However, one day I looked at the names of their episodes,
and found their topics to be interesting. After giving an episode a try, I was
amazed to see how the hosts, both priests, were apparently very strong
Anglo-Catholics. They quickly became one of my favorite podcasts.
The
ACNA (Anglican Church in North America), which is what both they and I are currently under, recently
came out with a statement concerning the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Traditional Anglicans, myself included, reject the ordination of women to the
priesthood (yes, it’s a controversial topic, and this article is not aimed at
defending the historic position; I do plan on writing an article in the future
on that subject). Unfortunately, the ACNA has some bishops who “ordain” women
to the priesthood, and the statement released recently stated, in essence, that
that practice will not change for now.
This is an unfortunate development within Anglicanism, and
many of us are deeply upset about our bishops’ current position on the matter.
So Quad-Cities Anglican has been doing a sort of tour of other catholic bodies
of the Faith, seemingly (and this is perhaps reading too much into their actions)
to hint that they and others are seriously looking at different jurisdictions.
This is where I started to find problems in what they were
doing. No, no; it’s not wrong to look at becoming Eastern Orthodox. Not
necessarily, at least (more on that, later). I sympathize with their
frustration with the ACNA. I truly do.
My problem is particularly in their first episode at the
conference, the one with Fr. Mark Rowe. Fr. Mark, a former Anglican (part of
the very Anglo-Catholic and conservative Continuing Anglicans; he also was
Roman Catholic before that…), joined the Orthodox Church after years of
searching. One of the pivotal points for him was visiting an Orthodox
monastery, in which he was asked four questions by a monk there.
The questions were—well, we’ll get to that in a moment.
They’re, bluntly put, silly. The responses (or lack thereof) were what greatly
frustrated me; both from Fr. Mark Rowe when he was Anglican and first receiving
these questions, and the two Anglican priests interviewing him.
I want to stress that I consider the Orthodox--both Eastern and Oriental--to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I consider them full brothers and sisters in Christ. Unfortunately, they do not extend that same thought to Anglicanism (though there are historical exceptions). My problem is not that someone may want to join Orthodoxy, but rather that one is claiming that there is not Catholicity in Anglicanism, whatsoever. Furthermore, the responses to the following questions are, as indicated before, lackluster at best.
First Question: “Is
your church (currently) producing Saints?”
Response from the
Anglican Priests:
No canonized saints being currently produced. They agree
with Fr. Mark Rowe that, “The only answer is ‘no’.”
My Response:
What an insult to their own parish members. I’d be insulted
by that claim towards my parish; there are plenty of Saints there. A woman, the
week I listened to this, had given me money to help pay for my rent. She did it
without me asking, and she did it with no fanfare. One at my parish in Tennessee adopts children in his old age, and will just as soon give the shirt off his back to clothe someone naked. But they are not Saints?
As for canonicity, I find that a rather silly particular:
are we being asked for an official canonization process? Is there something
lacking in us not having the title “St.” preceding men like C.S. Lewis, who has
his own Anglican feast day? And what about Canon Andrew White? Did he not cross
the minds of our Anglican co-hosts as someone who most certainly is a Saint
being produced by our Communion? Is the Orthodox Church currently producing
Saints? Who?
Seraphim Rose, the guy who apparently allowed “Gleb” HermanPodmoshensky to abuse young men at his monastery?
This question is rife with problems that, for the life of
me, I do not understand how even an unlearned Anglican could be troubled by. Frankly, the response they gave is both intellectually dishonest
and an insult to their flock.
Second Question: “If
you could do, liturgically, for the most part, that which you do now, but do it
within the Church that unequivocally is the Church founded by Christ, why would
you not do it?”
Response from the
Anglican Priests:
“I have no retort to that one.”
“I have no retort.”
To be fair, later, one of the priests defends Anglicanism in
this one; what I respond with in my first paragraph is also what he says (he
places it as a hypothetical; that one “might” argue such-and-such, distancing himself
from the argument). He then “balances” that with claiming that we aren’t
recognized by any of the five Patriarchates.
My Response:
The question presupposes that I am not part of the Church
founded by Christ already, or at least am unsure that I am. Except that I am
sure that I am; as sure as the Eastern Orthodox are.
We aren’t recognized by any of the five Patriarchates, but
that’s easily chalked up to politics at play. I mean, that’s what 1054 itself
is largely about, yes? And the debates between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern
Orthodoxy are, themselves, due to mistakes and misunderstandings. As well, I
would argue that Canterbury is certainly a Patriarchate—and if you are going to
raise the heresy that is currently going on in the Church of England, I’m going
to simply point to one of the past Patriarchs of Constantinople, the
arch-heretic Nestorius, and many others, in response.
Third Question: “Why
would you even take a chance on risking your salvation?”
Response from the
Anglican Priests:
A defense of Anglo-Catholicism was given, with an admission
that there is a “fly in the ointment” in the larger Anglican Communion.
My Response:
Yes, there is the "fly in the ointment" of women being "ordained" into the priesthood. There is, of course, also the greater problem of liberalism in the Anglican Communion in general. But in the 300's we had the Church Catholic literally taken over almost entirely by Arians--people who deny the full Deity of Christ. That was, interestingly enough, pushed by Eastern Bishops. We also had Nestorianism, again pushed not only by Eastern Bishops but literally named after the Patriarch of Constantinople. Later we had Monophysitism pushed by Eastern Bishops. Then Monothelitism pushed by Eastern Bishops. Seeing a trend, here? So the Eastern Orthodox have plenty of flies in their ointment's history.
Heresy gains major footholds sometimes; our job is to stand resolute against heresy, and speak the Truth in Love.
Fourth Question: “If
you were at liturgy in the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher—the Tomb of your Savior,
Christ—could you take Communion?”
Response from the Anglican Priests: No.
My Response:
Why does that matter?
Seriously, if Mormons became militant and took over the Middle
East, and set up a church at the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher, would that mean
that they are the one true Church? When Rome took over Jerusalem in the
Crusades, did that make them the one true Church? This argument depends upon
the geo-political reality of today, and doesn’t really demonstrate any
ecclesiastical ontology.
Also, you receive Communion; you don’t “take” it. Communion
is not yours for the taking.
These were the four questions the monk asked Fr. Mark Rowe, which ultimately helped lead him to reject his Holy Orders and become Orthodox. I don't find them convincing, on even the slightest level. There are reasons people are frustrated with the ACNA; I count myself among the frustrated. But these are not reasons to leave. This sort of thinking is one of the reasons I abandoned my journey towards Eastern Orthodoxy, and instead joined Anglicanism.
