In what ways does Anglican theology differ from Orthodox theology?

[InnerPhyre]

Just curious since you guys don't hold many of the beliefs that RC's do with which Orthodox disagree.

[cathromang]

Currently reading Kallistos Ware...

Let you know when I'm done :)
so far it's all good.

oh, we can sit down during Mass. :)

[AngCath]

we've got pews... um...

if you ask me, Anglicanism is Western Orthodoxy

[gtsecc]

If we have authority, it is because we are the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church in England. ECUSA is to the Church of England a bit like the OCA is to the Church in Russia. Many Anglicans are virtually indistinguishable from what you would see as Western Rite Orthodoxy, with less liturgical use of Icons. Others are indistinguishable from bible college protestants. We all use the same words in our worship form the Book of Common Prayer, and that is what unites us.

You should read Jean's wonderful essay on the History of the Church in England.

http://www.logrus.ca/HomeChurchWeb/AnglicanNotes/History1.html (http://www.logrus.ca/HomeChurchWeb/AnglicanNotes/History1.html)

[pandg]

When I moved to my current home I visited the Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox churches in the area. I have always been Anglican but the first few services I attended were all rather happy-happy-joy-joy and I prefer a more reverent service. The Catholic church was very welcoming but made lots of requirements in order to fully participate. The Orthodox church justified itself by not being Catholic (which they called The Roman Church) and not being reformed, and something doesn't seem right about a church when the first thing you hear and read about it is what they are not rather than what they are, if that makes sense. So now I remain Anglican and I attend the quieter, liturgical services. The Anglican church welcomes everyone and doesn't make any negativity about other churches, and to me this is the most important bit of Christianity.

You were probably looking for differences in belief or doctrine, sorry i got carried away recounting my experience!

[gitlance]

Someone who faithfully lives out historic Anglicanism as received in the land of England by our early Church forebears, and as propogated in the Book of Common Prayer, is indeed Western Orthodox. I am fully convinced that the Anglican Communion is in its best and most complete form Western Orthodoxy. It bugs me when some unlearned people around here call those of us who uphold such doctrine "romanizers," when we in fact have no desire to be "like Rome," but to uphold the Catholic and Orthodox faith as received in England since the first centuries of the Church.

If you ask me, the true "revisionists" are those who refuse to accept Catholic doctrine and order: falling instead for the deceptions of post-modern protestant subjectivism.

[cathromang]

I guess I kinda like icons too.
I have a wood carving painting thing of Christ's face I received from the monks at the Paleokastritsa Monastery in Corfu Greece when I visited. I also have a rosary personally blessed by JPII when I was at the Vat in the 80's.
both of these are cherished things to me - good experiences, good people

I guess I'm somewhere between the east and the west.
I guess that makes me an orthodox anglican.

[gtsecc]

I suspect that if we had not ordained women in the 70's, all of us would be posting in TAW right now.

[PaladinValer]

1. Women clergy
2. Less limited access to Holy Communion

Other than that, I cannot think of anything on the top of my head.

[Mary of Bethany]

May I add my two cents worth, as a former Anglican?

I would say that Anglicans aren't as concerned with "right beliefs" (orthodoxy) as the Orthodox, and allow for quite a wide range of beliefs within Anglicanism. Orthodoxy would require more agreement, while at the same time still allowing for Mystery in certain areas. Orthodoxy would be somewhere between Catholicism and Anglicanism in their approach to Church Teaching.

Does that make sense?

Mary

[PaladinValer]

I must respectfully disagree.

Anglicanism demands that its members adhere to basic dogmas and doctrines of faith. Particular disciplines and devotions are up to the individual to believe in/practice.

[InnerPhyre]

Interesting. Thanks, folks.

[gitlance]

I must respectfully disagree.

Anglicanism demands that its members adhere to basic dogmas and doctrines of faith. Particular disciplines and devotions are up to the individual to believe in/practice.

Yes.

The problem is that some people decide that they know better than Holy Mother Church, and begin to follow their own flawed interpretations of the Faith and the Scriptures.

The Church is the pillar of the truth.

[Catherineanne]

Just curious since you guys don't hold many of the beliefs that RC's do with which Orthodox disagree.

There is only one point of theology dividing the two churches. The Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Anglican (and Roman Catholic) church believes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Anglicans wishing to concede this point to the Orthodox faith (and there are some, but admittedly not many) have a tendency when saying the Nicene Crede to miss out the end of the line 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father ... (and the Son)' and then carry on with the rest.

Apart from that, there is no difference in theology (although many of liturgy, of course) between the Anglicans and the Orthodox church that I am aware of.

