I agree but will anyone explain why the current Archbishop of Canterbury was allowed to celebrate mass on the main altar of Santa Sabina’s in Rome, the headquarters of the Dominican(!) Order, with the community in prayerful attendance?
The “Archbishop” was allowed to do his “wishful thinking” in Santa Sabina because of the not-Catholic “wishful thinking”-theories that came out of Vaticanum II concerning the “other christian churches” (formerly correctly called schismatics) which led to the false ocumenism of the last 40 years.
The result of this false ocumenism is that nowadays about 90% of the Catholics think all “religions” are equally good and lead all to salvation since we “all pray to the same God”.
(I´m a former protestant and don´t believe in this false ocumenism and have converted to the only real faith – the Catholic faith – two years ago. Deo Gratias!)
Even so, this mass was done in conjunction with an official visit with Pope Benedict XVI. Santa Sabina is just across the Tiber from the Vatican. All the Vatican officials were aware of this schedule far in advance, in time for the Archbishop to compose an appropriate sermon and send out invitations, etc. It was no secret. What I find especially puzzling is that there is a beautiful Anglican church in Rome. There are plenty of photographs.
Well, I’m sure there are some Thrones/Altars/Vestments in Istanbul that are used now that have been used by a heretical Patriarch or two. Maybe Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eudoxius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Acacius, Sergius, Pyrrhus, or others.
That is not really the point ken. The Archbishop of Canterbury is not acctually a priest at all meaning that all the ‘Masses’ he says are invalid mock-Masses. Should we alow parodies of liturgy be performed when we can easily prevent it. It is clearly a sin that anyone would alow this to happen.
If only that were the case. The Sacred Synod of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus recently reaffirmed an earlier decision recognizing Anglican Orders. This was presumably done during British control of the island. I am unaware of any reaction to that decision.
I can tell you that incident spoken of above was deeply shocking and widely seen as a scandalous by the Orthodox.
I am not trying to be sarcastic here, but John we take it on your authority as a spokesperson for Orthodoxy that this was deeply scandalous to most Orthodox? Most Orthodox even had an opinion? I am certain some of the more active Catholic-watchers picked up on it… But from my experience, there is agenda to their “catholic-watching”.
Speaking of “The Orthodox” as a cohesive and single minded group when as Nick points out the Orthodox in Cyprus have affirmed Anglican Orders… Well I can’t help but wonder if your world view isn’t heavily influenced by folks looking to find scandal.
To be quite clear, I am not happy with the allowances made for Anglicans to use Catholic churches either… But let’s be more precise rather than making blanket statements to the effect of “for thus is Holy Orthodoxy!” to foment feelings of antipathy.
As to the posted photo itself… The next onliner who tries to espouse the “Dutch Touch” theory (that ultrajectine schismatics somehow restored validity to consecrations) should be directed to this photo. NO, having a ultrajectine schismatic involved in that pile-on saying “recieve the holy spirit” does NOT for valid orders make.
The problem here is considerably greater than the generic allowance of Anglicans to use Catholic churches although I can’t think of another instance. This Anglican mass was celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury in one of the most important churches in Rome, the mother church of the Dominican Order. It could not have happened without express Papal permission. That is the scandal and I have yet to see any explanation.
Do you have a source for that report? The last time I heard of Orthodox jurisdictions recognizing Anglican orders was in the early part of the previous century. There was at that time a movement among some of the Greek jurisdictions to recognize Anglican orders based on contacts almost exclusively with so called High Church Anglo-Catholic types. As time passed our people began to realize that Anglicanism doesn’t really have a coherent theology (much less an Orthodox one) and was in fact extremely liberal, there was a mass retreat from those announcements. It should also be noted that outside of the Greeks the only jurisdiction which very briefly signed onto this were the Romanians.
I know of no Orthodox sitting Orthodox hierarchs who are on record recognizing Anglican orders. Anglicans are heretics, ipso facto their sacraments are without grace.
I am sure there are some Orthodox who keep tabs on the goings on in Rome for the purpose of being able to say “gotcha!” periodically. But the same is true of some Romans who keep tabs on what goes in the Orthodox Church. And to be frank, sometimes we do things which deserve a public “what were you thinking of?” pronouncement. In the event I missed a recent announcement from Cyprus to the effect alleged that would certainly qualify. One advantage to perpetual critics is that they can keep you on your toes.
