|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: From Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
I'm currently looking into the Anglican Church having grown up Roman Catholic and a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy for many years. Both of these communions looked upon the Anglican Church as, in some cases, not a "true" church. E.g. the sacraments celebrated in the Anglican Church are "invalid" or not "grace-filled".
How would you convince someone from my background that the Anglican Church is a continuing historic/apostolic church and not schismatic by breaking communion with Rome.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd just say 'Beware!' - not all Anglicans think the same thing about these issues, and there is no central theological authority as you might have experienced in Roman Catholicism.
Some might offer you some explanations of the apostolic succession within the Anglican church, but I think whether or not you'd accept these explanations will entirely depend on you. Anglicanism largely is not a thing based on a bunch of propositions that are capable of being argued to a non-Anglican.
So I think in a real way you're only going to be able to work these things out for yourself.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Anglicanism is not a phenomenon which is easily encountered through argument or proposition. It makes its own claims, and these are denied (for different if related reasons) by RC authority and by Orthodoxy.
Anglicanism's most positive aspect is also its worse one, that it is best encountered experientially through attending services and worship. It is in many ways a liturgically-defined culture. So I would suggest a two-three month period of attending services in a variety of local Anglican churches and see if it works for you.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
There have been many instances of churches breaking communion with other churches over non-doctrinal (or dogmatic) reasons. The CoE broke communion with Rome over a divorce. So why would Rome believe that the CoE is not a "grace-filled" church just because it broke communion? Rome views the Orthodox as "grace-filled" churches...so why not the CoE?
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, why are you looking to cross the channel? ISTM, that is the factor that would help people answer your question.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, why are you looking to cross the channel? ISTM, that is the factor that would help people answer your question.
I think a lot of the theology is closer to Orthodoxy. This, coupled with the liturgical life of the Anglican Church, makes me feel much more at home. However, I did not want to make this change because of pure subjectivity and my personal preferences.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But it is all subjectivity. There is no objective way to determine who is correct.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Let me elaborate. All major churches* add and claim more than can be directly gleaned from the Bible. So what one believes is the most true is going to be subjective.
*Most, if not all, small as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But it is all subjectivity. There is no objective way to determine who is correct.
This. As an Orthodox myself, I can say that no amount of argumentation is going to convince me that the fulness of the apostolic deposit resides outside the EOC. This doesn't mean I think all non-O's are going to Hell, or that the Holy Spirit doesn't operate in the lives of non-O's, or that non-O's don't grow in grace and truth. The Spirit moves wherever the hell it wills. There's a reason there are separate words for soteriology and ecclesiology.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
There have been many instances of churches breaking communion with other churches over non-doctrinal (or dogmatic) reasons. The CoE broke communion with Rome over a divorce. So why would Rome believe that the CoE is not a "grace-filled" church just because it broke communion? Rome views the Orthodox as "grace-filled" churches...so why not the CoE?
I suspect that if the C of E had gone no further than Henry VIII and merely declared that the King of England, and not the Pope, was in charge of the English Church then the Catholic Church would treat the C of E in much the same way as it treats the Orthodox. The subsequent reforms of Edward VI and Elizabeth, however, complicated things. Those of us on the High or Catholic wing of the C of E tend to think that we are 'Catholic enough' as it were. But I think that Anglo-Catholics who hold that basically the C of E holds all the doctrines of the Catholic Church apart from the slight skirmish over the Kings Great Matter are, frankly, kidding themselves. (For that matter most Orthodoxen tend to get a bit testy if you give the impression that you think that they are basically Catholics apart from the falling out over the Filoque.)
I would agree with Augustine, that you should find yourself an Anglican Church and see how you get on for a bit. But you should also be prepared to to encounter Anglicans who think of themselves as thoroughly Reformed or protestant. And it's as much their church as it is the church of people like me who are somewhat further up the candle.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that many Anglicans, other than the more 'Catholic' inclined ones would be that interested in convincing you of the apostolicity of the Anglican communion.
