Anglicanorum Coetibus has created a mechanism for bringing hundreds of thousands of Anglicans worldwide into the Church, so we can say that the “Anglican Front” is indeed a very active one. But, according to Sandro Magister, this development has pricked at certain sensitivities of the Orthodox, opening up activities on that front:
In Cyprus, the news that the Catholic Church is ready to incorporate groups coming from Anglicanism also put the Orthodox on alert. Their fear is that a “Uniate” Church of the Anglican rite will be established and added to the “Uniate” Churches of the various Eastern rites: these are Churches obedient to the pope of Rome but in everything else the equals and rivals of the Orthodox.
In this regard, Kasper says in the interview:
“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. […] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”
So, a move favoring the corporate union of certain Anglicans has raised at least some alarm in Orthodox circles. One lesson we can learn from this is that the Orthodox authorities think it possible that the Catholic Church may look eastward and make dialogue a lesser priority than actually bringing souls into Christian Unity under the Supreme Pontiff. Could that fear be based in reality? If so, what missionary potential is there in the Christian East? Or, what potential is there for real, effective unity in the Christian East, so that “Uniatism” will cease being a problem to the Orthodox (and it will remain a problem until the Eastern Orthodox embrace Roman unity)?
Obviously, the issue of issues is the papacy. On that point, and getting back to the Anglicans, I happened across an new and promising Anglo-Catholic blog the other day that vigorously promotes unity with the Holy See. It is the work of a lay member of the Traditional Anglican Communion’s “Anglican Church of America” (ACA), Mr. Christian Campbell. Mr. Cambpell has posted some amazing comments of an Anglican clergyman defending the papacy. Our Orthodox brethren should give this some thought. (By the way, I suspect that this site, The Anglo-Catholic, will be one to watch for good coverage of the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in the months and years to come. Its creator is Anglican, which means that it’s in good taste, and he is headed Romeward, which indicates that it’s Catholic.)
Speaking of things the Orthodox ought to consider, I also happened upon the posting, “Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox” by a fellow calling himself “The Paleocrat.” He offers some good points from the perspective of one who at first considered Orthodoxy, but who converted to Catholicism instead. Read his point number six, which deals with ecumenical councils. I’ve used this argument with many Orthodox, and have never gotten a satisfactory answer. Well, not quite. The replies I heard were actually very much to my satisfaction, inasmuch as they show the necessity of the papacy, but they do not do much for the cogency of the Orthodox position. (If you are interested in this subject, and should you like to read a good book on apologetics for the Orthodox, I highly recommend Vladimir Soloviev’s The Russian Church and the Papacy.)
In the last analysis, you can’t be Catholic without the pope. The failed “Anglican experiment” has clearly proven this for those with eyes to see. And the nationalist sectarianism within Orthodoxy makes the point clearly, too.
