The Orthodox View of Anglican Holy Orders

The question of the validity of Anglican Holy Orders is a matter of profound ecclesiological, sacramental, and historical significance. While Anglicanism and Eastern Orthodoxy have, at times, entertained periods of dialogue and rapprochement, the Orthodox Church has consistently approached the sacramental life of Anglicanism, particularly with regard to ordination, with caution and theological sobriety. This article seeks to explore the Orthodox view of Anglican Holy Orders through a threefold lens: historical background, theological criteria for valid orders, and the current canonical and pastoral stance of the Orthodox Church.

I. Historical Context: Apostolicae Curae and Eastern Reflections

The question of Anglican orders became acutely pressing in the wake of Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 bull Apostolicae Curae, which declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void.” This judgment was based on two principal concerns: defects in the Anglican ordinal (particularly the rites of 1552 and 1662) and a perceived deficiency in intention to ordain according to the Catholic understanding of the priesthood.

While Apostolicae Curae was a Roman Catholic document, its conclusions were taken seriously by many Orthodox theologians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially those involved in ecumenical dialogue. However, the Orthodox response has not been entirely monolithic. Some hierarchs and theologians, particularly in the Church of Constantinople and the Russian Church, expressed more cautious and diplomatic tones. Still, the prevailing consensus has leaned toward skepticism regarding the sacramental efficacy of Anglican ordinations.

Indeed, while the Orthodox Church recognizes the presence of grace and the workings of the Holy Spirit outside her canonical boundaries, she does not readily confer recognition of sacramental validity to those separated from her without serious theological and canonical examination. In this regard, the matter of Anglican orders does not merely hinge on historical succession, but on fidelity to the Orthodox understanding of the priesthood, the Eucharist, and ecclesial communion.

II. Theological Criteria: Apostolic Succession, Right Intention, and Liturgical Form

For the Orthodox Church, the validity of Holy Orders is not a simple matter of mechanical apostolic succession—that is, of an unbroken chain of episcopal consecrations. Rather, it entails three necessary elements: (1) apostolic succession through the laying on of hands; (2) the right intention and Orthodox faith concerning the ministry being conferred; and (3) a liturgical rite that manifests this theology in its form and content.

Apostolic Succession:
Anglicans claim apostolic succession through the historical continuity of the English episcopate following the break with Rome. However, this claim is complicated by the fact that the English Reformation introduced doctrinal shifts that affected the understanding of the priesthood itself. For example, the 1552 ordinal explicitly removed references to the priest’s role in offering the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a role the Orthodox consider intrinsic to the priesthood. Orthodox theology does not separate apostolic succession from the fullness of apostolic faith. Succession without faith is not succession in the true and spiritual sense.
Right Intention and Faith:
Orthodox ordination is not merely about a rite being performed, but the whole ecclesial context in which it is enacted. If the intention behind ordination is not to confer the priesthood as the Church has always understood it—a priesthood that offers the Eucharistic sacrifice, forgives sins, and acts as icon of Christ in the community—then the rite becomes empty. Many early Anglican reformers explicitly denied the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist and the priest’s unique role in it, rendering the intention ambiguous or heterodox from an Orthodox perspective.
Liturgical Form:
The 1662 Book of Common Prayer, though more conservative than its 1552 predecessor, still reflects theological minimalism compared to the rich sacramental theology of the Orthodox ordination rites. Lacking explicit references to the priest's sacramental functions—particularly the power to consecrate the Eucharist and to absolve sins—the Anglican rites do not manifest the fullness of Orthodox priestly theology. Thus, even if intention were arguably present, the form would not adequately express it.

III. The Current Orthodox Stance: A Canonical and Pastoral Caution

The Orthodox Church, though always open to dialogue and understanding, has never officially recognized the validity of Anglican Holy Orders. This is evidenced by the practice of conditional or absolute reordination when Anglicans are received into the Orthodox Church, even into priestly ministry.

Notably, the Moscow Patriarchate in 1970 entered into a temporary agreement with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland recognizing certain sacraments as “grace-bearing,” but this was never understood to equate to full recognition of sacramental validity in the Orthodox sense. A similar principle applies to Anglicanism: even if certain elements of truth and grace are present, they are not sacramentally complete without communion with the Church.

The Orthodox view is further reinforced by the principle that no sacrament exists in isolation from the Church. A priest does not ordain himself; his authority to minister is ecclesially derived. Since the Orthodox Church views the Anglican Communion as being in a state of schism and heterodoxy, it does not recognize its sacramental economy as fully intact.

St. Cyprian of Carthage, though writing in a polemical context, articulated a principle still resonant in Orthodox theology: "There is no salvation outside the Church" (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), and consequently, no valid ministry outside her boundaries, unless received through economia and with proper regularization. As such, Anglican orders—even where historical succession may be claimed—are not deemed valid unless regularized through Orthodox ordination.

IV. The Principle of Economia and Pastoral Practice

It must be noted that the Orthodox Church does, on rare occasions, apply the principle of economia, whereby certain irregularities may be healed or supplied by the grace of the Church for pastoral reasons. However, even when economia is invoked, the Church does not thereby declare the prior ordination valid in itself. Rather, she acknowledges God’s mercy in healing what is lacking, usually by re-ordaining or conditionally ordaining with full liturgical rites.

Thus, when a former Anglican cleric enters Orthodoxy and is called to the priesthood, he is generally re-ordained. This is not to insult or negate the man’s former ministry, but to ensure his inclusion into the sacramental fullness and canonical order of the Orthodox Church. This practice affirms that the Orthodox priesthood is not merely about function or recognition, but about communion, ontology, and ecclesiology.

Conclusion: The Priesthood as a Mystery of the Church

The Orthodox view of Anglican Holy Orders, while respectful of the piety and sincerity found within Anglican communities, remains one of theological reserve and canonical consistency. Orthodoxy understands the priesthood not as a human office, but as a divine mystery—rooted in the apostolic ministry, enacted by the Holy Spirit through the Church, and oriented toward the Eucharistic life of the faithful.

For this reason, the Orthodox Church cannot declare Anglican ordinations valid, not simply because of historical disruptions or liturgical deficiencies, but because they are performed outside the sacramental unity of the Church. The priesthood is not an abstraction but a ministry that only finds its meaning and power within the body of Christ as the Orthodox Church confesses it.

In light of these theological convictions, the Orthodox Church continues to pray for the reconciliation of all Christians, not by lowering ecclesiological boundaries, but by a return to the fullness of faith, order, and sacramental life as preserved in Orthodoxy. As St. Ignatius of Antioch once wrote, “Where the bishop is, there is the Church.” But the bishop must be in communion with the Church, and the Church must be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Body of Christ. Anything less renders the mysteries uncertain and the priesthood ambiguous. May God, in His mercy, bring clarity and unity in the truth.

Search This Blog

Orthodox Christian Journal