[Catherineanne]

Someone who faithfully lives out historic Anglicanism as received in the land of England by our early Church forebears, and as propogated in the Book of Common Prayer, is indeed Western Orthodox. I am fully convinced that the Anglican Communion is in its best and most complete form Western Orthodoxy.

I agree with the spirit of this, to some extent, in that there is a great similarity between the spirituality of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, but I think it rather disingenuous to suggest that the Anglican Church can claim to be Western Orthodox. The Anglican Church is clearly born out of the Reformation of the Church of Rome. Any aspects which existed prior to the connection with Rome were firmly weeded out at an early stage and did not survive in any meaningful way, certainly not enough to provide a continuous link with the East.

At the very least, the Church of Rome and of England claim the apostolic succession. In England that succession remained unbroken during the Reformation through Catholic to Anglican(ish) to Catholic to Anglican again. And interestingly enough, at each change over the ruling powers, whether the Monarch or the Pope, recognised all the sacraments of the preceding reign, out of expediency. I think this shows very clearly how close the churches of Rome and England have always been, however much we pretend that this is not so. I cannot see the Orthodox church taking the same liberal approach.

The difference in theology I have quoted above shows this relationship very clearly. If we were Western Orthodox we would not have 'and the son' in our creed. And we do. This to me looks like the child trying to disown her parent and claim an aunty instead as her mother. Can't be done. :)

[gitlance]

I agree with the spirit of this, to some extent, in that there is a great similarity between the spiritualism of Anglicanism and Orthodoxy, but I think it rather disingenuous to suggest that the Anglican Church can claim to be Western Orthodox. The Anglican Church is clearly born out of the Reformation of the Church of Rome. Any aspects which existed prior to the connection with Rome were firmly weeded out at an early stage and did not survive in any meaningful way, certainly not enough to provide a continuous link with the East.

The difference in theology I have quoted above shows this relationship very clearly. If we were Western Orthodox we would not have 'and the son' in our creed. And we do.

There are rumors that the next edition of the American Prayer Book will either remove the filioque or make it optional...

[Catherineanne]

There are rumors that the next edition of the American Prayer Book will either remove the filioque or make it optional...

That is a rumour that I have not heard. I can't see that the compilers have the power to rewrite the Nicene Creed.

[PaladinValer]

It isn't a rumor. In fact, Lambeth 1988 suggested that in all future Prayer Books in all provinces not include the filioque clause.

As it is, it is completely optional to say.

[gitlance]

That is a rumour that I have not heard. I can't see that the compilers have the power to rewrite the Nicene Creed.

The Bishop of Rome in the 11th century rewrote the Creed!

To remove the filioque would be in fact to restore to the completed and finalized Nicean-Constantinopolitan creed.

[SirTimothy]

Anglicans wishing to concede this point to the Orthodox faith (and there are some, but admittedly not many) have a tendency when saying the Nicene Crede to miss out the end of the line 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father ... (and the Son)' and then carry on with the rest.

In St. Helena's, on this very EO island, our previous priest-in-charge, when printing the new Common Worship liturgy printed it without the filoque, so that when we have EO members in the church, we're using the same as they do. In our ecumenical service of Christian Unity, which we invite representatives from the EO diocese of Larnaka and the local RC church to join us with, we print it, minus the filoque, simply titled 'the Niceo-Constantinople Creed'.

Timothy

[Mary of Bethany]

I must respectfully disagree.

Anglicanism demands that its members adhere to basic dogmas and doctrines of faith. Particular disciplines and devotions are up to the individual to believe in/practice.

My apologies. I really did not know that certain beliefs were required at all, and understood that many different interpretations of basic beliefs were allowed.

I'll go back to lurking now. :)

Mary

[PaladinValer]

No need to apologize! Stay and learn! The more we learn of each other, the more similarities we can celebrate together :)

[Catherineanne]

In our ecumenical service of Christian Unity, which we invite representatives from the EO diocese of Larnaka and the local RC church to join us with, we print it, minus the filoque, simply titled 'the Niceo-Constantinople Creed'.

Timothy

Well there we have it. There is at least sometimes (apparently) no difference whatever between the theology of the Orthodox church and that of the Anglican church.

Which begs the question, why can Orthodox people take communion in an Anglican church, if they choose to do so, as indeed Romans can if they wish, while we are denied the same privilege with either of them. Or perhaps that is a question too far. :)

[Catherineanne]

My apologies. I really did not know that certain beliefs were required at all, and understood that many different interpretations of basic beliefs were allowed.