Certainly, many evangelical Anglicans would sit very lightly with such an idea and indeed even with the concept of a priesthood or a sacramental view of the sacraments.
The key thing about Anglicanism is it's incoherence.
That might be less of an issue in the USA in some respects as, and American 'Piskies will correct me if I'm wrong , I think they all use the same Prayer Book.
Here in the UK things are very mixed. It's not that long ago when you essentially knew where you were in an Anglican service, irrespective of whether it was low, high or all stations in between.
Now, it's all over the place ...
For my money, the liturgical richness of Anglicanism is best experienced in a cathedral or in a mediaeval parish church somewhere out in the English countryside - but that's not immediately accessible for everyone of course ...
If you are abandoning Orthodoxy for Anglicanism you may find much that resonates with you, but equally a lot that will set your teeth on edge.
It depends, I suppose, on why you want to shift.
I was at a joint Anglican/Orthodox/RC conference in the summer. The Orthodox expressed some envy at the way the Psalms were chanted antiphonally during the Anglican Evensong and, Orthophile though I am, I can think of some old-school Anglican clergy who serve the liturgy in a way that makes me feel I'm at the very gates of heaven.
Ok, I can feel like that in some Orthodox Liturgies too, but some Orthodox priests here rattle through the whole thing as if it's a horse-racing commentary ...
Someone once observed to me that the Anglican Church can be both the best and worst of churches. I can see what he meant.
Is there a particular feature of Anglicanism that appeals and what is it that you think you can find there that you can't find in either the RCC or among the Orthodox?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is there a particular feature of Anglicanism that appeals and what is it that you think you can find there that you can't find in either the RCC or among the Orthodox?
It took me a long time to realize that I was born and grew up in the "West" and being Orthodox was kind of unnatural. The liturgical life of Anglo-Catholicism is a much better fit for me and seems much more natural (if I can say it that way). Also, it is hard for me to accept the RC Magisterium, dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.
ISTM that the Anglican communion holds a more patristic understanding of theology and the sacraments. I think the East got the filioque right (by not adopting it) but I have read enough of filioque apologist to gather that they ultimately believe that the Father is the source of divinity ontologically.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, why are you looking to cross the channel? ISTM, that is the factor that would help people answer your question.
I think a lot of the theology is closer to Orthodoxy. This, coupled with the liturgical life of the Anglican Church, makes me feel much more at home. However, I did not want to make this change because of pure subjectivity and my personal preferences.
As some do in reverse. In particular, Madame and I consider that Orthodox teaching on the Eucharist is much closer to our own than that of Rome. It seems filled with the love and grace of God while that of Rome is still that of Aquinas, academic and arid. As to the filioque, neither of us knows enough properly to understand the arguments on each side. We take the rather lazy path of saying that we can understand that there are very complex arguments each way and that as the Western position was never adopted by an Ecumenical Council, we'll stick with omitting it.
So we start out feeling more comfortable with the East, and there's the richness of the liturgy as well. If forced, mostly we think we'd prefer Constantinople to Rome - but the Mt Athos comes out with some anathema or other that we just can't accept. So we stay where we are.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The key thing about Anglicanism is it's incoherence.
That might be less of an issue in the USA in some respects as, and American 'Piskies will correct me if I'm wrong , I think they all use the same Prayer Book.
I absolutely love that first sentence. I have always said that you should ignore any phrases that start with the words "Episcopalians believe that...", because whatever follows is certainly not believed by more than a few Episcopalians (up to and including really fundamental Christian ideas like Jesus was son of God or raised from the dead).
We still operate, for the most part, out of one prayer book, and that probably creates quite a bit more uniformity than you might find in the C. of E. However, there is enough leeway within the rubrics to take that prayer book and create any number of experiences.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
How would you convince someone from my background that the Anglican Church is a continuing historic/apostolic church and not schismatic by breaking communion with Rome.
If you're seriously considering leaving Orthodoxy, I take it that you're already sold on the idea that there can be more than one 'true church'.
