Thread: From Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020046
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
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.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
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?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, why are you looking to cross the channel? ISTM, that is the factor that would help people answer your question.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
But it is all subjectivity. There is no objective way to determine who is correct.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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?
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on
:
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.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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.
Posted by Philip Charles (# 618) on
:
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.
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on
:
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.
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
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.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
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.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
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.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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 ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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!).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
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.
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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".
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on
:
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?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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 ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Gamaliel, now you have me wondering what in the hell they do with their antidoron to make it hard and brittle.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The Orthodox priest asked the Anglican priest to squeal, and the Anglican agreed to do so. Obvious. Immoral. Idiotic. Pair of squealers.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Exactly that. No squealing involved in either side.
If you must know the details, I was following a discussion between some Anglicans and Orfies on-line - not on this site - and during the course of that, one of the Anglican priests observed that he'd noticed a few Orthodox families turning up at his church and taking communion because their own Orthodox parish was some distance away and hard to get to by public transport.
The Orthodox priest politely pointed out his Church's position on that and asked the Anglican priest if he would mind pointing it out to those Orthodox people the next time they came to his church so that they could then deal with it as they saw fit. He didn't make any demands, that they should immediately crawl around to their priest's house on their hands and knees sueing for forgiveness ...
The Anglican priest admitted that he had not been aware of any restrictions on Orthodox receiving communion in other churches and readily agreed to notify his Orthodox guests of this the next time they came so that they could then make an informed decision.
That's not snitching.
No-one went to the Bishop. No-one went to these people's local Orthodox priest behind their backs and squealed on them.
Disagreeing with the Orthodox position on closed communion is one thing. Getting all uppity over the not unreasonable actions of both clergy involved is something else again.
On the Antidoran being crunchy. My experience has been that the services are so long that if it isn't stale by the time I've been given it, the pieces I take home for my wife and kids certainly are by the time I get back to them. That might be one reason why they don't eat it.
My wife looks at it daft. She comes from a very low church Anglican background and thinks that something mumby-jumbo-ey has been done to it, thereby rendering it unsafe ...
No, seriously, she doesn't think she'll get lurgy from it but she takes a dim view of anything that seems 'High'.
I've known her mum not receive communion in moderately high parishes because she gets alarmed at what they do around the altar there.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you for the clarification Gamaliel. I am still not entirely happy with the Anglican priest taking on the role of instructor to the Orhodoxen.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
How else could it have been done?
Would it have been right for the Orthodox priest to ask for the name and contact details for the other Orthodox priest whose parishioners were taking communion at an Anglican church and then gone and snitched on them?
Or to have asked the Anglican priest to provide him with the names and addresses of the Orthodox visitors so that he could then contact them on his fellow Orthodox priest's behalf?
Would you seriously expect the Orthodox priest who had become aware of the situation to turn a blind eye and ignore it? What kind of integrity would that have shown?
It seems to me that however we cut it and whatever we think of the theology and canonical issues involved, both men acted with integrity.
Given what I know of the situation I can't see how either of them could have acted otherwise without harming their own consciences.
Do you have any suggestions for how else they could have dealt with this very sensitive pastoral issue?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Turn it round, what if an Anglican priest became aware that some non-Orthodox were turning up an Orthodox parish and doing something or other that was meant to be the preserve of Orthodox Christians and the opportunity arose for him to point this out to the priest in charge?
Would he be abrogating responsibility by informing the Orthodox priest and expecting him to deal with it in some way?
What was the Orthodox priest in the instance I gave supposed to do? Find out where the Anglican parish was and drive over there one Sunday on the off-chance that Orthodox visitors might turn up on spec and stop them in the narthex and say, 'Oi! Don't think you can receive communion in here!' thereby causing a very public and embarrassing scene?
Or find out where the Orthodox parish was, contact the priest and demand that he lay on taxis or other forms of transport to ensure that all his parishioners can get to the Liturgy on a Sunday?
Sure, the UK isn't very big but if I didn't have a car and wanted to get to my nearest English-speaking Orthodox parish I'd either have to get on my bike or cadge a lift from an Orthodox family who live nearby to me or else pay for a taxi to take me there at great expense. There'd be no way I could do it by bus.
