PDF Archive search engine
Last database update: 12 July at 00:28 - Around 220000 files indexed.
Results for «anglican»:
Total: 60 results - 0.135 seconds
THE PAN‐HERESY OF ECUMENISM EXISTED AMONG THE ORTHODOX PRIOR TO 1924 In 1666‐1667 the Pan‐Orthodox Synod of Moscow decided to receive Papists by simple confession of Faith, without rebaptism or rechrismation! At the beginning of the 18th century at Arta, Greece, the Holy Mysteries would be administered by Orthodox Priests to Westerners, despite this scandalizing the Orthodox faithful. In 1863 an Anglican clergyman was permitted to commune in Serbia, by the official decision of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In the 1800s, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow wrote that the schisms within Christianity “do not reach the heavens.” In other words, he believed that heresy doesn’t divide Christians from the Kingdom of God! In 1869, at the funeral of Metropolitan Chrysanthus of Smyrna, an Archbishop of the Armenian Monophysites and a Priest of the Anglicans actively participated in the service! In 1875, the Orthodox Archbishop of Patras, Greece, concelebrated with an Anglican priest in the Mystery of Baptism! In 1878 the first Masonic Ecumenical Patriarch, Joachim III, was enthroned. He was Patriarch for two periods (1878‐1884 and 1901‐1912). This Masonic Patriarch Joachim III is the one who performed the Episcopal consecration of Bp. Chrysostom Kavouridis, who in turn was the bishop who consecrated Bp. Matthew of Bresthena. Thus the Matthewites trace their Apostolic Succession in part from this Masonic “Patriarch.” In 1903 and 1912, Patriarch Joachim III blessed the Holy Chrism, which was used by the Matthewites until they blessed their own chrism in 1958! Thus until 1958 they were using the Chrism blessed by a Masonic Patriarch! In 1879 the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided that in times of great necessity, it is permitted to have sacramental communion with the Armenians. In other words, an Orthodox priest can perform the mysteries for Armenian laymen, and an Armenian priest for Orthodox laymen! In 1895 the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VII declared his desire for al Christians to calculate days according to the new calendar! In 1898, Patriarch Gerasimus of Jerusalem permitted the Greeks and Syrians living in Melbourne to receive communion in Anglican parishes! In 1902 the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate refers to the heresies of the west as “Churches” and “Branches of Christianity”! Thus it was an official Orthodox declaration that espouses the branch theory heresy! In 1904 the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate refers to the heretics as “those who believe in the All‐Holy Trinity, and who honour the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hope in the salvation of God’s grace”! In 1907 at Portsmouth, England, there was a joint doxology of Russian and Anglican clergy! Prior to 1910 the Russian Bishop Innokenty of Alaska, made a pact with the Anglican Bishop Row of America, that the priests belonging to each Church would be permitted to offer the mysteries to the laymen of one another. In other words, for Orthodox priests to commune Anglican laymen, and for Anglican priests to commune Orthodox laymen! In 1910 the Syrian/Antiochian Orthodox Bishop Raphael (Hawaweeny) permitted the Orthodox faithful, in his Encyclical, to accept the mysteries of Baptism, Communion, Confession, Marriage, etc, from Anglicna priests! The same bishop took part in an Anglican Vespers, wearing his mandya and seated on the throne! In 1917 the Greek Orthodox Exarch of America Alexander of Rodostolus took part in an Anglican Vespers. The same hierarch also took part in the ordination of an Anglican bishop in Pensylvania. In 1918, Archbishop Anthimus of Cyprus and Metropolitan Meletius mataxakis of Athens, took part in Anglican services at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London! In 1919, the leaders of the Orthdoxo Churches in America took part in Anglican services at the “General Assembly of Anglican Churches in America”! In 1920 the Patriarchal Encyclical of the Ecumenical patriarchate refers to the heresies as “Churches of God” and advises the adoption of the new calendar! In 1920, Metropolitan Philaret of Didymotichus, while in London, serving as the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at the Conference of Lambeth, took part in joint services in an Anglican church! In 1920, Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem (he who was receiving the Holy Light), took part in an Anglican liturgy at the Anglican Church of Jerusalem, where he read the Gospel in Greek, wearing his full Hierarchical vestments! In 1921, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury took part in the funeral of Metropolitan Dorotheus of Prussa in London, at which he read the Gospel! In 1022, Archbishop Germanus of Theathyra, the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in London, took part in a Vespers service at Westminster Abbey, wearing his Mandya and holding his pastoral staff! In 1923, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized the mysteries of the “Living Church” which had been anathematized by Patriarch Tikhon of Russia! In 1923, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized Anglican mysteries as valid! In 1923, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem recognized Anglican mysteries as valid! In 1923, the Church of Cyprus recognized Anglican mysteries as valid! In 1923, the “Pan‐Orthodox Congress” under Ecumenical Patriarch Meletius Metaxakis proposed the adoption of the new “Revised Julian Calendar.” In December 1923, the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece officially approved the adoption of the New Calendar to take place in March 1924. Among the bishops who signed the decision to adopt the new calendar was Metropolitan Germanus of Demetrias, one of the bishops who later consecrated Bishop Matthew of Bresthena in 1935. Thus the Matthewites trace their Apostolic Succession from a bishop who was personally responsible (by his signature) for the adoption of the New Calendar in Greece.