I'll go back to lurking now. :)

Mary

I agree. The only thing 'demanded' of the Anglicanism I know is that one tolerate lukewarm stewed tea, served in prewar china. And strangely, you get to like it, after a while. :)

[Catherineanne]

The Bishop of Rome in the 11th century rewrote the Creed!

To remove the filioque would be in fact to restore to the completed and finalized Nicean-Constantinopolitan creed.


I don't see that the precedent set by the Pope of whatever century therefore gives free rein to the compilers of the American Prayer book. :)

However, if a convocation of Bishops decides that this is a good route forward, then who am I to say that it is not. I am not sure of the technicalities of the reasoning behind this, but as I recall, they sounded convincing enough twenty years ago, when I first heard them. Didn't stop me saying 'and the son' though. I hardly think it matters too much either way, but following Paul's advice, if someone else is offended by the wording, then by all means reconsider it.

As for it being optional, every line of the creed is optional. Nobody is forced to say any of it.

[karen freeinchristman]

The only thing 'demanded' of the Anglicanism I know is that one tolerate lukewarm stewed tea, served in prewar china. And strangely, you get to like it, after a while. :)
You are right! It's never been as good since we bought the new tea cups! :)

[holyshe]

anglican faith i guess, to be blunt, has become a bit blurred as to, what the church's dogmas, and beliefs are, in the pass 20 year espescially ! something has caused this poor vision but it will return i am sure!
the book of common prayer i guess most people will say to you!
the main reason between my anglican church and catholics(rome) is the pope and papal infalibility which i a but hard to swallow for most angilcans (sorry if i am wrong here)
anyway thats my 2pence worth

o yer and we dont have them confession boxes either!
mind you i do go to a high church so it is very catholic (anglo catholic) with a traditional priest god bless



i guess it also depends who you priests is and which bishop you fall under!

[Simon_Templar]

My apologies. I really did not know that certain beliefs were required at all, and understood that many different interpretations of basic beliefs were allowed.

I'll go back to lurking now. :)

Mary

Actually your quite right. To suggest that american Anglicanism (the ECUSA) demands adherence to anything is laughable.

In fact, about the only way you could possibly get excommunicated from the ECUSA is to be too rigidly orthodox. The ECUSA itself has ruled that is "has no core doctrine" on issues such as sexuality.

Anglicanism claims to hold to the creeds and the seven ecumenical councils, and the more traditional individual people do. However the Episcopal church does not in the least require adherence to any of that to become a member or to maintain membership. The most you could say is that the episcopal church requires you to recite the creeds and say you believe them when you become a member.. after that your free to deny them, and people do, even up to the level of bishop.

"orthodoxy" and "catholic" are security blankets that many Anglicans like to cling to as the slide further and further from what those words actually mean.

For example, there are anglicans who will crow loudly of their orthodoxy, and adherence to the traditions of the church and the councils and the creeds etc... but when you start talking to them you'll find that they interpet those things differently than the church traditionaly has (which is the very deffinition of "TRADITION"). The easiest example is women clergy. The same anglicans who claim to be completely in line with Holy Tradition will turn around and say that Holy Tradition allows for women priests and bishops. Which of course has been forbidden by Holy Tradition of the entire church (including anglican) for the first 1970 years of church history. That is just one issue of course, there are more.


Now.. that aside.. there are, of course, large branches of Anglicanism that have remained traditional and have upheld the beliefs passed down through the Anglican tradition.. those churches do hold to the seven councils, do require adherence to the creeds etc etc.

If we are comparing Anglicanism of the traditional variety then you will find much more in common between Eastern Orthodox and Anglican.

The following is my very honest straight forward view after strongly considering both Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy.. reading extensively on both, talking extensively with members of both churches etc etc... It contains straight forward views and statements. It is not meant to be offensive but I also won't pull any punches. :)

The chief difference between Orthodox and Anglicanism is freedom.
Orthodoxy believes that Icons are good and holy, worthy of veneration.. thus in order to be in good standing in an orthodox church you have to venerate icons... Anglicanism says that icons are allowable but not necessary.. you can venerate icons if you believe that is what God desires of you, and you will even find Icons in many anglican churches.. but no one is required to venerate icons.. and if you don't venerate icons your not looked upon as lesser or denied any other participation in the service.

Orthodoxy believes in veneration and praying to the saints, thus all orthodox are incouraged to do so, and if you don't your likely to be questioned and viewed as less holy, and possibly denied full participation in the service. Anglicanism believes that veneration and praying to the saints is allowable and any anglican can do so, but no anglican is required to do so in order to be part of the church in full standing, to participate in the eucharist and the full service.

