Statement of the Church of Russia concerning the decision of the Church of Scotland On May 16, 2015, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland allowed ordination of gay people in civil partnership and on May 21 voted to continue the study of this matter aimed at an extension of the adopted decision. These decisions of the Protestant Churches of Scotland have deeply disappointed the Russian Orthodox Church as they seem incompatible with norms of Christian morality We state with profound grief that today we have new divisions in the Christian world not only on theological problems, but also on the moral issues. The Russian Orthodox Church holds the firm position based on Holy Scriptures and has repeatedly declared that the mentioned innovations were inadmissible for moral teaching and thus is ought to reconsider a format of her relations with the churches and associations which trample upon the principles of traditional Christian morality. In 2003, the Russian Orthodox Church suspended contacts with the Episcopal Church in the USA because this Church consecrated an open homosexual as bishop. Similar reasons have brought about the severance of relations with the Church of Sweden in 2005 when it decided to bless the same-sex unions. During last years we have kept attentive watch over debates in the Churches of Scotland and France. In 2013, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, sent a letter to the leadership of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in which he expressed his anxiety and disappointment over a possibility of ordaining gay people and expressed hope that the consideration of this issue in future would be based on the apostolic tradition. Regrettably, these hopes have not been justified, and the words of warning have not been heard. Guided by the resolutions of the Bishops’ Council of 2008, saying that ‘the future of relations with many Protestant communities depends on their faithfulness to the norms of Gospel and apostolic morality kept by Christians over many centuries,’ and of the Bishops’ Council of 2013 saying that ‘a dialogue with confessions which openly defy the Biblical moral norms is impossible,’ the Department for External Church Relations does not see any prospects in maintaining official contacts with the Church of Scotland and with the United Protestant Church of France. https://mospat.ru/en/2015/06/03/news119648/
Good, as well they shouldn't. When you commit heresy and become a heretic Christians ought not pretend like you had not.
" And I say unto thee, thou art Peter; because I the Rock, thou , the stone, for not from the stone is the Rock,but from the Rock is the stone. But not from Christian is Christ,but Christ from Christian; And upon this Rock will I build my Church; Not upon the stone which thou art, but upon Rock which thou hast confessed." S. Augustine of Hippo. Some years ago an Orthodox priest at Wasingham, gave me the above quotation, which taught two lessons at least. One is the obvious one about 'The Rock,' and the great truth, that to in my mind needs emphasising to day "But not from Christian is Christ, but Christ from is Christian." This comes to mind when we see Anglicans looking for a,'home'. I found it yestreen in an Orthodox Publication and thought my friends might enjoy it, if they have not heard of it before!
Patriarch Kirill met with members of the delegation of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) http://anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/1091
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/aftoday/anglicans_and_orthodox September 15, 2015 Length: 49:30 Kevin speaks with Fr. Chad Hatfield and ACNA Bishop Keith Ackerman shortly after their return from Moscow where Bishops from the Anglican Church in North America were invited by Patriarch Cyril for a summit.
Orthodox and Anglican leaders from around the world meet in Buffalo (USA) September 24, 2015 Nearly 30 religious leaders from around the world are in Buffalo for an annual meeting to discuss ecumenical relations between the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church. It marks the first time the International Commission for the Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue is being held in the United States... More: http://www.buffalonews.com/life-art...rom-around-the-world-meet-in-buffalo-20150918
I did listened to this podcast. I must say that both sides seem quite positive about future dialogue.