Anglican structures need updating, says Archbishop | Christian News on Christian Today EDITION:
Orthodox Bishop Raphael Hawaweeny Accepted the Mysteries of the Anglicans In 1910 and Then Changed His Mind in 1912. He Was Not Judged By Any Council For This Mistake. Did He and His Flock Lose Grace During Those Two Years? His Grace, the Right Reverend [Saint] Raphael Hawaweeny, late Bishop of Brooklyn and head of the Syrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission of the Russian Church in North America, was a far‐sighted leader. Called from Russia to New York in 1895, to assume charge of the growing Syrian parishes under the Russian jurisdiction over American Orthodoxy, he was elevated to the episcopate by order of the Holy Synod of Russia and was consecrated Bishop of Brooklyn and head of the Syrian Mission by Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Innocent of Alaska on March 12, 1904. This was the first consecration of an Orthodox Catholic Bishop in the New World and Bishop Raphael was the first Orthodox prelate to spend his entire episcopate, from consecration to burial, in America. [Ed. note—In August 1988 the remains of Bishop Raphael along with those of Bishops Emmanuel and Sophronios and Fathers Moses Abouhider, Agapios Golam and Makarios Moore were transferred to the Antiochian Village in southwestern Pennsylvania for re‐burial. Bishop Raphaelʹs remains were found to be essentially incorrupt. As a result a commission under the direction of Bishop Basil (Essey) of the Antiochian Archdiocese was appointed to gather materials concerning the possible glorification of Bishop Raphael.] With his broad culture and international training and experience Bishop Raphael naturally had a keen interest in the universal Orthodox aspiration for Christian unity. His work in America, where his Syrian communities were widely scattered and sometimes very small and without the services of the Orthodox Church, gave him a special interest in any movement which promised to provide a way by which acceptable and valid sacramental ministrations might be brought within the reach of isolated Orthodox people. It was, therefore, with real pleasure and gratitude that Bishop Raphael received the habitual approaches of ʺHigh Churchʺ prelates and clergy of the Episcopal Church. Assured by ʺcatholic‐mindedʺ Protestants, seeking the recognition of real Catholic Bishops, that the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church were really Catholic and almost the same as Orthodox, Bishop Raphael was filled with great happiness. A group of these ʺHigh Episcopalianʺ Protestants had formed the American branch of ʺThe Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Unionʺ (since revised and now existing as ʺThe Anglican and Eastern Churches Association,ʺ chiefly active in England, where it publishes a quarterly organ called The Christian East). This organization, being well pleased with the impression its members had made upon Bishop Raphael, elected him Vice‐President of the Union. Bishop Raphael accepted, believing that he was associating himself with truly Catholic but unfortunately separated [from the Church] fellow priests and bishops in a movement that would promote Orthodoxy and true catholic unity at the same time. As is their usual custom with all prelates and clergy of other bodies, the Episcopal bishop urged Bishop Raphael to recognize their Orders and accept for his people the sacramental ministrations of their Protestant clergy on a basis of equality with the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church administered by Orthodox priests. It was pointed out that the isolated and widely‐scattered Orthodox who had no access to Orthodox priests or Sacraments could be easily reached by clergy of the Episcopal Church, who, they persuaded Bishop Raphael to believe, were priests and Orthodox in their doctrine and belief though separated in organization. In this pleasant delusion, but under carefully specified restrictions, Bishop Raphael issued in 1910 permission for his faithful, in emergencies and under necessity when an Orthodox priest and Sacraments were inaccessible, to ask the ministrations of Episcopal clergy and make comforting use of what these clergy could provide in the absence of Orthodox priests and Sacraments. Being Vice‐President of the Eastern Orthodox side of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches Union and having issued on Episcopal solicitation such a permission to his people, Bishop Raphael set himself to observe closely the reaction following his permissory letter and to study more carefully the Episcopal Church and Anglican teaching in the hope that the Anglicans might really be capable of becoming actually Orthodox. But, the more closely he observed the general practice and the more deeply he studied the teaching and faith of the Episcopal Church, the more painfully shocked, disappointed, and disillusioned Bishop Raphael became. Furthermore, the very fact of his own position in the Anglican and Orthodox Union made the confusion and deception of Orthodox people the more certain and serious. The existence and cultivation of even friendship and mutual courtesy was pointed out as supporting the Episcopal claim to Orthodox sacramental recognition and intercommunion. Bishop Raphael found that his association with Episcopalians became the basis for a most insidious, injurious, and unwarranted propaganda in favor of the Episcopal Church among his parishes and faithful. Finally, after more than a year of constant and careful study and observation, Bishop Raphael felt that it was his duty to resign from the association of which he was Vice‐President. In doing this he hoped that the end of his connection with the Union would end also the Episcopal interferences and uncalled‐for intrusions in the affairs and religious harmony of his people. His letter of resignation from the Anglican and Orthodox Churches Union, published in the Russian Orthodox Messenger, February 18, 1912, stated his convictions in the following way: I have a personal opinion about the usefulness of the Union. Study has taught me that there is a vast difference between the doctrine, discipline, and even worship of the Holy Orthodox Church and those of the Anglican Communion; while, on the other hand, experience has forced upon me the conviction that to promote courtesy and friendship, which seems to be the only aim of the Union at present, not only amounts to killing precious time, at best, but also is somewhat hurtful to the religious and ecclesiastical welfare of the Holy Orthodox Church in these United States. Very many of the bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church at the present time—and especially myself have observed that the Anglican Communion is associated with numerous Protestant bodies, many of whose doctrines and teachings, as well as practices, are condemned by the Holy Orthodox Church. I view union as only a pleasing dream. Indeed, it is impossible for the Holy Orthodox Church to receive—as She has a thousand times proclaimed, and as even the Papal See of Rome has declaimed to the Holy Orthodox Churchʹs credit—anyone into Her Fold or into union with Her who does not accept Her Faith in full without any qualifications—the Faith which She claims is most surely Apostolic. I cannot see how She can unite, or the latter expect in the near future to unite with Her while the Anglican Communion holds so many Protestant tenets and doctrines, and also is so closely associated with the non‐ Catholic religions about her. Finally, I am in perfect accord with the views expressed by His Grace, Archbishop Platon, in his address delivered this year before the Philadelphia Episcopalian Brotherhood, as to the impossibility of union under present circumstances. One would suppose that the publication of such a letter in the official organ of the Russian Archdiocese would have ended the misleading and subversive propaganda of the Episcopalians among the Orthodox faithful. But the Episcopal members simply addressed a reply to Bishop Raphael in which they attempted to make him believe that the Episcopal Church was not Protestant and had adopted none of the errors held by Protestant bodies. For nearly another year Bishop Raphael watched and studied while the subversive Episcopal propaganda went on among his people on the basis of the letter of permission he had issued under a misapprehension of the