The Anglican church, for all that (parts of) it claims to be a true manifestation of the Catholic faith, differs from the Catholics and Orthodox in not claiming to be so in a unique or pre-eminent way. If you think that it is, in principle, capable of being right in thinking that there are multiple proper churches, equally 'Catholic' in spite of their divisions, then I can't see any good grounds for doubting that the Anglican communion is a proper church in that sense. We have the historic link to the apostolic succession, the sacraments, the creeds, the preaching of the word of God and all the other trappings of churchiness.
The only reason I can see for thinking that the Anglicans aren't the real church is if you accept some other church's claim that they are that, in a way that excludes us. And if you think that, clearly that other church is the one that you should join.
Also, we plainly are schismatic. But so is everyone else. We're all part of a divided, and sometimes sectarian, religion. I don't think that asking who was most at fault in disputes hundreds of years old is a reliable way of discerning which group of his squabbling children God wants you to serve and be served by right now.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
Someone once said that Anglicanism does not have doctrine, but a history will all its highs and lows. Like any history the way it is told depends on the point of view of the narrator.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
How would you convince someone from my background that the Anglican Church is a continuing historic/apostolic church and not schismatic by breaking communion with Rome.
The Anglican Church clearly is schismatic. I now think of them as the the Brexit church. This is one reason I left them for Rome. The real question for you whether this matters to you. It didn't matter to me when I was called seek God in the first place. Living in England, I sought Him in the Church of England. I now feel differently and am seeking God elsewhere, but the C of E helped me at the time without any doubt.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
How would you convince someone from my background that the Anglican Church is a continuing historic/apostolic church and not schismatic by breaking communion with Rome.
The Anglican Church clearly is schismatic. I now think of them as the the Brexit church. This is one reason I left them for Rome. The real question for you whether this matters to you. It didn't matter to me when I was called seek God in the first place. Living in England, I sought Him in the Church of England. I now feel differently and am seeking God elsewhere, but the C of E helped me at the time without any doubt.
I can agree with most of that - although clearly as someone who agonised about going over to Rome but then didn't at the time of the Ordinariate I'd buy the line that the CofE *is* the catholic church in England rather than schismatic - but then I still just about cling to branch theory anyway.
As you correctly intimate though, the problem for the OP is that it's got to come down to what the individual believes rather than what anyone tells them.
*If* they're worried enough about what the RC and Orthodox churches say about Anglican orders, for example, then they're probably not going to last long in Anglicanism, because they should be able to accept Anglicanism's claims about itself for what they are without worrying about what other churches think. Obviously that goes for members of every other church on earth too.
*If* they get hung up on the detailed arguments about the claims then it's worth reading Tract 90 (not often I say that) and bearing in mind that Apostolicae Curae is a document very much of its time. It's also worth reading the CofE's response to Apostolicae Curae, Saepius Officio. As I say thouh, the bottom line is whether you can accept Anglicanism's claims about itself, rather than getting hung up on what Rome/Orthodoxy say about it.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
How would you convince someone from my background that the Anglican Church is a continuing historic/apostolic church and not schismatic by breaking communion with Rome.
The Anglican Church clearly is schismatic. I now think of them as the the Brexit church. This is one reason I left them for Rome. The real question for you whether this matters to you. It didn't matter to me when I was called seek God in the first place. Living in England, I sought Him in the Church of England. I now feel differently and am seeking God elsewhere, but the C of E helped me at the time without any doubt.
Yes, Rome believes the C of E to be schismatic, but the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonian churchs are also in schism. But why does Rome view the C of E differently than other schismatic churches? Rome would say that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches are "true" church bodies with a sacramental life, but the C of E is not. Why is that.
However, back to the OP: I am really interested in how Anglicans view themselves and how they believe they are a "true" church body.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Yes, Rome believes the C of E to be schismatic, but the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonian churchs are also in schism. But why does Rome view the C of E differently than other schismatic churches? Rome would say that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches are "true" church bodies with a sacramental life, but the C of E is not. Why is that.
However, back to the OP: I am really interested in how Anglicans view themselves and how they believe they are a "true" church body.