International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue Communiqué 2015 http://www.anglicannews.org/news/20...dox-theological-dialogue-communique-2015.aspx
Archbishop welcomes Patriarch Bartholomew to Lambeth Palace November 2015 http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.o...-by-the-ecumenical-patriarch-joint-communique https://www.patriarchate.org/photo-...flickr_WAR_flickrportlet_id=72157660912504775
The Ecumenical Patriarch addresses the Oxford Union At the invitation of the Oxford Union, His All-Holiness delivered an address to the members and guests of the Oxford Union on November 4, 2015, at the University of Oxford. Address of His All-Holiness: https://www.patriarchate.org/-/crea...rtholomew?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=/home Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abNXx01E-gw
Serbian Patriarch meets with The Prince of Wales 16. March 2016 http://www.spc.rs/eng/serbian_patriarch_meets_prince_wales https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMepyMRg_Q
Toma wrote in the OP: "Here is a quote from the Anglican Divine, John Bramhall, Archbishop of Armagh, in his treatise addressed to the titular bishop of Chalcedon." The Grecians do acknowledge the Holy Ghost to be the Spirit of the Son. And all the other Churches are ready to accurse the errors both of Nestorius and Eutyches. But that which satisfies me is this, that they exact of no man, 1. nor obtrude upon him, any other creed, or new articles of Faith, than the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, with explications of the general Councils of Ephesus, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, all which we readily admit and use daily in our liturgy. If the Church of Rome would rest where they (the Orthodox) do, we might well have disputable questions between us, but 2. no breach of unity in point of faith. Likewise in point of discipline, all these Churches ascribe no more to the Pope than a primacy of order, 3. no supremacy of power or universal jurisdiction. They make a general Council, with or without the Pope's suffrage, to be the highest ecclesiastical tribunal. Let the Romanists rest where they (the Orthodox) do rest, and 4. all our controversies concerning ecclesiastical discipline will fall to the ground. Thirdly, they have their liturgy in a language understood. They administer the Sacrament in both kinds to all Christians. They do not themselves adore, much less compel others to adore, the species of Bread & Wine (howsoever they have a kind of elevation). They have no new matter and form, no tradition of Patin and Chalice in the [priestly] Ordination, but only imposition of hands. 5. They know no new Sacrifice, but commemoration, representation, and application of the Sacrifice of the Cross: just as we believe. Let Romanists but imitate their moderation, and we shall straight come to join in communion, in Sacraments and Sacramentals also. "To any Orthodox posters: is this an accurate description of Orthodoxy from an Englishman of 1654?" He is being ecumenical, which is nice. To clarify: 1. The Orthodox have 7 Councils, whereas above they list only those up to and including Chalcedon (4 total), and consider them Ecumenical. I suppose that Anglicans accept these 7 councils. 2. Cranmer rejected that Christ was directly present in the Eucharist food itself such that what was given was actually Christ's body, whereas the Orthodox position teaches what Cranmer rejected. Also, Orthodox believe that ikons and relics can be used in prayers that result in miracles. 3. The Orthodox would say that the Pope has a supremacy of power over his own bishops, but not over other Patriarchs. In the Orthodox scheme, the English church could become independent of the Pope. 4. But even then the English king, a political power, would not be the organizational head of the church, which is not an earthly organization. The Russian Tsar Ivan III in the 16th c., or the President Vladimir Putin today, is not the "head" of the Russian church. For Orthodox, for a king to be direct head of the church would be a misaggregation to himself of churchly power. 5. I think that Anglicans, EOs, and RCs do not differ on this point in substance. EOs and RCs talk about the sacrament as a nonbloody sacrifice/offering, like when Paul writes about sacrificing our lives to Christ. The priest among EOs says "Thine own of thine own We offer to thee", during the mass, at the beginning of the Eucharist. I think that many Protestants misunderstand the RC and EO mass in this regard, calling it a "new sacrifice".
1. Quoting The Very Rev. Robert S. Munday, Ph.D., D.D. Between AD 325 and AD 787, there were seven councils, involving bishops from the entire Christian Church, which clarified the Church’s teaching and resolved important doctrinal issues. Each of these Councils also resolved numerous lesser matters of Church discipline. These Seven Ecumenical Councils are: Nicaea I – AD 325: This Council formulated the first part of the Nicene Creed, defining the full divinity of the Son of God. Constantinople I – AD 381: This Council formulated the second part of the Nicene Creed, defining the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. Ephesus – AD 431: This Council defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and Mary as Theotokos (God Bearer). It also repudiated the heresies known as Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Chalcedon – AD 451: This Council affirmed Christ as perfect God and perfect Man. It defined the concept of “Hypostatic Union,” that Christ has two natures, human and divine, in One Person. Constantinople II – AD 553: This Council reconfirmed the doctrines of the Trinity and expanded the work of previous Councils regarding the Person and Work of Christ. Constantinople III – AD 680: This Council affirmed the true humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action. It denounced the heresy of Monothelitism, which wrongly asserted that Christ had two natures but only one will. Nicaea II – AD 787: This Council affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith. These Councils were ecumenical and catholic because they represented all Christians everywhere, and because they sought to clarify the Church’s teaching in light of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles which had been handed down from the earliest days of the Church. Some Anglicans (Gafcon) I think declare 4 only. 2. Don't be too hard on us. I am not sure it is that simple. 3. I concur. 4. History has many lessons in this area, for both Orthodox and Anglicans. The relationship between Church and State has been complex, at least since Constantine. In general we would agree that a separation between Church and State is a good thing. None the less I do not advocate returning to a position of state suppression of religion. 5. I concur.