I'd imagine the Orthodox in the incident I've related are migrants without their own means of transport, but I don't know for sure.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suppose the problem is that the grace shown by the Anglican priest seems like a one-way street. We Anglicans (usually) dispense the Eucharist to whoever asks for it - generally believing that this decision is between God and the individual. So it is entirely plausible that an Orthodox person would receive next to a Baptist and a Roman Catholic - none of whom may, according to their own rubric receive in the Anglican church and who may not even officially recognise each others churches as Christian.
If they normally receive in their own church, that's formally enough.
The Anglican might understand that this openness would not be available to him if the situation was reversed - that's just the decision we've made to be hospitable to others, there is no obligation on anyone else to do the same.
But if the Orthodox priest then says that the Orthodox couple should not be receiving, this puts him in a bit of a quandary. The Orthodox couple should be able to receive according to the Anglican rules but not the Orthodox ones. This is an Anglican service which they've volunteered to attend.
How can the Anglican priest talk to the Orthodox couple about it without showing he had been discussing them with the Orthodox priest? Why should he given that they're doing nothing wrong according to the Anglican church?
Maybe they're thinking of leaving the Orthodox community anyway, and according to the usual Anglican formation, it is up to the individual and God if they take part in an Anglican Eucharist.
It is a very awkward situation.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's news to me that Baptists aren't allowed to take communion in Anglican churches according to their own rubrics, which Baptist churches are we talking about?
I regularly took communion in Anglican churches when I was a Baptist.
As for the Orthodox/Anglican incident I related, the Orthodox priest didn't ask his Anglican counterpart not to receive the Orthodox as they came up for communion or try to forbid him from doing so - as if he would have been able to anyway, but he simply informed the Anglican priest of the Orthodox position and asked him to let the Orthodoxen know lest they weren't aware of it.
It would be entirely up to the Orthodox families what they did with that information.
If they were on their way out of Orthodoxy and wanted to become Anglican, then that's another issue. But as far as the Anglican priest was aware they were simply coming to his church for communion because their own was relatively inaccessible.
From my encounters with the Orthodox I've found some 'ethnic' or 'cradle' Orthodox to be fairly hazy about what their Church teaches - same with many RCs I've known over the years. I don't say that as a criticism, simply an observation. More than once I've found myself explaining some aspect or other of RC teaching - as far as I understood it - to RCs who appeared unaware of what their own Church taught on the matter.
I've also heard that some of the Greeks in the UK assume that the Anglicans are simply the British equivalent of the Orthodox and aren't necessarily aware that there are differences in practice/doctrine and so on.
I don't know the background of the Orthodox families in the story.
If I were one of the Orthodox concerned, I think I'd prefer to have the situation pointed out to me so that I could then make an informed decision as to what to do about it.
So, if that were the case, then the Orthodox priest will have been doing them a favour.
It'd be up to them what they did next. Whether they continued taking communion with the Anglicans or went to see their own priest about it or stopped going to church, any church, altogether ...
It would be entirely up to them.
It would be their responsibility.
The only responsibility that the clergy involved, on both sides, would have is to point out the situation and to act according to the rubrics of their own Church.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I can't see how it's the responsibility of any Anglican priest to deal with the failure of other parts of the church to educate their faithful about their own rules. Doubly so when the rules are predicated on the assumption that said priest is a charlatan.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's news to me that Baptists aren't allowed to take communion in Anglican churches according to their own rubrics, which Baptist churches are we talking about?
You are showing your ignorance and also picking up on a detail that doesn't matter anyway. Put it down.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I only asked, mr cheesy. If I'm ignorant, then please enlighten me.
I know it's not a major point, but I genuinely wasn't aware that there were any Baptist rubrics, at least not in the BUGB, about whether Baptists couldn't or shouldn't receive communion elsewhere, whether in Anglican settings or any other.
I was simply curious, that's all.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was the case among Grace Baptists or Reformed Baptists, but I was genuinely unaware it was an issue to more 'General Baptists'.
If it is, then I'll bow to your superior knowledge and thank you for telling me something I didn't know.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I was simply curious, that's all.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was the case among Grace Baptists or Reformed Baptists, but I was genuinely unaware it was an issue to more 'General Baptists'.
If it is, then I'll bow to your superior knowledge and thank you for telling me something I didn't know.
I didn't say anything about Baptist Union nor did I specify the kind of Baptists - it doesn't matter anyway. There are many different kinds of Baptists, some of whom would get into trouble in their church for taking the Eucharist in an Anglican church.