nature and teaching of the Episcopal Church and its clergy. Seeing that there was no other means of protecting Orthodox faithful from being misled and deceived, Bishop Raphael finally issued, late in 1912, the following pastoral letter which has remained in force among the Orthodox of this jurisdiction in America ever since and has been confirmed and reinforced by the pronouncement of his successor, the present Archbishop Aftimios. Pastoral Letter of Bishop Raphael To My Beloved Clergy and Laity of the Syrian Greek‐Orthodox Catholic Church in North America: Greetings in Christ Jesus, Our Incarnate Lord and God. My Beloved Brethren: Two years ago, while I was Vice‐President and member of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union, being moved with compassion for my children in the Holy Orthodox Faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), scattered throughout the whole of North America and deprived of the ministrations of the Church; and especially in places far removed from Orthodox centers; and being equally moved with a feeling that the Episcopalian (Anglican) Church possessed largely the Orthodox Faith, as many of the prominent clergy professed the same to me before I studied deeply their doctrinal authorities and their liturgy—the Book of Common Prayer—I wrote a letter as Bishop and Head of the Syrian‐Orthodox Mission in North America, giving permission, in which I said that in extreme cases, where no Orthodox priest could be called upon at short notice, the ministrations of the Episcopal (Anglican) clergy might be kindly requested. However, I was most explicit in defining when and how the ministrations should be accepted, and also what exceptions should be made. In writing that letter I hoped, on the one hand, to help my people spiritually, and, on the other hand, to open the way toward bringing the Anglicans into the communion of the Holy Orthodox Faith. On hearing and in reading that my letter, perhaps unintentionally, was misconstrued by some of the Episcopalian (Anglican) clergy, I wrote a second letter in which I pointed out that my instructions and exceptions had been either overlooked or ignored by many, to wit: a) They (the Episcopalians) informed the Orthodox people that I recognized the Anglican Communion (Episcopal Church) as being united with the Holy Orthodox Church and their ministry, that is holy orders, as valid. b) The Episcopal (Anglican) clergy offered their ministrations even when my Orthodox clergy were residing in the same towns and parishes, as pastors. c) Episcopal clergy said that there was no need of the Orthodox people seeking the ministrations of their own Orthodox priests, for their (the Anglican) ministrations were all that were necessary. I, therefore, felt bound by all the circumstances to make a thorough study of the Anglican Churchʹs faith and orders, as well as of her discipline and ritual. After serious consideration I realized that it was my honest duty, as a member of the College of the Holy Orthodox Greek Apostolic Church, and head of the Syrian Mission in North America, to resign from the vice‐presidency of and membership in the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union. At the same time, I set forth, in my letter of resignation, my reason for so doing. I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline, of the whole Anglican Church are unacceptable to the Holy Orthodox Church. I make this apology for the Anglicans whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic‐minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. I speak, of course, from the Holy Orthodox Eastern Catholic point of view. The Holy Orthodox Church has never perceptibly changed from Apostolic times, and, therefore, no one can go astray in finding out what She teaches. Like Her Lord and Master, though at times surrounded with human malaria—which He in His mercy pardons— She is the same yesterday, and today, and forever (Heb. 13:8) the mother and safe deposit of the truth as it is in Jesus (cf. Eph. 4:21). The Orthodox Church differs absolutely with the Anglican Communion in reference to the number of Sacraments and in reference to the doctrinal explanation of the same. The Anglicans say in their Catechism concerning the Sacraments that there are ʺtwo only as generally necessary to salvation, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.ʺ I am well aware that, in their two books of homilies (which are not of a binding authority, for the books were prepared only in the reign of Edward VI and Queen Elizabeth for priests who were not permitted to preach their own sermons in England during times both politically and ecclesiastically perilous), it says that there are ʺfive others commonly called Sacramentsʺ (see homily in each book on the Sacraments), but long since they have repudiated in different portions of their Communion this very teaching and absolutely disavow such definitions in their ʺArticles of
Missionary Agents The Church of Nigeria Missionary Society is the Mission Agent of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) taking the Mission of God's love and reconciliation to every home in Nigeria, Africa and beyond.
Project Canterbury The Episcopal and Greek Churches Report of an Unofficial Conference on Unity Between Members of the Episcopal Church in America and His Grace, Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Athens, And His Advisers. October 26, 1918. New York: Department of Missions, 1920 PREFACE THE desire for closer communion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the various branches of the Anglican Church is by no means confined to the Anglican Communion. Many interesting efforts have been made during the past two centuries, a resume of which may be found in the recent publication of the Department of Missions of the Episcopal Church entitled Historical Contact Between the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches. The most significant approaches of recent times have been those between the Anglican and the Russian and the Greek Churches; and of late the Syrian Church of India which claims foundation by the Apostle Saint Thomas. Evdokim, the last Archbishop sent to America by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia in the year 1915, brought with him instructions that he should work for a closer understanding with the Episcopal Church in America. As a result, a series of conferences were held in the Spring of 1916. At these conferences the question of Anglican Orders, the Apostolical Canons and the Seventh Oecumenical Council were discussed. The Russians were willing to accept the conclusions of Professor Sokoloff, as set forth in his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Divinity, approved by the Holy Governing Synod of Russia. In this thesis he proved the historical continuity of Anglican Orders, and the intention to conform to the practice of the ancient Church. He expressed some suspicion concerning the belief of part of the Anglican Church in the nature of the sacraments, but maintained that this could not be of sufficient magnitude to prevent the free operation of the Holy Spirit. The Russian members of the conference, while accepting this conclusion, pointed out that further steps toward inter‐communion could only be made by an oecumenical council. The following is quoted from the above‐mentioned publication: The Apostolical Canons were considered one by one. With explanations on both sides, the two Churches were found to be in substantial agreement. In connection with canon forty‐six, the Archbishop stated that the Russian Church would accept any Anglican Baptism or any other Catholic Baptism. Difficulties concerning the frequent so‐called ʺperiods of fastingʺ were removed by rendering the word ʺfastingʺ as ʺabstinence.