According to Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America, what are the standards to which the Anglo-Orthodox (a new word I plan to use more frequently in future) must accede?
We must accept:
1. Full affirmation of the orthodox Faith of the Apostles and Church Fathers.
2. The Seven Ecumenical Councils.
3. The Nicene Creed in its original form (without the filioque clause).
4. All Seven Sacraments.
5. A rejection of 'the heresies of the Reformation.'
We must reject:
1. Calvinism.
2. Anti-sacramentalism.
3. Iconoclasm.
4. Gnosticism.
5. The ordination of women to the Presbyterate and their consecration as Bishops.
Continuing Churches that embrace the Affirmation of Saint Louis 1977 are almost entirely in the position outlined by His Beatitude already.
Items to be accepted:
1. Affirmation on the Holy Scriptures, The Creeds and Tradition (1.2).
2. Affirmation on Tradition (1.2).
3. Affirmation on The Creeds (1.2) combined with acceptance of the 1875 Bonn Declaration on the filioque which affirms the teaching of Saint John of Damascus on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, should fulfil this requirement. Removal of the filioque from the authorised liturgical formulae of the Anglican Church would likely still be necessary.
4. Affirmation on the Sacraments (1.2).
5. Affirmation's Solemn Declaration on the Continuation of Anglicanism, its Preface for the Fundamental Principles, its article on the Nature of the Church (1.1), and the articles on Incompetence of Church Bodies to Alter Truth and of Unity with Other Believers (1.2).
Items to be rejected:
1., 2., and 4. are rejected by the Principles of Doctrine section of the Affirmation and Principle of Action 5 on Non-Involvement with Non-Apostolic Groups. Item 4., Gnosticism, would also be condemned by the Principles of Morality section and especially the articles on the Sanctity of Human Life, Family Life, and Man and God's Grace.
3. Directly condemned by the articles on Tradition and the Incompetence of Church Bodies to Alter Truth (1.2).
5. Explicitly condemned by the article on Holy Orders (1.2).
Looks to me like the only outstanding point of contention is the filioque clause.
What does the Metropolitan mean by Calvinism? Probably this... from the Service of Reception of Converts:
The Bishop questioneth the convert from the Reformed Confession after this wise:
Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: "who proceedeth from the Father": doth not suffice; and that the addition, of man's invention: "and from the Son": is required?
Answer. I do.
Bishop. Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evil deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is held accountable for the perdition of sinners?
Answer. I do.
Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist the bread and wine are not transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and are merely emblems of the Body and Blood of Christ?
Answer. I do.
Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers, who reject five Sacraments: Chrismation, Confession, Marriage, Anointing with Oil, and the Priesthood itself, which administereth the other Sacraments, and presume to administer Baptism and the Eucharist, never having received, through the laying-on of hands by a Bishop, that Ordination which hath been transmitted from one to another, even from the holy Apostles?
Answer. I do.
Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of the Reformed teachers who receive not the traditions of the Holy Church, reverence not the Saints, and deprive the dead of spiritual aid, and the living of consolation, in that they reject prayers for the dead?
Answer. I do.
Bishop. Hast thou renounced all ancient and modern heresies and false doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church?
Answer. I have.
If we reject the foregoing errors, we have rejected what is commonly referred to as 'Calvinism'.
7 comments:
As John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI have made clear from their teaching and practice, professing the Nicene Creed without the filioque is not a defect of faith, so that does not constitute a problem (Denouncing the filioque as heresy, of course, does present an insuperable problem for Catholics.)
But my question is this: Since the Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer are shot through with rankest Calvinism from beginning to end, and since Anglican authority after Anglican authority has tied authentic Anglicanism to the Articles of Religion, what sort of Anglican authority would it take either to repudiate the Articles or to extract the poisonous Calvinism from them to such an extent that an Anglican-Orthodox Christian could truly be said to fulfill the condition described by His Beatitude and renounce Calvinism?
That's interesting that the filioque clause is a bone of contention because both the Lambeth conference and The Episcopal Church have both decreed that in any subsequent versions of the BCP, the filioque will not be included.