Way to go to completely miss the point by focussing on an irrelevant detail.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I only asked, mr cheesy. If I'm ignorant, then please enlighten me.
I know it's not a major point, but I genuinely wasn't aware that there were any Baptist rubrics, at least not in the BUGB, about whether Baptists couldn't or shouldn't receive communion elsewhere, whether in Anglican settings or any other.
I was simply curious, that's all.
I wouldn't be surprised if such was the case among Grace Baptists or Reformed Baptists, but I was genuinely unaware it was an issue to more 'General Baptists'.
If it is, then I'll bow to your superior knowledge and thank you for telling me something I didn't know.
There is no issue with General Baptists (BUGB linked) sharing communion at an Anglican church provided they are invited to do so (there are a very few Anglican Churches who extend the invite only to "confirmed" believers). I've participated in this way on many occasions with no worries whatsoever.(I've even served at a couple).
The same is true in reverse - there are very very few Baptist churches with closed tables. Those that are, tend to have separate communion services. I can't think of one in England but there's a couple in Scotland.
Grace and other Baptists aren't prevented from sharing communion but not many would venture into a non Grace Church anyway. The ones that do would happily share communion.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
For what it's worth, I've agreed with everything Gamaliel has said in the recent posts on this thread, and with virtually nothing that anyone else has said, except for Exclamation Mark who has just cross-posted with me. Gamaliel, as far as I'm concerned, you get a ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
.
[ 14. January 2017, 14:50: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The same is true in reverse - there are very very few Baptist churches with closed tables. Those that are, tend to have separate communion services. I can't think of one in England but there's a couple in Scotland.
Just wrong. There are many churches - with and without the label Baptist - on the Baptist/Evangelical spectrum who have closed communion.
quote:
Grace and other Baptists aren't prevented from sharing communion but not many would venture into a non Grace Church anyway. The ones that do would happily share communion.
Grace Baptist is not a denomination but a group of churches in fellowship with each other. There are various other groups on this end of spectrum who are linked in various ways. So there is no consistent view on this.
Views on Anglicans vary. Some will not engage at all with Anglicans and believe that Communion services offered by the church are invalid.
If you are in a church that has closed communion and you then take communion in and Anglican church you may find that your membership is questioned.
That's just a fact, like it or lump it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Arethosemyfeet - the Anglican priest didn't 'need' to comply with the Orthodox priest's request.
He could have said, 'Sod off, it's none of your business.'
But he didn't. He showed grace, even though he'd been put in an awkward position.
It wasn't the particular priest he was engaging with who was at fault for the failure of the Orthodox Church to educate it's adherents properly.
That would be like blaming the vicar down the road in a neighbouring parish for an Anglican in my own parish for not being aware of this, that or the other Anglican rubric.
Having an issue with closed communion is one thing, getting all uptight with an individual priest for mentioning that to an Anglican one is something else again.
Both men were in a dilemma. Should the Orthodox guy say something or let it slide? Should the Anglican accede to his request or ignore it for whatever reason?
I still think the pair of them acted appropriately under the circumstances. What if the Orthodox were ever to find out by some other means that they weren't supposed to receive communion at a 'heterodox' church?
They would be well within their rights to go to the Anglican priest and say, 'Did you know about this? If so, why didn't you tell us ...?'
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I can't see how it's the responsibility of any Anglican priest to deal with the failure of other parts of the church to educate their faithful about their own rules. Doubly so when the rules are predicated on the assumption that said priest is a charlatan.
When I worked at a store which sold CDs and DVDs, I once helped a lady who was looking for a certain comedy her son wanted to watch. I asked her about it, took her the section and helped her find it. We talked about it, I asked her questions, I found out it was for her son and his friend, and I found out they were about 11 or 12 years old. I asked her, "You realize this is a pot comedy, right?". She said no, she didn't, she didn't know it was that kind of movie. She immediately decided that no, she wasn't going to get that type of movie for her kid and she was very grateful that I had explained it to her. She left and I lost a sale.
It's not about dealing with the failures of another church to teach its faithful, it's about helping the individual before you and his or her needs. If you're aware of the consequences for that person then for your own good and that of the person it should be brought up. If you don't let people know what they're getting into if you know it might be a problem, then I think it's a kind of neglect of that person's needs. So you mention it, and if that person is okay with it, it's on them. If that person is not okay with it, there are other ways too help and you still have your own flock. Either way, your conscience is clear.
