In Response to a Recent Sermon Dismissing the Validity and Necessity of the Anglican Vicariate

The Pivotal Liturgy in Which the Anglo-Orthodox Approach was Proposed to Counter Anglican Apostasy and Orthodox Triumphalism and Ethno-Phyletism, Modesto, California, 2018

By Dcn. Duncan Richards and SDcn. Jeremy Gan (Anglican Vicariate) 

Apostolic Succession is indeed the bedrock of how we Apostolic Christians look to find where the visible church is on earth. However, we diverge from Anglicans and Roman Catholics in our view of what the true succession of the Apostles consists of and what its qualities are. We agree with our brethren in the ACNA, Anglican Continuum, the Episcopal Church etc. and the Roman Church in one important and indispensable component of true Apostolic Succession - The unbroken mechanical and tactile chain of laying on of hands in episcopal consecration from the Apostles through their successors has passed down to the current day. St. Irenaeus clearly demonstrates this in his Against Heresies in the 2nd Century. 

However, what Orthodoxy has maintained from the time of St. Irenaeus, and what the saint’s own words confess, is that Apostolic Succession is not some hollow husk to fill with any doctrine or practice of Sacrament or morals. To call such orders Apostolic that do not faithfully uphold the Apostolic Deposit of Faith would make Apostolic Succession a kind of legalism.

It is possible that an individual or group has gained the true Apostolic laying on of hands. But to do or believe whatever he/they desire and still claim to be part of the One Church that Christ established and his Apostles and their successors promulgated throughout the whole world, is against both the letter and spirit of St. Irenaeus. St. Irenaeus says most clearly in Book III Chapter 2 of Against Heresies:

The heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition.

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

The succession of the Apostolic Episcopate is defined not as a hammer to bash heretics over the head by saying that our Churches were started by the Apostles and others were not. The saint is not saying that because we have the unbroken mechanical connection to the Apostles, whatever our Church believes is what amounts to true orthodoxy. The Church must still preach the same unpolluted and unadulterated doctrine as those Apostles commissioned by our Lord. 

This is all to show that the truth of Christ’s Gospel has resided from the beginning, continued into the time of St. Irenaeus, and continues this day in Holy Orthodoxy, and will remain until Christ returns following Christ’s proclamation that "the gates of Hell will not prevail against [the Church].” 

Book III expounds upon the same view of Apostolic Succession’s dual identification with the tactile chain of bishops and continued orthodoxy of doctrine. Irenaeus continues to show and explain that the reason we can look to the successors of the Apostles – the bishops of the Church – as a guide for Orthodoxy of doctrine is not merely that they touched the holy hands of the Apostles but rather that they carried in them the same mind of Christ and taught truly the same Gospel doctrines. 

St. Irenaeus is concerned with the continuity of doctrine, not just the continuity of men. St. Paul said to the Ephesians the Church must be united in one mind just as “there is one body and one Spirit – just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call – one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all in all,” (4:4-5). When we find those churches that have a historical connection with an Apostolic line, that is all well and good. If that connection has been polluted and damaged with false doctrine, we cannot confidently say that full Apostolicity has been maintained. 

Regarding the specific issues at hand, let us discuss the state of Anglicanism and their claim to valid Apostolic orders and reason together. It is undeniable that from the time of St. Augustine of Canterbury in the 500s-600s to that of St. Edward the Confessor in 1054, the English Church had genuine Apostolic orders and was itself an Orthodox church as seen by her doctrines and the canonization of such saints as Edward himself elsewhere in the Orthodox world. 

However, with William the Conqueror’s conquest of England, we see the subjection of the English Church to the Roman See and her errors through the importation of Roman clergy and bishops. Nonetheless, her Apostolic orders persisted at least in the same manner as Roman orders in schism do to this day. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that Anglican orders persisted all the way up to the mid-20th century (with no admission of the point), what then should we make of the current state of Anglican orders of the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, the ACNA, etc.? With the admission of women priests and bishops from the 1970s onwards, we can see directly that those bishops who committed these heretical acts contrary to Apostolic practice and the universal declaration of the Fathers of the Church excommunicated themselves. 