ʺ Both Anglicans and Russians agreed that only two fast‐days were enjoined on their members‐‐ Ash‐Wednesday and Good Friday. The Seventh Oecumenical Council was fully discussed. Satisfactory explanations were given by both sides, but no final decision was reached. Before the conference could be reconvened, the Archbishop was summoned to a General Conference of the Orthodox Church at Moscow. During the past year the Syrian Church and the Anglican Church in India have been giving very full and careful consideration to the question of Reunion and it is hoped that some working basis may be speedily established. As a preliminary to this present conference, the writer addressed, with the approval of the members of the conference representing the Episcopal Church, a letter to the Metropolitan which became the basis of discussion. This letter has been published as one of the pamphlets of this series under the title, An Anglican Programme for Reunion. These conferences were followed by a series of other conferences in England which took up the thoughts contained in the American programme, as is shown in the following quotation from the preface to the above‐mentioned letter: At the first conference the American position was reviewed and it was mutually agreed that the present aim of such conference was not for union in the sense of ʺcorporate solidarityʺ based on the restoration of intercommunion, but through clear understanding of each otherʹs position. The general understanding was that there was no real bar to communion between the two Churches and it was desirable that it should be permitted, but that such permission could only be given through the action of a General Council. The third of these series of conferences was held at Oxford. About forty representatives of the Anglican Church attended. The questions of Baptism and Confirmation were considered by this conference. It was shown that, until the eighteenth century, re‐baptism of non‐Orthodox was never practiced. It was then introduced as a protest against the custom in the Latin Church of baptizing, not only living Orthodox, but in many cases, even the dead. Under order of Patriarch Joachim III, it has become the Greek custom not to re‐baptize Anglicans who have been baptized by English priests. In the matter of Confirmation it was shown that in the cases of the Orthodox, the custom of anointing with oil, called Holy Chrism, differs to some extent from our Confirmation. It is regarded as a seal of orthodoxy and should not be viewed as repetition of Confirmation. Even in the Orthodox Church lapsed communicants must receive Chrism again before restoration. The fourth conference was held in the Jerusalem Chapel of Westminster Abbey, under the presidency of the Bishop of Winchester. This discussion was confined to the consideration of the Seventh Oecumenical Council. It is not felt by the Greeks that the number of differences on this point touch doctrinal or even disciplinary principles. The Metropolitan stated that there was no difficulty tin the subject. From what he had seen of Anglican Churches, he was assured as to our practice. He further stated that he was strongly opposed to the practice of ascribing certain virtues and power to particular icons, and that he himself had written strongly against this practice, and that the Holy Synod of Greece had issued directions against it.ʺ Those brought in contact with the Metropolitan of Athens, and those who followed the work of the Commission on Faith and Order can testify to the evident desire of the authorities of the East for closer union with the Anglican Church as soon as conditions permit. This report is submitted because there is much loose thinking and careless utterance on every side concerning the position of the Orthodox Church and the relation of the Episcopal Church to her sister Churches of the East. It seems not merely wise, but necessary, to place before Church people a document showing how the minds of leading thinkers of both Episcopal and Orthodox Churches are approaching this most momentous problem of Intercommunion and Church Unity. THE CONFERENCE BY common agreement, representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church and delegates from the American Branch of the Anglican and Eastern Association and of the Christian Unity Foundation of the Episcopal Church, met in the Bible Room of the Library of the General Theological Seminary, Saturday, October 26, 1918, at ten oʹclock. There were present as representing the Greek Orthodox Church: His Grace, the Most Reverend Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Greece; the Very Reverend Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, D.D., Professor of the University of Athens and Director of the Theological Seminary ʺRizariosʺ; Hamilcar Alivisatos, D.D., Director of the Ecclesiastical Department of the Ministry of Religion and Education, Athens, and Mr. Tsolainos, who acted as interpreter. The Episcopal Church was represented by the Right Reverend Frederick Courtney; the Right Reverend Frederick J. Kinsman, Bishop of Delaware; the Right Reverend James H. Darlington, D.D., Bishop of Harrisburg; the Very Reverend Hughell Fosbroke, Dean of the General Theological Seminary; the Reverend Francis J. Hall, D.D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the General Theological Seminary; the Reverend Rockland T. Homans, the Reverend William Chauncey Emhardt, Secretary of the American Branch of the Anglican and Eastern Association and of the Christian Unity Foundation; Robert H. Gardiner, Esquire, Secretary of the Commission for a World Conference on Faith and Order; and Seraphim G. Canoutas, Esquire. The Right Reverend Edward M. Parker, D.D., Bishop of New Hampshire, telegraphed his inability to be present. His Grace the Metropolitan presided over the Greek delegation and Dr. Alivisatos acted as secretary. The Right Reverend Frederick Courtney presided over the American delegation and the Reverend W. C. Emhardt acted as secretary. Bishop Courtney opened the conference with prayer and made the following remarks: ʺOur brethren of the Greek Church, as well as the Anglican, have received copies of the letter to His Grace which our secretary has drawn up; and which lies before us this morning. It is clear to all those who have taken active part in efforts to draw together, that it is of no use any longer to congratulate each other upon points on which we agree, so long as we hold back those things on which we differ. The points on which we agree are not those which have caused the separation, but the things concerning which we differ. So long as we assume that the conditions which separate us now are the same as those which have held us apart, we are in line for removing those things which separate us. We are making the valleys to be filled and the mountains to be brought low and making possible a revival of the spirit of unity. It is in the hope of effecting this that we are gathered together. Doctrinal differences underlie the things that differentiate us from each other. The proper way to begin this conference would be to ask the Greeks what they think of some of the propositions laid down in the letter, beginning first with the question of the Validity of Anglican Orders, and then proceeding to the ʺFilioque Clauseʺ in the Creed and other topics suggested. ʺWill His Grace kindly state what is his view concerning the Validity of Anglican Orders?ʺ The Metropolitan: ʺI am greatly moved indeed, and it is with feelings of great emotion that I come to this conference around the table with such learned theologians of the Episcopal Church. Because it is the first time I have been given the opportunity to express, not only my personal desire, but the desire of my Church, that we may all be one. I understand that this conference is unofficial. Neither our Episcopal brethren, nor the Orthodox, officially represent their Churches. The fact, however, that we have come together in the spirit of prayer and love to discuss these questions, is a clear and eloquent proof that we are on the desired road to unity. I would wish, that in discussing these questions of ecclesiastical importance in the presence of such theological experts, that I were as well equipped for the undertaking as you are. Unfortunately, however, from the day that I graduated from the Theological Seminary at Jerusalem, I have been absorbed in the great question of the day, which has been the salvation of Christians from the sword of the invader of the Orient. ʺUnfortunately, because we have been confronted in the Near East with this problem of paramount importance, we leaders have not had the opportunity to think of these equally important questions. The occupants of three of the ancient thrones of Christendom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Antioch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, have been constantly confronted with the question of how to save their own fold from extermination. These patriarchates represent a great number of Orthodox and their influence would be of prime