I do think the Calvinism one is going to be the hardest to get rid of. With not strong, there is a thread of Calvinism that runs through a good deal of the prayerbook, especially the funeral liturgies if you look closely enough.
I wonder what "rankest Calvinism" is? The Articles are polemical and clearly aimed at excluding certain Roman doctrines and abuses - but they are not necessarily opposed to Orthodox/Catholic dogma (even if they do oppose dearly held Roman and Byxantine theologoumena). Christopher Davenport's reconciliation of Tridentine dogma and the articles, Newman's Tract 90, Bicknell's explanation of them, or CB Moss' all show - I think - that the Articles can be interpreted in a Catholic (if not Roman or Byzantine) manner and are not necessarily a problem. Perhaps it depends more on which "school of interpretation" becomes normative.
Women's orders to the priesthood and episcopate is an obvious "no-no" and the ACNA will have to reject them - there is no unity with Orthodoxy as long as there are Women's orders to the priesthood/episcopate (the diaconate could perhaps be excepted).
As far as the filioque is concerned, I am saddened His Beatitude considers it so much of a problem. I would like to suggest that historical and theological study would show that the doctrine as understood in St. Augustine is different from Cappadocian theologizing but not therefore heterodox! (Eastern Orthodoxy usually theologizes from a Cappadocian perspective).
However, I would like to argue that St. Augustine's views are orthodox (and perhaps looking at things this way the Anselmian and Thomist views could be inwardly understood and seen to be orthodox (I use "orthodox" as the opposite of heterodox - and not to refer to Eastern Orthodoxy).
+Fr. Gregory Wassen
The real problem with Orthodoxy and Calvinism has to do with Augustine's Original Sin. I think Orthodoxy fundamentally disagrees with Augustine that man is accountable to perdition for the sin of Adam. They believe true, mortal is actual and original sin pertains to Adam not Adam's progeny who were affected only indirectly?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
A moderate reading of the Thrity-Nine Artilces -- see Bicknell -- shows that the they are NOT "shot through with rank Calvinism" bit completely inconsistent with it at every turn, even in the Articles most commonly cited as proof-texts of the their Calvinism. Indeed, the Articles are large negative in import, consistently showing inconsistently with both Puritanism and the Papacy, both medieval and Counter-Reformed.
What then is the positive theme of the Articles? Well, none is express. But, the undoubted subjective position of its authors must have been the pre-Scholastic Augustinian Syntheses -- as they most certainly were trying to behind the innovations of Reformed (or Cluniac) Papacy of the Eleventh Century and, in England, anyhow, that would mean a return to tempered Augustinianism.
Yet, the Articles close and carefully considered, and not superficially read over, are not inconsistent in any way with say, St. John Damascene's "Exact Exposition." Hence, as the authors themselves declaimed reading them subjectively, but rather only objectively, they in no way form an insuperable bar to a reunion of the British and Eastern Churches.
P.S.,
Many Orthodox are open to the notion that Augustine himself, when read in subordination to the "consenus fidelis," may indeed be Orthodox. St. Maximus was able to read Augustine's filioque in an Orthodox sense -- and yes, there is an Orthodox filioque, and a heterodox, Carolingian-Frank filioque.
But, Orthodoxy has no qualms in dismissing "Augustinianism" or the Augustinian Synthesis formed by the 8th century -- that is, the Carolingian Frank's reading of Augustine -- as rank heresy.
And, moreover, the Cappadocian Fathers would always trump Augustine from an Eastern p.o.v. because the Cappadocians are not guilty of substantive innovation, but always draw on prior tradition having the imprimatur of the mind of the Church; whereas, in sharp contrast, all thing distinctively Augustine are innovative and often cut from whole clothe, as it were, as he had no facility with Greek -- the primary language of Christian theology at his time -- and therefore could only engage the Tradition in a limited manner through translation and through personal contact with Ambrose, for example.
Indeed, it is important to recall that the St. Vincent's Canon was composed as a slogan against Augustine's innovations. Hence, Orthodoxy is not likely to accept vocally Augstininian converts.
That is what and how I entered Orthodoxy though I was more a mix of Lutheran and Wesleyan who spent a good portion of his life before as a Latter Day Saint.
Post a Comment