Thus, the orders that stem directly from those errant bishops are forfeit and unapostolic as they no longer bear the mark of that Orthodoxy that all defenders of the faith from St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and on were so zealously concerned with. But the other bishops in the Anglican world who did not renounce and did not break communion with these renegades and so-called bishops suffer likewise and break the bonds of Apostolic continuity. By allowing such a breach of the Apostolic order and remaining in communion with the heretics, these bishops make their own orders invalid. 

How could it be otherwise? Would St. Irenaeus have ever recognize a synod that allowed a known and active Gnostic to remain within the Church? How much more so an active bishop in the synod’s good standing? Of course not! Doing so undermines that visible stamp of both continuous Apostolic succession of bishops in their historic place, but more importantly the visible stamp of the true Orthodoxy of the Gospel is removed from sight and obfuscated by their sin against the Sacraments. See what St. Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians:

14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

“I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,

and I will be their God,

and they shall be my people.

17 Therefore go out from their midst,

and be separate from them, says the Lord,

and touch no unclean thing;

then I will welcome you,

18 and I will be a father to you,

and you shall be sons and daughters to me,

says the Lord Almighty.”

In this, modern Anglican orders, despite their historic connection to the ancient and venerable English Church, have lamentably lost the visible sign of Apostolic Succession.

Further, the allowances made for such unorthodox doctrines such as Calvinism (which was anathematized at the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) by Patriarch Dositheus) to enter into the Church along with other heterodox and heretical views that were allowed not only among some random laymen but even taught by priests and bishops, further dilutes the sign and confession of that same faith of the Apostles. 

Thus, even the claim that the Church of England’s Apostolic Succession remained past the time of the Reformation until the entrance of woman’s ordination is uncertain. For this reason, Orthodoxy cautiously takes the stance of “when in doubt, re-ordain" to maintain her pure Apostolic connection and succession.

To the other point of our own synod being unrecognized by either the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) or the Moscow Patriarch (MP), this has no bearing on either the validity or Orthodoxy of our orders as neither the EP nor the MP are fountains of grace like the Roman Pontiff claims to be in the Roman system. These two large Patriarchates are currently in schism with one another, and a majority of the 17 fully-recognized autocephalous Churches currently have some form of canonical dispute or lack of recognition between themselves. 

Some may not recognize us now. However, by the ancient definition of Apostolicity, which is preserved through the laying-on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, including the clauses of not being self-appointed, maintaining constant fidelity to Orthodox doctrine, using the ancient ordinals with correct, sacramental intention, and always submitting to synodality and mutual accountability, we are valid by both the standards of the Ancient Church, and are also valid by the standards of the Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, and Anglican Communions. 

Some Eastern Orthodox would deny our validity and insist that the opposite side of the 2018 schism between the EP and the MP is also completely invalid. The Russians and some of their supporters insist that the EP-backed Orthodox Church in Ukraine (OCU), which predominantly shares our Episcopal lineage, is a false church and that all of its members are damned to Hell. We confidently deny this opinion’s validity because it is neither Christlike nor in accord with the realities of the history of the Orthodox Church. 

The Macedonian Orthodox Church was seen as uncanonical for decades until the Serbian Patriarchate restored communion with it in May 2022. The EP, MP, Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and many others would further reestablish communion with them. This begs the question of whether it has always been in a state of grace or has only been corrected by concelebration. No reordination occurred, as these churches rightfully recognized the Apostolic Succession and Deposit that has always been there, preserved by a synod of God-fearing bishops. 

Similarly, our Archdiocese has maintained synodality and pure Apostolic Doctrine, preserving the inseparable dynamic tension between the two. 

There are and will be many difficulties and struggles as Western Christians within Orthodoxy that cause us to suffer. We see in the lives of the saints that Christ brings about our sanctity through suffering, both at the hands of our enemies and even sometimes from our brethren. This suffering is certainly to be expected even within the Church, for the Church is a hospital for sinners where the Great Physician comes to heal those destroyed by sin for “those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick,” (Matthew 9:12) – and we ourselves are Christ’s patients who constantly need God’s mercy and healing in repentance and cooperation with the Holy Spirit that we may in the end be saved. 