Again, if you ask 10 Anglicans, you may well get 10 (or more) different answers - none of which you find acceptable. That's not a fault but a feature of Anglicanism.
On the whole I suspect you'll find that the tools you've inherited from Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy largely don't work very well when used on Anglicanism. You may find someone who answers the question to your satisfaction, but then you'll be dismayed that a whole bunch of other people are not even slightly interested.
Personally, I think almost everyone I know in the corner of the Anglican church I'm most familiar with wouldn't be even slightly interested in justifying it as a "true church", they'd just talk about how God loves them and works through the church.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Yes, Rome believes the C of E to be schismatic, but the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonian churchs are also in schism. But why does Rome view the C of E differently than other schismatic churches? Rome would say that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches are "true" church bodies with a sacramental life, but the C of E is not. Why is that.
However, back to the OP: I am really interested in how Anglicans view themselves and how they believe they are a "true" church body.
As mr cheesy says above. Most Anglicans, even if they have a high sacramental view, as do I, wouldn't feel any need to justify ourselves to others, nor to worry what they think. The Church of England is just as much a part of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as any Roman, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox church, despite the petty and mean-spirited and pompous way in which they talk about us as ecclesiastically inferior, impaired, or whatever. It's sad that they feel the need to think and talk like that, but at the end of the day, who cares what they think on the matter.
[ 13. January 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: David Goode ]
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Yes, Rome believes the C of E to be schismatic, but the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonian churchs are also in schism. But why does Rome view the C of E differently than other schismatic churches? Rome would say that the Orthodox and Oriental Churches are "true" church bodies with a sacramental life, but the C of E is not. Why is that.
Two reasons. I sometimes think the second is the one that the RCC regards as the more important of the two.
First, however much some Anglicans may deny this the CofE is IMHO undeniably Protestant as well as Catholic.
Second, the heartlands of Orthodoxy are in areas which were always the domains of the other ancient Patriarchates. They were never within the Roman one. Until the C16 British Isles did come under the Roman one. That is the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which our forefathers repudiated.
So Rome can accept that eastern churches have their own customs, canon law etc. But it can't stomach the idea that the CofE does. To Rome, the CofE isn't just schismatic. It's also rebellious.
quote:
However, back to the OP: I am really interested in how Anglicans view themselves and how they believe they are a "true" church body.
As others have said, this isn't an issue most of us think about much most of the time. A lot of it is that this is just how we've got used to expressing our faith the familiar prayers, hymns etc.
There is, though, an aspect of this that is different if one if a member of the CofE or the CinW which doesn't apply elsewhere. Institutionally, we belong to the lineal descendent of the church that first evangelised these islands. I suppose in the USA, where different people brought their different ecclesial communities with them from somewhere else, that doesn't really apply to any of them.
Stoic, going back to your OP, I can't help feeling that unless you actually feel God is specifically and positively calling you to join a different communion, that it's better and more faithful to stay where you are.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
It's sad that they feel the need to think and talk like that, but at the end of the day, who cares what they think on the matter.
This is genuinely hilarious. As if the CofE hasn't spent centuries talking trash itself. And, IMO, with no more reason.
There is no "One True" in any religion I've ever heard of. This is not how humans work. Not saying that someone mightn't be more correct, but we cannot leave well enough alone and are far too self-centered.
[ 13. January 2017, 14:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
To Rome, the CofE isn't just schismatic. It's also rebellious.
Because it is. Right, wrong or indifferent, the CofE did rebel. That, and the persecution of RCC's in the isles after, are great sources of the antipathy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Of course the C of E is schismatic - but the schism was based on politics not religion. Worldwide Anglicanism has shifted further, to the point where many of its national branches are quite different than the English church, and so different that they are also, in my neck of the wood, doing shared catholic things with the Roman church and the some varieties of Lutherans and Mennonites. And we even take communion together (horrors!).
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Other than some of the very 'High' parishes, most CofE parishes would be happy to share communion with any other Trinitarian Christian.
