Eastern Orthodox books and eastern church fathers. And I wasn't the only one. There was a certain level of respect and awe that some Anglo-catholics had of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.

But yeah, I was into William Law and the non-Juror bishops and they had contact with the christian east for a time. reading that inter-action was fascinating.

Also, the rise of the Oxford movement helped form a bridge as well. For the Oxford movement is what started Anglo-catholicism and they were heavily depended on eastern church fathers. And so I see it as natural for the two groups to talk to each other.


But at the end of the day I think it's just nostalgia of what could be for English speakers. We love shake-spear, the king james Bible....... being raised in an English culture, we just love a number of things English, and Anglicanism was the official and cultural quote on quote English church.

And so grabbing them into the fold is like grabbing the English people and it's culture into the fold.

[jnorm888]

What that one person said on this thread in regards to some converts who pass through Anglicanism to become Orthodox is true for me as well.

I was raised Baptist, with some Pentecostal and Charismatic influences. From there I joined an Anglo-Catholic parish within the Episcopal church (back then TEC,). I stayed there for 4 years before moving on to Orthodoxy.

But one thing you will notice is that I will not say anything negative about my Anglo-Catholic experience. It really helped me in many ways. I am grateful for it.

[Doubting Thomas]

Jnorm,

Your experience is somewhat similar to mine, except I started off Southern Baptist, spent some time as an Eastern Orthodox catechumen, then wound up an Anglican Catholic. However, I still have high regard for the Eastern Orthodox church I encountered on my journey. 

[jnorm888]

This forum needs a thanks button!

Jnorm,

Your experience is somewhat similar to mine, except I started off Southern Baptist, spent some time as an Eastern Orthodox catechumen, then wound up an Anglican Catholic. However, I still have high regard for the Eastern Orthodox church I encountered on my journey. 

[Peter J]

Relations were further frayed when St. Raphael found out that some Episcopalians were spreading the lie that Orthodox had their bishop's okay to commune in their churches.

That was a lie?

Sorta kinda maybe.  See here for part of the story...

I finally got around to that letter. That's more the way I understood it, i.e. that permission was in fact given for certain circumstances, but that was embellished by some Episcopalians, e.g.

c) Episcopal clergy said that there was no need of the Orthodox people seeking the ministrations of their own Orthodox priests, for their (the Anglican) ministrations were all that were necessary.

[Agabus]

At any rate, for those who have the time, Arthur Middleton has a good book called FATHERS AND ANGLICANS which demonstrates the proximity between the thought of many of the Anglican Divines (such as Lancelot Andrewes) and Orthodoxy, particularly among those theologians/churchmen who stressed the importance of the consensus of the early Church.  

IIRC, an answer has been written to this in which the author finds Anglican divines who run contra to the same passages from the Fathers...The point being that Anglicanism is the big tent religion, and while Orthodox thought is an acceptable option within the communion, not all acceptable opinion is Orthodox.

EDIT: My bad -- the book I was thinking of was in response to another, much older work, A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East.