Furthermore, because we are all sinners, whether we be Baptist, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc., we will never be able to escape such suffering as long as we live in real community with others, it will always be possible to be hurt. We cannot run away from the face of Christ found in our neighbor because of that fear. We cannot follow the path of Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov who said, “The more I love humanity in general, the less I love man in particular,” and thus we must seek to love our neighbors incarnationally as Christ did, even to suffering and death (Chapter 4). We can take comfort from the lives of great saints who suffered greatly for Orthodoxy, even within the Church, such as St. Athanasius, St. Nektarios of Aegina, St. John Maximovich, etc. 

Additionally, it seemed to us impossible to remain out of communion with the rest of Orthodoxy for such a fear of being maltreated, for we must hold fast to the one ship of the Church and not further promote schisms, as St. Clement of Rome says to the Corinthians:

Let us, therefore, join with the innocent and righteous, for these are the elect of God. Why is there strife and angry outbursts and dissension and schisms and conflict among you? Do we not have on God and on Christ and one Spirit of grace that was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another (1 Clement 46:4-7).

We pray that all orthodox churches would be thus united in the bond of peace and love as the innocent and righteous. Until the day that all schisms in Christ’s Holy Church cease, we must heed blessed Clement and pray “Let us therefore root this out quickly, and let us fall down before the Master and pray to him with tears, so that he may be merciful and be reconciled to us, and restore us to the honorable and pure conduct that characterizes our lover for others,” (1 Clement 48:1). All we can do as faithful sons and daughters of the Church seeking to be faithful to the Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition is to join ourselves to Christ’s Church. The Church is to proclaim the Gospel to all so that he or she who hears may truly enter and remain in her barque and be saved from the flood and seek Christ in an acceptable time while he is yet to be found. 

As St. Ignatius of Antioch describes, when we submit ourselves to the Church in her local establishment of her local bishop, we seek to submit ourselves to Christ by humbly working for the good of the Holy Church in our place and according to our abilities and calling:

For when you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, it is evident to me that you are living not in accordance with human standards but in accordance with Jesus Christ, who died for us in order that by believing in his death you might escape death. It is essential therefore, that you continue your current practice and do nothing without the bishop, but be subject also to the council of presbyters as to apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we so live. (The Letter of Ignatius to the Trallians 2:1-2)

Clergy, monastics, or laity, we serve Christ in the Church he has established not to enlarge our ego, gain social position, power, or money. Instead, we pray His kingdom may come “on Earth as it is in Heaven.” We join ourselves to Orthodoxy not as a means of power but as humble submission to Christ's command that we are united as Christians.

This is our apologia against the accusation that by accepting Orthodox regularizations, we unjustifiably deny the Apostolicity of Anglican orders or that our own orders are therefore irregular. While it is understandable that some would think our entrance into Orthodoxy is a condemnation of all Anglican Christians, deacons, priests, and bishops, and some would see it as us aggrandizing ourselves, this is in in no way our intention. We cannot emphasize enough that we do not deny there are many Anglicans of goodwill who now find themselves in difficult situations with liberal priests, bishops, and synods found seemingly wherever one looks. 

The solution, however, to the problems of the Anglican world are not to be found in self-sufficiency and independence without the need for unity with the Orthodox world. In entering Orthodoxy as Anglo-Orthodox we seek to maintain the venerable traditions of our English forebears and to restore the Western world to true orthodox doctrine and practice; we seek to restore the West to her proper place in the first 1000 years of the Church as a sister church where she was bound with all other local Orthodox Churches in that common Apostolic unity of Faith that we retain, maintain, live, and proclaim to the whole world. The purpose of the Anglican Vicariate is to unify and to bridge, allowing the English-speaking West to be fully Orthodox in doctrine and loyal to our blessed Patrimony.  

In this endeavor, we invite all those willing brothers and sisters to join us in restoring the beauty of the English Church to its former glories with her unique traditions, music, and writings intact to full Orthodoxy. We pray it may once again be the Bride of Christ without blemish and be a brightly shining light on the hill beckoning lost souls to find that safe harbor in the arms of Christ’s love in blessed union with the Holy Trinity.