But of course most Orthodox who keep tabs on Rome are not doing so in the hopes of catching the Pope making some secret Masonic had signal. We do it for the same reason the majority of Romans who keep tabs on us. We understand that the extremely serious theological divisions notwithstanding our churches were once part of the same One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. And a thousand year schism is a scandal before all Christendom.
My recollection was that in August 2008 the Sacred Synod of the Church of Cyrus reaffirmed the earlier statement of 1923 (during the patriarchate of the infamous Meletios Metaxakis). See below:
From the official letter to the 2008 Lambeth Conference from of the Orthodox Archiepiscopate of Cyprus, represented by Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Kition:
‘Unfortunately, after the Third Lambeth Conference, which was held in the year 1888, when a particular effort was made for the promotion of the relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Church, no substantial progress has been made in this area though a most fervent desire for their union exists in both our Churches. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus, encouraged by the progress made at the time went ahead, as is known, in the year 1923 and recognised the validity of Anglican ordainments in the hope that this would be followed by more moves towards unity between our Churches.’
The Archbishop of Cyprus wrote to the Patriarch of Constantinople in the name of his Synod on March 20, 1923, as follows: To His All-Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch Mgr. Meletios we send brotherly greeting in Christ. Your Holiness – Responding readily to the suggestion made in your reverend Holiness’ letter of August 8, 1922, that the autocephalous Church of Cyprus under our presidency should give its opinion as to the validity of Anglican Orders we have placed the matter before the Holy Synod in formal session. After full consideration thereof it has reached the following conclusion: It being understood that the Apostolic Succession in the Anglican Church by the Sacrament of Order was not broken at the Consecration of the first Archbishop of this Church, Matthew Parker, and the visible signs being present in Orders among the Anglicans by which the grace of the Holy Spirit is supplied, which enables the ordinand for the functions of his particular order, there is no obstacle to the recognition by the Orthodox Church of the validity of Anglican Ordinations in the same way that the validity of the ordinations of the Roman, Old Catholic, and Armenian Church are recognized by her. Since clerics coming from these Churches into the bosom of the Orthodox Church are received without reordination we express our judgment that this should also hold in the case of Anglicans – excluding intercommunio (sacramental union), by which one might receive the sacraments indiscriminately at the hands of an Anglican, even one holding the Orthodox dogma, until the dogmatic unity of the two Churches, Orthodox and Anglican, is attained.
Submitting this opinion of our Church to Your All-Holiness, we remain, Affectionately, the least of your brethren in Christ, Cyril of Cyprus Archbishopric of Cyprus. March 7/20, 1923.
I think you may have misread the part of the statement you are quoting. It is recounting the fact that in 1923 the Church of Cyprus expressed the opinion that Anglican Orders were not void of grace. That is an historical fact (although I believe they were wrong in the opinion). No where in what you quoted is the Holy Synod of Cyprus reaffirming that opinion. They are recounting history not affirming it today, or even that they were right back in 1923. Do you have the entire document or the link to where you got this from?
I can tell you that today things are so bad in the Anglican Communion that particularly in the UK and here in N. America most Orthodox jurisdictions do not give automatic acceptance to Anglican baptisms from those converting into Orthodoxy. My Godfather is an ex Anglican and my priest (OCA) required considerable documentation before agreeing to accept his baptism (from the 1950′s). Some Orthodox simply refuse to accept baptisms from the Episcopal Church performed since 1977 (and rightly so IMO) saying that too much has happened in that sad church to be sure of the sacramental intent even if the right formula was used.
Thank you. I said that the statement of 1923 was REAFFIRMED by the Sacred Synod of the Church of Cyprus in August 2008. As I recall I read it in Orthodoxos Typos http://www.orthodoxostypos.gr/ . In any event the 1923 statement has never been retracted. You can write for definitive details and confirmation at the Office of the Holy Synod, Lefkosia: email@example.com
As you have pointed out heretics do not have Grace, regardless of sacramental intent or formula. In some cases they have preserved the form of Baptism (triple immersion) in which case out of economia the form does not have to be repeated. However, it is the general practice to baptize all heretics in Greece and on Mount Athos, which would include Monophysites, Nestorians, Roman Catholics and Protestants (which the Anglicans happen to be). With the reforms of Tsar Peter the Great baptism of heretics in Russia was stopped by the Imperial Government to ease relations with the West and Westerners. Today in the world of professional Ecumenism the term “heresy” is not politically correct and generally ignored. Patriarch Athenagoras was notorious for communing Anglicans and Lutherans at the Phanar in the 1960s although the above 1923 statement stopped short of that. You are aware of the Patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria communing Monophysites.