Another manifestation of this is in the liturgy... of course as one would expect Anglicanism has a different liturgy than Orthodoxy. But even within Anglicanism churches and individual people are free within the general form of the liturgy... Things like the sign of the cross, genuflecting, etc etc.. are all part of Anglicanism but people are free to do them as they feel God desires of them.. no one is going to exclude you because you didn't cross yourself at the right time or in the right motion, or because you didn't genuflect enough. No one is also going to exclude you or bother you because you do genuflect alot or cross yourself when other don't.

Another very important aspect of this freedom difference is when it comes to fellowship with other believers. Anglicanism seeks out fellowship with other believers/churches, Anglicanism is willing to recognize and embrace all believers so long as they can adhere and believe in the minimum statement of christian faith.. which most Anglicans hold to be the Nicean creed, or the three creeds taken together.
Anglicanism opens its eucharist service to all believers who have been baptized in the name of the trinity, and Anglicanism will not condemn its members for attending worship from a different church.

When I researched Eastern Orthodoxy I had very little trouble with their doctrinal positions and dogmatic positions.. there is nothing I can think of off hand of orthodox dogma/doctrine that I really disagree with and I think most traditional Anglicans would be in about the same boat. The problem is thats not enough for the Orthodox church. When I went from reading Orthodox doctrine and Dogma, to talking to orthodox people and listening in on Orthodox discussions what I discovered was that the majority of the Orthodox church is very unloving. It is a church that has utterly failed at two out of three of the most important commandments the church was given by God.

The most important commandment is of course, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, body, soul... etc

The second is love your neighbor as yourself.

The third, in my opinion, is go forth into all the world and make disciples of all men.

When taken as a whole and compared to the rest of the churches the Orthodox church is, in my experience, easily the most unloving of all of the major churches.
On top of that, the Orthodox church has done easily the least of any major church at sending out missionaries to carry the gospel around the world and make disciples of all men, in nearly a thousand years.

The Orthodox church is one of the few in the world today that would prefer to exclude people if they are not of the correct ethnic background.. or at the very least willing to adopt the correct ethnic culture.

Now, I know that there are some branches of the Orthodox church that aren't as bad as others.. the Antiochian for example is alot better on those issues than most of the others.. but still, even they have a sizable percentage who would not willingly fellowship with any christian who did not have the exact same liturgical service that they do.

I realize this is pretty harsh.. but I'm pretty harsh on myself, and on Anglicanism so at least I'm equal opportunity harsh :)

John the Apostle wrote that any man who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar. (ie does not really love God) Now, when the majority of a given church refuses to fellowship, or even recognize every other christian who doesn't share their ethnicity, culture and exact liturgical rite.. to me that is hating your brother.

You can say that Orthodoxy has the right worship and has upheld the truth.. and I might agree but I'd point out that Jesus said the pharisees held the truth too (paul also confirmed this) they preserved the true teaching of judaism but they used their traditions (EVEN TRUE TRADITIONS) to exclude people, to keep people from coming to God in their pride and lack of love... The end judgement of the pharisees was entirely based on one thing.. the fruit they produced.. the results they produced... it did not matter that they had the true teachings because they didn't reach out, they didn't love their brothers..


Anglicanism's freedom has allowed bad things to creep in, corruptions, lies, deceptions etc. That is the danger we face with freedom, in my opinion, the Orthodox church is the danger we face without love.

In the end you can not have Truth without Love... and you can not have Love without Truth.. also scripture tells us that it is for freedom that Christ has set us free and that it is the truth that sets us free. These three form a triangle that can not exist if any of the corners are lost. Each of the elements depends upon the others.

[/rant]

Hopefully I didn't offend anyone too badly.

[Naomi4Christ]

I agree. The only thing 'demanded' of the Anglicanism I know is that one tolerate lukewarm stewed tea, served in prewar china. And strangely, you get to like it, after a while. :)

So you have those blue cups and saucers as well?

[Naomi4Christ]

i guess it also depends who you priests is and which bishop you fall under!

To my knowledge, Church of England bishops oversee the full monty of churchmanship and worship styles. They are very professional and keep their own preferences to themselves when dealing with parishes that they wouldn't naturally click with.

[Naomi4Christ]

Hopefully I didn't offend anyone too badly.

I think that is one of the best posts I have ever read on this site. :)

[SirTimothy]

So you have those blue cups and saucers as well?

Yep. Not in our CofE home, though... we have polystyrine mugs... which are of course put in the dishwasher and reused...

Timothy (Or at least, so it is joked...)