importance in any deliberation. But they have not had time to send their bishops to a round‐table conference to deliberate on the questions of doctrine. A general synod, such as is so profitably held in your Church when you come together every three years, would have the same result, if we could hold the same sort of synod in the Near East. A conference similar to the one held by your Church was planned by the Patriarch of Constantinople in September, 1911, but he did not take place, owing to command of the Sultan that the bishops who attended would be subject to penalty of death. ʺIn 1906, when the Olympic games took place in Athens, the Metropolitan of Drama, now of Smyrna, passed through Athens. That was sufficient to cause an imperative demand of the Patriarch of Constantinople that the Metropolitan be punished, and in consequence he was transferred from Drama to Smyrna. From these facts you can see under what conditions the evolution of the Greek Church has been taking place. ʺAs I have stated in former conversations with my brethren of the Episcopal Church, we hope that, by the Grace of God, freedom and liberty will come to our race, and our bishops will be free to attend such conferences as we desire. I assure you that a great spirit of revival will be inaugurated and give proof of the revival of Grecian life of former times. ʺThe question of the freedom of the territory to be occupied in the Near East is not merely a question of the liberty of the people and the individual, but also
Encyclical on Anglican Orders from the Oecumenical Patriarch to the Presidents of the Particular Eastern Orthodox Churches, 1922 [The Holy Synod has studied the report of the Committee and notes:] 1. That the ordination of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury by four bishops is a fact established by history. 2. That in this and subsequent ordinations there are found in their fullness those orthodox and indispensable, visible and sensible elements of valid episcopal ordination ‐ viz. the laying on of hands, the Epiclesis of the All‐Holy Spirit and also the purpose to transmit the charisma of the Episcopal ministry. 3. That the orthodox theologians who have scientifically examined the question have almost unanimously come to the same conclusions and have declared themselves as accepting the validity of Anglican Orders. 4. That the practice in the Church affords no indication that the Orthodox Church has ever officially treated the validity of Anglican Orders as in doubt, in such a way as would point to the re‐ordination of the Anglican clergy as required in the case of the union of the two Churches. + Meletios [Metaxakis], Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Oecumenical Patriarch http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/patriarc.htm
2 3 Orthodox. Well, while you’re thinking let me remind you that the Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical of 1848 also condemned this teaching, which is essentially that of the Lutherans. It is also very close to the Anglican idea of the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Eucharist – although it is notoriously difficult to say precisely what the Anglicans believe. And you will remember that the Anglicans and Catholics killed each other during the Anglican Reformation precisely because the Catholics had a realistic understanding of the sacrament, whereas the Anglicans, being Protestants, did not. A recent Anglican biography of the first Anglican archbishop, Cranmer, has demonstrated that he was a Zwinglian in his eucharistic theology. Rationalist. You know, I think that you are misrepresenting the Anglican position. Fr. X of the Moscow Theological Academy has told me that the Orthodox teaching coincides with that of the Anglicans, but not with that of the Catholics. Orthodox. Really, you do surprise me! I knew that your Moscow theologians were close to the Anglicans, the spiritual fathers of the ecumenical movement and masters of doctrinal double‐think, but I did not know that they had actually embraced their doctrines! As for the Catholics – what do you find wrong with their eucharistic theology? Rationalist. Don’t you know? The Orthodox reject the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation! Orthodox. I do not believe that the Orthodox reject transubstantiation. We dislike the word “transubstantiation” because of its connotations of Aristotlean philosophy and medieval scholasticism, but very few people today – even Catholics – use the word in the technically Aristotlean sense. Most people mean by “transubstantiation” simply the doctrine that the substances of bread and wine are changed into the substances of Body and Blood in the Eucharist, which is Orthodox. The Eastern Patriarchs in their Encyclical write that “the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual Body of the Lord.” They use four words here, including “transubstantiated”, to show that they are equivalent in meaning. In any case, is not the Russian word “presuschestvlenie” a translation of “transubstantiation”? It is important not to quarrel over words if the doctrine the words express is the same. Rationalist. Nevertheless, the doctrine of transubstantiation is Catholic and heretical. Orthodox. If that is so, why has the Orthodox Church never condemned it as heretical? The Orthodox Church has on many occasions condemned the Catholic heresies of the Filioque, papal infallibility, created grace, etc., but never the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. Rationalist. It’s still heretical. And I have to say that I find your thinking very western, scholastic, primitive and materialist! Orthodox. Perhaps you’ll find these words of the Lord also “primitive and materialist”: “Unless you eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood, you have no life in you” (John 6.53). And these words of St. John Chrysostom written in his commentary on the Lord’s words: “He hath given to those who desire Him not only to see Him, but even to touch, and eat Him, and fix their teeth in His Flesh, and to embrace Him, and satisfy their love…” 5 Was St. John Chrysostom, the composer of our Liturgy, a western Catholic in his thinking? Rationalist. Don’t be absurd! Orthodox. Well then… Let’s leave the Catholics and Protestants and get back to the Orthodox position. And let me put my understanding of the Orthodox doctrine as concisely as possible: at the moment of consecration the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ in such a way that there is no longer the substances of bread and wine, but only of Body and Blood. Rationalist. I accept that so long as you do not mean that there is a physico‐ chemical change in the constitution of the bread and wine? Orthodox. But can there not be a physico‐chemical change?! Are not bread and wine physical substances? Rationalist. Yes. Orthodox. And are not human flesh and blood physico‐chemical substances? Rationalist. Yes… Orthodox. And is not a change from one physico‐chemical substance into another physico‐chemical substance a physico‐chemical change? Rationalist. Here you are demonstrating your western, legalistic, primitive mentality! All Aristotlean syllogisms and empty logic! The Orthodox mind is quite different: it is mystical. You forget that we are talking about a Mystery! Orthodox. Forgive me for offending you. I quite accept that we are talking about a Mystery. But there is a difference between mystery and mystification. If we are going to speak at all, we must speak clearly, with as precise a definition of terms as human speech will allow. The Fathers were not opposed to logic or clarity. Illogicality is no virtue! Rationalist. Alright… But the fact remains that the change is not a physico‐ chemical one, but a supernatural one. It says so in the Liturgy itself! Orthodox. I agree that the change is supernatural in two senses. First, the instantaneous change of one physical substance into another is obviously not something that we find in the ordinary course of nature. Of course, bread and wine are naturally changed into flesh and blood through the process of eating and digestion. But in this case the change is effected, not by eating, but by the word of prayer – and it’s instantaneous. For, as St. Gregory of Nyssa points out, “it is not a matter of the bread becoming the Body of the Word through the natural process of eating: rather it is transmuted immediately into the Body 5 St.
