Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Orthodox Christianity Western Christianity The Orthodox Mindset Living an Orthodox Life Death and Eternal Life Ecumenism
Share
"The theology of the English Reformers was built on both Lutheran and Calvinist foundations, yet it was never
systematically either Lutheran or Calvinist. Partly from conviction but mostly from political necessity their
theology was poured into an institutional mould which retained large elements of a Catholic structure. As a result, when, in the reign of Elizabeth, a
reflective Anglican consciousness emerges, it sees itself not as a straightforward continuation of the Continental Reformation, but as a 'via media.'
The history of Anglican pluralism derives from the intrinsic difficulty of defining such a via media, and from the resultant need to leave wide open a
wide latitude in the construing of doctrine. Thus the via media idea, intended as a unifiying force for Anglicanism, tended to be disintegrating in
practice. It could be used in a classically Protestant direction or in a Catholic direction; or yet again in a Latitudinarian direction—on the grounds
that where so much is unclear, little should be insisted on. Again, Anglicans may despair of via media and take refuge either in Anglo-Catholicism
[giving it a much larger keel of Tradition for a heaving ship- PMB] or in the idea of Western [Eastern?] Orthodoxy, in each case accepting that the
supreme norm for Anglican faith and practice should be provided from outside Anglicanism—either from Rome or Constantinople. Finally,
Anglicans may choose to regard the incoherences (yet riches) of their own Church as simply a microcosm of those of Christianity world-wide. In this
case they will argue that Anglicanism has no distinctive contribution to make to the coming Great Church [an Anglican ecumenical and
eschatological idea of the Church—PMB]: its destiny is to disappear, its triumph will be its dissolution."
"The difficulty in [Lancelot] Andrewes' argument for the continuity of the Church of England with the pre-Reformation Church lies in the fact that
the retention of an orthodox view of the Eucharist as presence, sacrifice and foundation of the Church does not in itself guarantee that one will have
an 'orthopraxy'—a pattern of rightful action relating one to the rest of the Church's communion—to match one's words."
view of Tradition is problematic. Disconnected from a solid ecclesiology (see Florovsky's Bible, Church, Tradition or Congar's Tradition and
Traditions. Dipping buckets vs. jumping in the stream, or to use Ronald Knox's analogy of "raking up old dead documents" vs. obeying a living
voice of Tradition ... having no authority for itself which can claim to properly and divinely interpret scriptures and expel heresy it will cease
to be a church." (p. 68, 77; for the most devastating treatise on the relation of Scripture, Tradition and the Church see Yves M.-J. Congar,
Tradition and Traditions, Macmillan, 1966); fullness of the faith vs. vestiges. [Fr. David Ousley of St. James the Less: no ability to discipline
the Church or the clergy. Church can't purge herself from heresy]. Note comments by Bishop Kallistos Ware in the 1963 edition of his The
Orthodox Church, pp. 318-319:
Yet there is one field in which diversity cannot be permitted. Orthodoxy insists upon unity in matters of the faith. Before there can be reunion
among Christians, there must first be full agreement in faith: this is a basic principle for Orthodox in all their ecumenical relations. It is unity in the
faith that matters, not organizational unity; and to secure unity of organization at the price of a compromise in dogma is like throwing away the
kernel of a nut and keeping the shell. Orthodox are not willing to take part in a 'minimal' reunion scheme, which secures agreement on a few points
and leaves everything else to private opinion. There can be only one basis for union—the fullness of the faith; for Orthodoxy looks on the faith as a
united and organic whole. Speaking of the Anglo Russian Theological Conference at Moscow in 1956, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr
Michael Ramsey, expressed the Orthodox viewpoint exactly:
The Orthodox said in effect: "...The 'tradition is a concrete fact. There it is, in its totality . Do y ou A nglicans accept it, or do y ou reject it?'
The Tradition is for the Orthodox one indiv isible whole: the entire life of the Church in its fullness of belief and custom down the ages,
including Mariology and the v eneration of icons. Faced with this challenge, the ty pically A nglican reply is: 'We would not regard
v eneration of icons or Mariology as inadmissible, prov ided that in determining what is necessary to salv ation, we confine ourselv es to
Holy Scripture.' But this reply only throws into relief the contrast between the A nglican appeal to what is deemed necessary to salv ation
and the Orthodox appeal to the one indiv isible organism of Tradition, to tamper with any part of which is to spoil the whole, in the sort
of way that a single splodge on a picture can mar its beauty ." ['The Moscow Conference in Retrospect', in Sobornost, series 3, no. 23,
1 958, pp. 562-3.]
In the words of another Anglican writer: "It has been said that the faith is like a network rather than an assemblage of discrete dogmas; cut one
strand and the whole pattern loses its meaning.' [T. M. Parker, 'Devotion to the Mother of God', in The Molher of God, edited by E. L. Mascall, p.
74.] Orthodox, then, ask of other Christians that they accept Tradition as a whole; but it must be remembered that there is a difference between
Tradition and traditions. Many beliefs held by Orthodox are not a part of the one Tradition, but are simply theologoumena, theological opinions;
and there can be no question of imposing mere matters of opinion on other Christians. Men can possess full unity in the faith, and yet hold divergent
theological opinions in certain fields. This basic principle—no reunion without unity in the faith—has an important corollary: until unity in the faith
has been achieved, there can be no communion in the sacraments. Communion at the Lord's Table (most Orthodox believe) cannot be used to
secure unity in the faith, but must come as the consequence and crown of a unity already attained. Orthodoxy rejects the whole concept of
'intercommunion' between separated Christian bodies, and admits no form of sacramental fellowship short of full communion. Either Churches are
in communion with one another, or they are not: there can be no half-way house.