They wouldn't tend to offer communion to RCs and Orthodox - generally - out of respect for those Church's views on eucharistic hospitality not because they feel that there's some kind of impairment on the RCC or Orthodox side.
I know Anglican parishes which are more than happy to offer communion to RCs and others - besides, it's not as if visitors are stopped at questioned on their affiliation ...
I also know of an instance where an Anglican cleric regularly gives communion to Orthodox visitors who attend services at his church because their own parish is too far away for them to attend regularly. An Orthodox priest, learning of this, has asked the Anglican cleric to point out to the visiting Orthodox that if they take communion in a 'heterodox' setting they are automatically excommunicating themselves ... something the Orthodox visitors are clearly unaware of.
The Anglican cleric has promised to point this out to them the next time they come, in the interests of observing probity and referring them back to their own clergy to resolve the matter.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I also know of an instance where an Anglican cleric regularly gives communion to Orthodox visitors who attend services at his church because their own parish is too far away for them to attend regularly. An Orthodox priest, learning of this, has asked the Anglican cleric to point out to the visiting Orthodox that if they take communion in a 'heterodox' setting they are automatically excommunicating themselves ... something the Orthodox visitors are clearly unaware of.
I doubt Jesus cares about this human pomposity.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whether he does or doesn't, it strikes me that both men were trying to do right by one another and, according to their lights, the people who are in their spiritual care.
We may not agree with one or other or both but it's the way it is.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
Oh, right. So, the Church of England priest sees someone who is a member of an Orthodox church desiring the holy communion and administers it. But the Orthodox priest gets wind of this and demands that the Church of England priest tell the Orthodox communicant that the Church of England doesn't have the real Jesus; the real Jesus is only available in an Orthodox church, and if the Orthodox Christian deludes him or herself that they can receive the real Jesus anywhere other than an Orthodox church, they are instantly excommunicated, and no longer an Orthodox Christian.
I can't see a recognisable Jesus anywhere in there.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
So, the Church of England priest sees someone who is a member of an Orthodox church desiring the holy communion and administers it.
I can't see a recognisable Jesus anywhere in there.
My mistake. I see Jesus in that sentence.
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, the Orthodox priest didn't demand anything, he simply pointed out to the Anglican cleric what the Orthodox 'take' was on Orthodoxen receiving communion elsewhere and, I presume out of respect for the rules of engagement of another Church, the Anglican vicar undertook to mention that to the Orthodox folk the next time they came to a service at his church.
Seen from the Orthodox perspective, that was the right thing for the priest to have done.
Seen from an Anglican perspective, it was also the right way for the Anglican cleric to respond, because if he blithely ignored it he wouldn't be fair to the Orthodox priest who pointed it out, nor to the Orthodoxen who were turning up at his church and receiving communion.
It would be up to the Orthodox folk then what they did with that information. They might say, 'Oh well, to heck with that, we like it here at the Anglican church and will continue to receive communion here ...' or they could go and see their Orthodox priest and take his advice.
From what I've seen of the Orthodox, their idea of 'economeia' would cover discrepancies or things done in ignorance.
If those Orthodox folk were wilfully taking communion elsewhere despite knowing full well what their Church teaches on the issue then they would be out of order ...
Same as if an Anglican broke the canons in some way - which in my experience, many Anglican clergy of all churchmanships do pretty regularly ...
I'm not taking sides here, simply pointing out the reality of the situation. We might not like it that the RCs and Orthodox practice closed-communion, but they do. The Anglicans did at one time, as far as I can gather.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Other than some of the very 'High' parishes, most CofE parishes would be happy to share communion with any other Trinitarian Christian.
I also know of an instance where an Anglican cleric regularly gives communion to Orthodox visitors who attend services at his church because their own parish is too far away for them to attend regularly. An Orthodox priest, learning of this, has asked the Anglican cleric to point out to the visiting Orthodox that if they take communion in a 'heterodox' setting they are automatically excommunicating themselves ... something the Orthodox visitors are clearly unaware of.
The Anglican cleric has promised to point this out to them the next time they come, in the interests of observing probity and referring them back to their own clergy to resolve the matter.