Anglican Church of Rwanda, Kigali Diocese Department of Evangelism and Training THE 4O DAYS OF LENT CALENDAR:
The Church of Serbia Permitted Anglicans to Commune in 1865 (The below article is taken from an Anglican source) ORTHODOX PRECEDENT Orthodox precedent for the admission of non‐Orthodox in destitution exists as far back as the twelfth century, and was justified by the Orthodox canonist Balsamon, but no precedent exists, so far as is known, for the public admission for non‐Orthodox not in destitution. Neither the Patriarch nor the Serbian Church is committed to any repetition of the action, nor is the Orthodox Church as a whole, nor is the Anglican Church committed in any way. But it has nevertheless no small importance. Evidently some of the Orthodox in Belgrade were not very happy about it, fearing it might be premature. The Politika said: ʺAlthough the manifestation of the relationship made so beautifully among us at the cathedral was both touching and praiseworthy, some people did not approve the action of the Patriarch because the Anglicans are not in formal communion with us.ʺ Frank Steel, an attaché of the British legation, who was one of the eight communicants, writes a letter to the Church Times of which I give some extracts: ʺAs there is no English church or chaplain in Belgrade, a letter was sent to the Patriarch, asking if he would permit us to make our communion at the cathedral on Christmas Day. The Patriarch replied expressing his approval, and personally administered the Sacrament to four Americans and four English people, of whom I was one.ʺ ʺI understand that no patriarch has ever officiated in this capacity before, but His Holiness insisted on administering the Sacrament himself. I hear that a large number of Orthodox priests have expressed their disapproval of His Holinessʹ action, and the newspapers have given diverse views on the matter.ʺ It would be indeed interesting if Mr. Steel would give us some more details of what must evidently have been a very wonderful experience. A WAR PRECEDENT Another letter has also been printed in the same journal from an English country parson who was communicated by a Serb priest during the war: ʺIt may be of interest to know that during the war, while I was stationed at Salonika, I was admitted to the Sacrament of Holy Communion by the express consent and with the utmost goodwill of the Serbian ecclesiastical authorities. There could be no question of destitution in this case, for English chaplains and services were well to the fore. I took it to be a grateful acknowledgement of the kindly feelings between me and the Serbians under my command, and who asked that I might communicate with them. I was not a chaplain.ʺ This is indeed a remarkable letter. The sum total of the matter seems to be, whatever the theological issues involved may be, that the Serbs like the Americans and English and wish to share their religious experiences and privileges with them. INTERCOMMUNION SIXTY YEARS AGO I am supposed to chronicle news in these letters, but perhaps I may be pardoned for once if I delve down into the files of the Church Times as far back as August, 1865, to find an occasion when a similar thing seems to have happened in Belgrade. The following is quoted from a correspondent signed W[illiam]. D[enton]. ʺWhen I mentioned in my former letter that I received communion in the Serbian Church at the hands of the Archimandrite of Studenitza, I forgot at the same time to point out the full significance of the act. The Archimandrite was one of the ecclesiastics consulted by the Archbishop of Belgrade as to my request for communion on Whitsunday, so that the administration was not the act of an individual, however prominent his position, but was the synodical act of the prelates and inferior clergy of Servia. I arrived at the monastery of Studenitza on Monday. I left it on Wednesday, and on Thursday I had another pleasant meeting with the Bishop of Tschatchat. I found that he knew all about the proposed administration to me by the Archimandrite. Leaving him, I had a few daysʹ travel in the interior of the country and met all the leading ecclesiastics. Among others I had pleasure in meeting the Archpriest of Jagodina, whose acquaintance I had made while he was a resident of the monastery of Ruscavitza. I found on all sides the greatest satisfaction at my communion, and I heard the strongest desire expressed for closer intercourse with the English Church on the ground of its orthodoxy and the prominent position given to scriptural teaching in its formularies. ʺI had the pleasure of staying with the Bishop of Schabatz and the opportunity of discussing with that able and large‐minded prelate the question of intercommunion of the Churches of England and Servia. Referring to my communion at Studenitza he hailed me as a member of the Orthodox Church. But he did more than this. I was accompanied by an English layman who intends to make a stay in Servia of at least two monthsʹ duration after my leaving. I mentioned that as he was accustomed to communicate in the English Church he was unwilling to be deprived of the same blessing whilst in a strange land. The bishop at once declared that there was no hindrance to his communicating in Servia, and at my request gave him a letter addressed to all the clergy of his diocese, directing them to administer communion to him, a member of the Church of England, if he desired to receive the sacred mysteries. ʺThere now remained the general question of the right of all members of the English Church to communicate simply as members of the English Church, and without any test beond that of their loyal membership in their own branch of the Church Catholic: and your readers will be glad to know that on the production of a simple certificate of real and living membership, settled by the bishop and indicated to me, all such persons will from this time forth be received as communicants of the Orthodox Church of Servia. And intercommunion of one portion of the Orthodox Church cannot long precede formal intercommunion with the whole Eastern Church. Here is real intercommunion on the true Catholic basis, the beginning I trust of wider communion. There is no doubt much to labor for, much to pray for, much need of ʹpatience and confidenceʹ, but here surely is the darn and promise; in part also to past prayers for unity, but especially may we, I trust, without presumption, see an answer to His effectual prayer, who, in the night of His betrayal, prayed ʹthat they all may [541/542] be one.ʹ Who shall despair and say any longer that the unity of all Christian people is a mere dream, when in the person of the English and Servian Churches, the distant East resumes her intercourse with the separated West; and when what to most persons since the Council of Florence has seemed unattainable, has been done without human instruments by Him who in essence and attributes is One.ʺ Church Times OPTIMISTIC This is an extraordinarily optimistic letter almost implying that reunion between the two churches was a fait accompli. But, whatever the rights and wrongs of the facts, very little seems to have arisen from them. The following is a portion of a leading article that appeared in the Church Times on August 26, 1865. ʺThe Servian Church has entered into full communion with the Church of England. This is the step to which we allude. The efforts of the ʹEastern Church Associationʹ and especially the energy, perseverance, and personal popularity in Servia of one of the first originators of that association have induced the ancient Orthodox Church in Servia to admit privately to Holy Communion, and to promise to admit to participation in the sacred mysteries any traveler, whether priest or layman of the Anglican communion, who shall bring with him certain letters commendatory, the form of which will be arranged and agreed upon by the Servian episcopate. Thus we really at the present moment are in communion with the whole Orthodox Church. For the Servian Church is an Orthodox branch of the great Slavonic communion, and is in full connection and communion with Constantinople. But the Servian Church has recognized our baptism, our orders, and our position, and has admitted our members into communion with herself: therefore now at last the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Church are as one. What shall we say? The heart of every believer must burst into an irrepressible Te Deum at such a truly Christian triumph. ʺThe Servian Church which, perhaps, is little known to our readers as yet except through certain charity‐breathing letters of its prelates, especially of Archbishop Michael, will soon be a household word in our mouths. We are bound to give the Servians the credit which is their due for their freedom of spirit and their intelligent and far‐seeing charity. English Churchmen must reciprocate this mighty act of Christian brotherhood by all the means that lie within their power. The Eastern Church for a century past is a suffering Church. The Church of autonomous Servia has emerged from the fiery trial of persecution into a clear sky and a more peaceful dwelling place. English Churchmen in future will find it impossible to side with the infidel and the Mahometan against those with whom they have broken the Bread of Life and shared the Cup of Immortality. They are and they must vividly realize that they are one Church with them.ʺ C. H. PALMER.