Keep in mind the “Anglican Church” was founded in sin. It’s founder, a one time “Defensor Fidei” became an apostate and a heretic when, for whatever reason, things didn’t go his way. In his greed he stole what belonged to God. He was spineless and afraid of damnation and so kept what his bishops considered papist trappings. He was no man, despite how he viewed himself, but a lecherous adulteror whose body and mind were ravaged by syphilis which eventually killed him. It’s founder was Henry Tudor, eighth of that name to sit on the throne of England.
Though the false ecumenists and politically correct liberals would have us believe otherwise, the so called Anglican Church is heretical and its “orders” are invalid. The entire thing is a parody. They can do what they want and call it what they want but truth is truth.
However, the previous notwithstanding, we are obliged to treat Anglicans with true Christian love, respect, and compassion. Anything less is sinful. And thus false ecumenism and politically correct liberalism is sinful for it encourages those in error to remain so and deceives them into thinking they are in posession of the truth. Thus their eternal salvation is in danger….. and NOTHING is more important than that.
Thank you Father, again. Of course what you write and what this blog presents is the historical Roman Catholic position. Having said that, what conceivable reason could have caused Pope Benedict XVI to allow that Anglican Mass at Santa Sabina’s over the relics of the Martyrs Sts. (Pope) Alexander, Eventius and Theodoulos? Is the situation now sadly of being more Catholic than the Pope? Has anyone heard any explanation?
Thanks for your reply. From what little I have been able to find on the matter the document quoted above does not reaffirm the previous verdict of the Synod of 1923. While I have not come across any formal retraction of that declaration I would be quite surprised if it is still in force today. I believe the decree to be de facto if not de jure a dead letter. The hopes of even the most ardent enthusiasts for communion with the Anglicans were dashed with the advent of attempted female ordination.
There are three canonical methods for receiving converts into Holy Orthodoxy. The most common is by full baptism (triple immersion) and Holy Chrismation with a Profession of Faith. The second is by Holy Confession, Chrismation and profession of the Orthodox Faith. And the third is by Holy Confession and profession of the Faith.
The practice of baptizing Latins is a relatively new one that cropped up in the 18th century and was practiced for a time amongst most of the Greek jurisdictions. None of the Slavic Churches followed this however (Russia baptized Latins for only a very brief period) and the practice was definitively suppressed during the reign of Czar Peter The (not so) Great.
In recent years there has been a collective reexamination of the question of baptizing Roman Catholics into the Church and the consensus is strongly against the practice. Today very few canonical Orthodox jurisdictions do this outside of the Monks of Mt. Athos, the Jerusalem Patriarchate (where anti-Catholic sentiment runs high) and the Russian Church Abroad (which only started doing so in the early 1970′s during a period of intense controversy and self imposed isolation from most of the canonical Orthodox world). Some Serbian parishes here in N. America do so but the practice is controversial and in Serbia is officially discouraged.
The Great Book of Needs provides guidelines for the reception of converts. As a matter of personal opinion I think those guidelines are seriously out of date. The Book of Needs for instance permits the reception of converts from most of the so called mainline Protestant sects without baptism. Given how far most of these groups have drifted in recent years from the basics of Christianity I find acceptance of their baptisms, even by economy, to be highly problematic. I think all Protestants should be received by full baptism unless their is some unusual reason in a specific given case.
If you have not already read it, there is an outstanding examination of the historical practice with respect to the reception of the heterodox here. http://tinyurl.com/4ofvr
With respect to the incident with the Anglican mass I suspect that Pope Benedict did not in fact approve it. It’s only a guess, but I suspect that this was handled somewhere below his level in the Vatican bureaucracy. I also suspect that the very loud public criticism that followed makes a repetition most unlikely.
It’s a shame catholic bigotry and ignorance is still so strong and apparently vocal.
Try and be alittle more informed beofre you make bold pronouncements based on your misundertsandings and lazy scholarship
“It’s a shame catholic bigotry and ignorance is still so strong and apparently vocal.
Try and be alittle more informed beofre you make bold pronouncements based on your misundertsandings and lazy scholarship”
It is ashame that anti-Catholic bigotry still dresses itself up in the veneers of intellectualism or victimhood.
Renee, state seriously what you think is ignorant and what is a little less informed by our lazy misunderstood scholarship.
All the scholarship in all the world does not rectify invalidity.
Sorry if you have not dealt with that before – start doing some research, an prepare yourself to be reconciled to the Church Jesus established for the salvation of all souls.