For #2, Maybe you and the Anglo-Catholics or a branch of Anglicans are united with Orthodox on all "points of faith". I don't know how I could say that about the collective institutional Anglican Church and every single teaching that it collectively considers to be "a point of faith".
Let me give some background on the Thyateira Confession that says that Anglicans can in some conditions commune in EO Churches. For years I had simply assumed that Anglicanism formally teaches an objective presence in bread because the EO, RC, and Lutheran churches do, and because of Anglicans' commitment to Tradition, their claims to Apostolic Succession, their frequent practice of High Church services. It was only last year when an Anglican claimed to me the opposite that I began to study the question. Here in the Article below an Anglican writer makes the real presence (which we would take to mean an objective one) portrayed as the one Anglican position: In the RC Church, one of the objections to Anglicans receiving is that they don't believe in Transubstantiation. But with EOs, this objection is removed as it is not the only teaching allowed in our Church. So with this background we can better understand the decision of Pat. Demetrios to approve the Thyateira confession. Pat. Demetrios was the Pat. of Constantinople in the 1960's-70's, and he was particularly ecumenical. Here Bp. Athenagoras of Thyateira is in London (offsite link) in 1967 with the Anglicans: http://c8.alamy.com/comp/E0XTXD/nov...patriarch-athenagoras-i-archbishop-E0XTXD.jpg Below you can find a link to a recent roundtable on Anglican-EO relations: http://www.ancientfaith.com/special...on/the_history_of_anglican_orthodox_relations The talk mentioned: The Thyateira Confession says: "...Orthodox Christians believe that the following Churches have valid and true Priesthood or Orders: The Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, the Ethiopian, the Copto-Armenian and the Anglican. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Patriarchate of Romania and the Church of Cyprus half a century ago declared officially that the Anglican Church has valid Orders by dispensation and that means that Anglican Bishops, Priests, and Deacons can perform valid Sacraments as can those of the Roman Catholic Church." p.61 ... On account of friendly relations it has become customary for the Orthodox to perform funerals for the Anglicans and offer to them the Holy Eucharist in places where there is no Anglican clergyman available. This is reciprocated for the Orthodox Christians wherever there is no Orthodox clergyman available. This is done both officially and unofficially and in various localities it is a necessary practice expressing Christian sacramental hospitality. Furthermore it is certain that the Christian people themselves seek this sacramental hospitality. This is certainly a sign of the intention of the People of God by thus establishing practical unity because they see that both groups believe in the same Bible and traditions and confess the same Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. page 70 It nonetheless notices a difference in EO and Anglican beliefs: Regarding Article 21 against Infallibility of Ecumenical Councils, I found in the 1801 edition a declaration that XXI is now omitted: What do you think about the Thyateira Confession and its statements? The main caveat I should add is that since Pat. Demetrios is not a "Pope", his announcement here is not some kind of law for all EO churches. Practically only the Greek ones outside of Greece are under his authority, and the statement was made decades ago, and as the Confession mentions, some churches take a different view on intercommunion. At most you could show the Thyateira Confession I've cited here to a Greek priest to see if he would implement it.
I think it is a great statement of faith, hope and love. It is not a clanging bell or a noisy cymbal. I think in should remain as a great foundation. I think that it is Article XXI that has enabled the open door in our conversations with the Copts. May the Lord bless us and preserve us in peace.
You can read more from it here: http://philorthodox.blogspot.com/2016/05/anglicanism-and-eastern-orthodoxy.html?view=flipcard
This Unity does not mean unity of administration, and the submission of the one church to the other. It means freedom in the preservation of the characteristics of each church, and that unity in the Blessed Sacraments that is so dearly desired by Anglican and Orthodox Christians. I really like the holy integrity of this statement.