Like the mother Church, the Methodist Church in Ghana was established from a core of persons with Anglican background.
In the Anglican cycle of prayer, please pray for all members of the Anglican Communion around the world:
Sue 0427 962 281 or firstname.lastname@example.org St Marks Anglican Church Cnr of Grafton and Albion Streets, Warwick 1:00pm -2:00pm and 2:00pm -3:00pm “Sandstone &
Facts & Figures 62%
Plans were the Wesley brothers to travel to Georgia as missionaries to the Indians for the Anglican church.
Francisco, Ph.D., D.D., PH Archbishop for the United States Armed Forces Bishop Emissary for the Diocese of Katakwa – Anglican Church of Kenya (Anglican Communion) Spiritual Formation Workbook Based on the Aims and Methods of Scouting The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the Contemporary English Version © 1995, American Bible Society, used by permission.
Historical Contact of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches A review of the relations between the Orthodox Church of the East and the Anglican Church since the time of Theodore of Tarsus By William Chauncey Emhardt Department of Missions and Church Extension of the Episcopal Church New York 1920 EARLY RELATIONS The creation of a department for Church Work among Foreign‐born Americans and their Children under the Presiding Bishop and Council, calls for a careful consideration of the Orthodox Church. It seems most desirable first of all to review briefly the historical contact which has existed between the Church of England and the Orthodox Eastern Church from almost the very beginning. There are, of course, many traditions, unsupported however by historical documents, which indicate that the English Church was of Grecian origin, and that contact between Greece and the British Isles prior to the time of Saint Augustine (A. D. 597) was continuous. The attendance of bishops of the British Church at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), the first historical reference toʹ the Church in England, proves that there was some contact. In 680 A.D., a Greek, Theodore of Tarsus, was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, thus bringing the Greek Church to the Metropolitan See itself. Theodore left deep imprint upon both the civil and the ecclesiastical life of England, unifying the several kingdoms and organizing into a compact body the disjointed churches of the land. To him, more [1/2] than to any other source, we should trace the spirit of national unity and independence in national and religious ambitions that has since characterized the English nation. It is worthy of note that under Theodore the famous Council of Hatfield was held, at which the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Ghost was accepted by the English Church, long before this doctrine was officially recognized in either Spain or Rome. It seems strange that theologians, of either side of the controversy which has grown around this doctrine, have never turned to Theodore as the justifier of the doctrine and as an historical evidence that the British Church, by its acceptance, never intended to depart from the teachings of the East. RELATIONS IN SEVENTEENTH CENTURY Many centuries must be passed over before we again find Grecian contact in English ecclesiastical life. In 1617, Metrophanes Critopoulos of Veria was sent by the martyr‐patriarch Cyril Lucar to continue his studies at Oxford. Three years later Nicodemus Metaxas of Cephalonia established the first Greek printing press in England. This he later took to Constantinople, where it was immediately destroyed by the Turks. In the year 1653 we find Isaac Basire, a religious exile, trying to establish good feeling among the Greeks toward the suffering Church of England, delighting in spreading among the Greeks at Zante information concerning the Catholic doctrine of our Church. In the same year we find him writing: ʺAt Jerusalem I received much honor, both from the Greeks and Latins. The Greek Patriarch (the better to express his desire of communion with our old Church of England by mee declared unto him) gave mee his bull or patriarchal seal in a blanke (which is their way of credence) besides many [2/3] other respects. As for the Latins they received mee most courteously into their own convent, though I did openly profess myself a priest of the Church of England. After some velitations about the validity of our ordination, they procured mee entrance into the Temple of the Sepulchre, at the rate of a priest, that is, that is half in half less than the lay‐menʹs rate; and at my departure from Jerusalem the popeʹs own vicar (called Commissarius Apostolicus Generalis) gave me his diploma in parchment under his own hand and publick seal, in it stiling mee Sacerdotum Ecclasiae Anglicanae and S.S. Theologiae Doctorem; at which title many marvelled, especilly the Freench Ambassador here (Pera). . . Meanwhile, as I have not been unmindful of our Church, with the true patriarch here, whose usurper noe for a while doth interpose, so will I not be wanting to to embrace all opportunities of propagating the doctrine and repute thereof, stylo veteri; Especilly if I should about it receive commands or instructions from the King (Charles II) (whom God save) only in ordine as Ecclesiastica do I speak this; as for instance, proposall of communion with the Greek Church (salva conscientia et honore) a church very considerable in all those parts. And to such a communion, together with a convenient reformation of some grosser errours, it hath been my constant design to dispose and incline them.ʺ In 1670, the chaplain of the English Embassy at Constantinople at the request of Drs. Pearson, Sancroft and Gunning, made special inquiry concerning the alleged teaching of the doctrine of transubstantiation by the Greeks and recorded his impressions in a publication called Some Account of the Present Greek Churches, published in 1722. His successor, Edward Browne, made a number of official reports concerning the affairs of the Greek Church. In 1669 occurred the noted semi‐official visit of Papas Jeremias Germanus to Oxford. A more important visit was undertaken [3/4] by Joseph Georgirenes, Metropolitan of Samos, who solicited funds for the building of a Greek church, which was erected in the Soho quarter of London in 1677. Over the door there was an inscription recording its setting up in the reign of King Charles the Second, while Dr. Henry Compton was Bishop of London. The cost was borne by the king, the Duke of York, the Bishop of London, and other bishops and nobles. The Greeks do not seem to have kept it long; and after some changes of ownership it was consecrated for Anglican worship in the middle of the nineteenth century under the title and in honor of Saint Mary the Virgin. It was taken down as unsafe at the end of that century and a new building was set up on the site. The Bishop of London, who seemed to be a special patron of the Greeks at this time, undertook the establishment of a Greek College for Greek students, who probably came from Smyrna. An unsigned letter to Archbishop Sancroft seems to indicate that in 1680 twelve Greek students were sent to Oxford. In addition to the Bishop of London, the chief promoter of this movement was Dr. Woodroof, Canon of Christ Church, who succeeded in getting Gloucester Hall, now Worcester College, assigned to the Greeks. There exists in the Archbishopʹs library at Lambeth a printed paper describing the ʺModel of a College to be settled in the university for the education of some youths of the Greek Church.