Surely it's not a matter for the Anglican to point out to these grievously erring Orthodoxen, but for their own priest? Obviously it is he who knows the appropriate course of action, and could not reasonably expect an Anglican to know the one true path. At the same time, perhaps after the scourging, that priest can provide a good reason for his failure to make provision for those who should be of his flock.
St Sanity's procedure at a mixed gathering is to invite all baptised members of any church who wish to take communion to come forward "letting your own conscience being your guide".
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
David Goode
Shipmate
# 9224
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not taking sides here...
If you're not taking sides, why do you say "Anglican cleric" when you are talking about a Church of England priest, and "Orthodox priest" when you are talking about an Orthodox priest?
Posts: 654 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
As far as I can gather in the instance I have in mind, the Orthodox folk were unaware of their own Church's teaching on the subject. Their priest probably wasn't aware that they were rolling up at the Anglicans when they weren't attending his parish. I have an idea the nearest Orthodox Church was a fair way off, perhaps not even in the same town.
FWIW, I do know of instances of Orthodox Christians who receive communion in Anglican parishes without their priest being aware of it - tell it not in Gath.
I've come across others who might attend Anglican or other services but not receive communion.
I've come across still others - online rather than in real life - who wouldn't darken the door of a 'heterodox' or 'schismatic' church ...
The mileage varies in terms of the extent to which the Orthodox engage in the worship of non-Orthodox churches as far as I can make out. There seems to be some official opposition to the practice, but to all intents and purposes many of them ignore that, but don't so far as to receive communion elsewhere.
I've certainly been to ecumenical conferences where the Orthodox participate as far as they feel they can in Anglican worship - and where Anglicans, RCs and others engage in the Orthodox services - although without receiving communion.
The first time I attended an Orthodox service I thought I'd feel offended at not being allowed to receive communion, but I wasn't ... I was happy to engage as far as I could - in the words of the Lord's Prayer and the Creed - but I accepted the fact that I wasn't able to receive communion - same as I would if I attended an RC Mass.
It's not that I'm indifferent to the issue, I wish we could all receive in one another's churches, but I accept the harsh reality.
At least the Orthodox do give you a piece of the pre-consecrated bread, the Antidoron. It's quite hard and brittle but I've always appreciated it as as sign of ecumenical friendship. Of course, it's not the 'real thing' as it were - but being pre-consecrated one might say that the potential is there ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I used 'cleric' because I know that some Anglican priests are uncomfortable with the term priest.
Our very low church evangelical vicar doesn't see himself as a priest in any way other than 'the priesthood of all believers' sense.
He's so low he almost falls out of the bottom.
I've often thought he would be better off as a Baptist or a Vineyard dude or some such ...
I nearly typed 'priest' but then thought better of it - for the reasons above.
I didn't omit it in a loaded way, as to suggest that the Anglican priest wasn't a 'proper' priest or anything of that kind.
One could argue, that given the very broad understanding of these things within the contemporary CofE, it's hardly surprising that Churches like the RCs and Orthodox are wary of extending Eucharistic fellowship.
Let's face it, some evangelical Anglicans are Zwinglian memorialists when it comes to their Eucharistic understanding. They are not supposed to be, but they are ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heck, I even know of a Diocese where the Anglican bishop, as part of the Fresh Expressions initiative, asked one of the clergy - a lovely and very able guy - to be involved in planting a non-Eucharistic fellowship on the grounds that people might find communion off-putting ...
Ok, I have no objection to people meeting in a non-eucharistic sense - for prayer, Bible study, mutual encouragement ... but if they are going to be 'put off' by communion, at what point are you going to introduce them to it?
It seems an odd way to try to build bridges between the Church and the unchurched to me.
'Look, we'll stop doing something that is central to the liturgical life of our Church in order to draw you in and make you feel welcome. We won't scare you off by introducing you to Holy Communion ... but we'll have some kind of parallel or parachurch group that will soften you up ...'
