ANSWER:
The real question is can one have a unified, in bulk view of any orders, Anglican or otherwise, for that matter. If we remember that the Church, properly speaking, is the diocese or local Eucharist presided over by the bishop, we must conclude that it is unwise to take every community (and everyone ordered) in bulk. This topic is discussed in John Zizioulas Bishop, Eucharist, Church and in the last section of Being as Communion. The second point to consider is what is meant by valid and if this is really an Orthodox concept. Again, as Zizioulas explains, "valid" is really a misunderstanding of "bebeaia" when St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote "only consider it a valid/bebeaia Eucharist one that is celebrated by the bishop." But this word really means "assured" - the saint says, "only attend a support a Eucharist is that is an assured manifestation of the Church, Christ's Body, on earth; and this is where the true, historic, apostolic, orthodox, catholic bishop is." This determination was easy in the first centuries - you could tell who was the historic, legitimate bishop of any city and the councils emphasized that their should be only one bishop in every city. In the 300s, this became more difficult with the Arian controversy, and at the time of St. Basil, there were (at least) two bishops in Antioch with a good claim to be the real bishop: Paulinus (supported by Rome and some in the West) and Meletius (supported by most in the East). This is were the issue of "assurance" become important (St. Jerome was ordained by Paulinus, not Meletius; but Meletius was later essentially vindicated as the most legitimate bishop).
In Orthodoxy, the bishop, by himself or acting as part of a synod decides that may constitute an assured (apostolic, representing a real historical community in communion with other historical communities) manifestation of the Eucharist/Church and therefore involves recognizable orders. The council of Nicea recognized that Novatian clergy could the received in the unity of the Church.
The Orthodox practice that reflects the current state of affairs of these other communions (Anglican in this case) is that Anglican clergy must be (re) ordained. It may be argued that in some parts of the world, the Anglican communion represents an historic, apostolic, and reasonably orthodox manifestation of the Church, in which case an Orthodox bishop may consider it acceptable to simply receive this clergy - but this is not the typical case.
The only Orthodox body - and the largest since it represents about 75% of the Orthodox world - that has a formal policy on this matter (for Anglicans and Roman Catholics) is the Moscow Patriarchate: Roman Catholic clergy are received as clergy; Anglican clergy are not. In the course of past 30 years (and probably more), their is no known case of an Anglican clergyman received as clergy in the Orthodox communion without ordination.
The Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch clearly acknowledges the reality of (local / Syriac) Oriental Orthodox clergy, but this outside the scope of your question. |