ʺ These twelve students seemed to have been but temporary residents, however, because no official account is given of the permanent residence of Greek students until the year 1698. It is significant to find that in the year 1698, in the copy of the Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, prepared by the World Commissioners for the revision of the liturgy, who were by no means sympathetic with the Greeks, an expression of desire that some explanation of the addition of [4/5] the Filioque, a clause in the Creed, should be given, with the view to ʺmaintaining Catholic Communionʺ as suggested by Dr: Henry Compton. RELATIONS IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY About 1700, Archbishop Philippopolis was granted honorary degrees in both Oxford and Cambridge and was accorded general courtesies. These free relationships had an abrupt termination when, in a letter dated March 2, 1705, the registrar of the Church of Constantinople wrote as follows to Mr. Stephens: ʺThe irregular life of certain priests and laymen of the Eastern Church, living in London, is a matter of great concern to the Church. Wherefore the Church forbids any to go and study at Oxford be they ever so willing.ʺ In 1706, we find the Archbishop of Gotchan in Armenia, receiving liberal contributions from Queen Anne and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York toward the establishment of a printing press for his people. Soon afterward considerable correspondence was established between the dissenting Nonjurors and the Patriarchs of the East. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Wake wrote to the Patriarch of Jerusalem explaining that the Nonjurors were separatists from the Church of England. The Archbiship significantly ends his letter: ʺita ut in orationibus atque sacrificiis tuis ad sacra Dei altaria mei reminiscaris impensissime rogo.ʺ In 1735, we find the Society for the Promoting of Christian Knowledge recording a gift of books as a present to the Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople. In 1772, the Reverend Dr. King, chaplain to the British Factory at St. Petersburg, after explaining the necessity of the elaborate worship of the Greek Church, in a report, dedicated by permission to King George III says: ʺThe Greek Church as it is at present established in Russia, may be considered in respect of [5/6] its service as a model of the highest antiquity now extant.ʺ About the same time we find the Latitudinarian Bishop of Llandaff, Dr. Watson, advising a young woman that she should have no scruples in marrying a Russian, ʺon the subject of religion.ʺ We find early in the nineteenth century, Dr. Waddingham, afterward Dean of Durham, publishing a sympathetic account of The Present Condition and Prospects of the Greek Oriental Church. RELATIONS IN NINETEENTH CENTURY Intimate relations were again resumed at the time of the Greek insurrection in 1821, when many Greeks fled to England to escape the vengeance of the Turks. The flourishing churches in London, Lancaster and Liverpool date from this period. The actual resumption of intercourse between the two Churches dates from 1829 when the American Church was first brought into contact with the Church in the East through the mission of Drs. Robertson and Hill. This was purely an expression of a disinterested desire on the part of the American Church to assist the people of Greece in their effort to recover the educational advantages which had been suppressed by the Turk. The educational work of Dr. Hill at Athens became famous throughout the East. Dr. Hill continued as the head of the school for over fifty years. The next approach by the American Church was made by the Reverend Horatio Southgate, who was sent from this country to investigate the missionary opportunities in Turkey and Persia. In order to avoid any suspicions concerning the motive of the American Church, he again returned in 1840 to assure their ecclesiastical authorities that ʺthe American bishops wished most scrupulously to avoid all effusive intrusion within the jurisdiction of their Episcopal brethren their great desire being to commend and promote a friendly intercourse between the two branches of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in the [6/7] hope of mutual advantage.ʺ He returned again in 1844 and although he met with considerable success in his efforts to establish a work for the Church he found that the Church at home was not prepared for such an undertaking and after a few years returned to America. ʺIn the General Convention of 1862, a joint committee was appointed to consider the expediency of opening communication with the Russo‐Greek Church, and to collect authentic information bearing upon the subject. And, in July, 1863, a corresponding committee was appointed in the lower house of the Convocation of Canterbury. Between 1862 and 1867, a number of important pamphlets were issued by the Russo‐Greek committee, under the able editorship of the Reverend Dr. Young, its secretary. After Dr. Young was made Bishop of Florida, the Reverend Charles R. Hale, afterwards Bishop of Cairo, was appointed to succeed him as secretary of the Russo‐Greek committee, and wrote the reports presented to the General Convention of 1871 and 1874. When the Joint Commission on Ecclesiastical Relations replaced with larger powers the Russo‐Greek Committee, he was in 1877 made secretary of the commissions, and wrote the reports up to the year 1895.ʺ The reports of this committee and the pamphlets issued between the years 1862 and 1867 are extremely valuable, showing the care exercised by the Church in those days, in trying to meet a problem that was just beginning to present itself. While negotiations of the American Committee were in process in 1867 an interesting interview was held by Archbishop Alexander Lycurgus of Cyclades, and a number of bishops and clergy of the Church of England. The Archbishop went to England in order to dedicate the orthodox church at
Conversion of John and Charles Wesley, already devout Anglican ministers, sparks Great Awakening.
186 By Nan Lu A Serious Fracture in the Anglican Church .
Established in 1999, it brings together Evangelical, Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox Christians, as well as members of the Free Churches and new congregations.
good quality roman catholic chasuble The usage of complete vestments is noted mostly with the anglican, lutheran as well as the roman catholic.
The Church of England has 6,000 Anglican Orthodox Church members in the U.S.