Comments on: The mystery of Irvine’s funeral

By: Matthew Namee

Matthew Namee — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:20:55 +0000

I’ll second Fr. Oliver’s comment about Irvine’s ecclesiology: he definitely did not believe in “branch theory.” His ecclesiology was quite nuanced. He believed that the Orthodox Church was the true Church, and he had major issues with the Anglican Communion. However, he also asserted that, in his own Anglican upbringing and training (in High Church circles favorably disposed to Orthodoxy), he had been taught theology that was entirely Orthodox. Other than the filioque, Irvine felt that his own pre-conversion Anglican theology was totally compatible with Orthodoxy. But he also didn’t gloss over the filioque issue, and he didn’t equate doctrinal agreement with unity. He also knew all too well that the Anglicans encompassed a wide range of doctrinal beliefs; just because some Anglicans were almost identical to the Orthodox in their theology didn’t mean that Anglicanism as a whole was equivalent to Orthodoxy.

Irvine consistently professed fidelity to Orthodoxy as what he called the “Mother Church of Christendom,” i.e. the historical Christian Church founded by the Apostles, from which all the other “denominations” had broken away. Unity, in Irvine’s view, meant conformity to Orthodoxy — not compromise.

And, whatever his personal views on the validity of Anglican sacraments, Irvine willingly was “re-ordained” when he became Orthodox, and he (along with St. Tikhon) refused to let his personal views — whatever they might have been — take precedence over the teachings of the Orthodox Church. He was not a mere “ecumenist,” nor was his Orthodoxy “doubtful.” This, after all, was the man who called for American Orthodoxy to live by the slogan, “aggressive Orthodox Catholicity, for the truth’s sake.” He was very firmly Orthodox.

The fact is, none of us know enough to say with any sort of confidence why Irvine appears to have had an at-home Episcopalian funeral. To judge him as some sort of heretical “ecumenist,” given all the other evidence for his consistent Orthodoxy, is terribly misguided.

By: Fr. Oliver Herbel

Fr. Oliver Herbel — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:49:42 +0000

Vinkentios,

Please also keep in mind that Orthodox themselves varied on how they viewed the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Communion was different then than it is now.

By: Fr. Oliver Herbel

Fr. Oliver Herbel — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:46:49 +0000

Irvine’s ecclesiology was not merely “branch theory.” I actually have a section in my dissertation in which I discuss his ecclesiology. There is an unresolved tension in his writings, in that he did believe one could be Anglican and hold to orthodox beliefs without yet being Orthodox. He did clearly write (esp in his 1906 writings) that unity was to happen on the “platform” of the 7 ecumenical councils and that Orthodoxy’s combination of dogmatic unity and ecclesial coordination was the means by which Christians ought to unite (esp the Anglicans and the Orthodox). As such, unity was presented as a one-way street.

By: Fr. Andrew S. Damick

Fr. Andrew S. Damick — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:01:55 +0000

Those are some pretty big charges, Vinkentios. Do you have evidence, for instance, that Irvine and his “followers” believed in the “branch theory” or that St. Tikhon was an “ecumenist”?

By: vinkentios

vinkentios — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:12:27 +0000

I have only one explication: This is the beginning of the fatal beginning of the “ecumenism” who was hidden already under Patriarch Tychon. He has had many contacts with the so called “Episcopalians”. Irvin himself and his sourroundings were followers of the heretical Anglican so called “Branch Theory”. His Orthodoxy was more than doubtful. Only by this way a such funeral was possible. Kyrie eleison !