Nah.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David Goode:
Oh, right. So, the Church of England priest sees someone who is a member of an Orthodox church desiring the holy communion and administers it. But the Orthodox priest gets wind of this and demands that the Church of England priest tell the Orthodox communicant that the Church of England doesn't have the real Jesus; the real Jesus is only available in an Orthodox church, and if the Orthodox Christian deludes him or herself that they can receive the real Jesus anywhere other than an Orthodox church, they are instantly excommunicated, and no longer an Orthodox Christian.
I can't see a recognisable Jesus anywhere in there.
How odd. Everyone in that story is recognisable as Jesus. As are you, my friend, with your judgmental pronouncements and all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gamaliel, now you have me wondering what in the hell they do with their antidoron to make it hard and brittle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Absolutely ridiculous for a priest to squeal on people. Do denominations matter so much to people? They wouldn't survive here. That's for sure.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Absolutely ridiculous for a priest to squeal on people. Do denominations matter so much to people? They wouldn't survive here. That's for sure.
Where does it say anybody squealed on anybody? In Gamaliel's original mention of the story, he just said the Orthodox priest heard of it. He didn't say how.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
At least the Orthodox do give you a piece of the pre-consecrated bread, the Antidoron. It's quite hard and brittle...
I've never taken antidoron that wasn't soft and fresh. Crusty and chewy, perhaps, but all good bread is.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Mousethief, don't get me wrong. If that's the Orthodox rule, then that's the Orthodox rule and while I may not accept that the argument behind it is valid, I'm not going to debate that.
I do question why it's for the Anglican priest to tell the Orthodox couple that they ought not be taking communion. Surely that's a job for the Orthodox priest. Perhaps the couple is so far flung (hard to contemplate that in England, but let's say perhaps) that they are not known to the Orthodox priest at all. Or is that being a bit too charitable?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
From Gamaliel's wording I took it not that anyone supposed it was the Anglican priest's responsibility, but that the Orfie priest asked him for a favor. Could you please tell them. Further it beggars belief that he would have asked for this favor of he could have just talked to these people himself. I was assuming he didn't know any actual names, and the Anglican priest wasn't offering any. In short I was assuming both priests were acting properly and with the best motives. Clearly not a popular assumption.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The Orthodox priest asked the Anglican priest to squeal, and the Anglican agreed to do so. Obvious. Immoral. Idiotic. Pair of squealers.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Without going as far as No Prophet etc, I still think it was a matter for the Orthodox priest and not at all for the Anglican.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Orthodox priest asked the Anglican priest to squeal, and the Anglican agreed to do so. Obvious. Immoral. Idiotic. Pair of squealers.
"Tell them blah" isn't squealing. Unless the word has changed meanings lately.
We have a very few details about a murky story and people are getting out the rocks for a stoning.
[splng]
[ 14. January 2017, 01:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Without going as far as No Prophet etc, I still think it was a matter for the Orthodox priest and not at all for the Anglican.
Then the Anglican priest should have said, "No, I will not tell them that." But he didn't. Why don't you ring him up and tell him he did wrong?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I suppose that I could, but not knowing his name or even town, let alone his being 20,000 km away, I don't think I can. He should not have accepted the assignment any more than the Orthodox priest should have asked.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm just saying he's a big boy and we're not in a place to second-guess what he should or should not have done, or even tell him he shouldn't have done it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I do question why it's for the Anglican priest to tell the Orthodox couple that they ought not be taking communion. Surely that's a job for the Orthodox priest.
It's entirely possible to imagine that the Orthodox couple don't know that they're not supposed to take communion in a C of E church. Surely the care that the Anglican priest should be showing for his brother and sister is to let them know that their own church has a problem with it. It seems likely that, prior to his chat with the Orthodox priest, the Anglican priest didn't know that taking C of E communion was a problem for Orfies. Now he knows, and can tell the Orthodox couple when they next come.
I did not understand, from the comments made in this thread, that the Orthodox priest was the priest of this particular couple. I understood that he's an entirely unrelated Orthodox priest than the Anglican priest happened to get into conversation with.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