[ 14. January 2017, 17:15: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Tomorrow morning I shall be preaching at an Anglican church which is as far up the candle as it goes in this neck of the woods.
Of course, Anglican rules forbid me from presiding at the Eucharist - but I shall certainly receive it with no trouble at all.
Sadly, this isn't possible at the RC church next door to ours - but that's not because the Baptists have any rubric to the effect. (Yes, I know that some, probably quite a few, Baptists would hesitate before receiving at a RC Mass. But that's not a "rule").
[ 14. January 2017, 17:29: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
So, outside of transubstantiation churches, why would anyone care?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
They would be well within their rights to go to the Anglican priest and say, 'Did you know about this? If so, why didn't you tell us ...?'
And the Anglican priest would be well within their rights to say "I'm not going to go out of my way to discourage anyone from coming to the Lord's table", both to the Orthodox priest and to the communicants.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, outside of transubstantiation churches, why would anyone care?
St. Paul warned against receiving communion in an unworthy manner ( 1 Corinthians 11:27 ) so even if one's church doesn't profess belief in transubstantiation there are many Christians who would care.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Point of information: is an Anglican priest legally required to offer communion to everyone living in the parish, should they request it?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, outside of transubstantiation churches, why would anyone care?
St. Paul warned against receiving communion in an unworthy manner ( 1 Corinthians 11:27 ) so even if one's church doesn't profess belief in transubstantiation there are many Christians who would care.
That works both ways: Christians who don't believe in it tend not to like receiving Communion in churches which do.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, outside of transubstantiation churches, why would anyone care?
St. Paul warned against receiving communion in an unworthy manner ( 1 Corinthians 11:27 ) so even if one's church doesn't profess belief in transubstantiation there are many Christians who would care.
That works both ways: Christians who don't believe in it tend not to like receiving Communion in churches which do.
Yes, I understand that. I was just trying to express the thought that lots of Christians care about the manner and place where they receive communion, whatever their beliefs about the Eucharist might be.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, outside of transubstantiation churches, why would anyone care?
St. Paul warned against receiving communion in an unworthy manner ( 1 Corinthians 11:27 ) so even if one's church doesn't profess belief in transubstantiation there are many Christians who would care.
But what does that mean? I would understand a non-believer or "heretic", but not so much between mainstream Christian churches.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It seems to me that the closed communion thing is the kind of thing that people from an open communion background love to bunch their panties over every fucking time it comes up. To the point of ripping the fibres even. It might as well be a dead horse.
Meanwhile we've completely railroaded this thread which was about one person's personal decisions, and how to navigate the world given his/her decisions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I'm not involved in any communion and, IMO, many of the issues are winner v. loser and special clubs rather than true barriers. Not saying all. But I am trying to understand the issue.
As to the OP, s/he hasn't been very present on the thread. If that is because the rest of us are too noisy, I apologise for my part of that.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, outside of transubstantiation churches, why would anyone care?
St. Paul warned against receiving communion in an unworthy manner ( 1 Corinthians 11:27 ) so even if one's church doesn't profess belief in transubstantiation there are many Christians who would care.
But what does that mean? I would understand a non-believer or "heretic", but not so much between mainstream Christian churches.
I think that's getting away from the thread topic, and if you do a search you'll probably find other threads on open/closed communion, etc. on the Ship.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Arethosemyfeet - the Anglican priest didn't 'need' to comply with the Orthodox priest's request.
He could have said, 'Sod off, it's none of your business.'
But he didn't. He showed grace, even though he'd been put in an awkward position.
So even though the Orthodox do not recognise the validity of Anglican orders, an Anglican soi-disant priest is to be trusted in passing on a doctrinal point to those who have come to him to receive God's Grace? I'm sorry, but in my book that's not on. If he has an open table, it's open to all who come to it; if there's a limit, such as ours of baptism, it's open to al within that limit.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Point of information: is an Anglican priest legally required to offer communion to everyone living in the parish, should they request it?
Not unless something has changed that I'm unaware of - when I was growing up the line was "anyone who would normally receive communion in their own church...", and if one were going by the strict rubric of the 1662 BCP then it was certainly possible to refuse communion on the grounds of grave unrepented sin:
quote:
If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place, and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the Sacrament to any person until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table; Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the Congregation the Minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the latest and therein obey the order and direction given to him by the Ordinary; Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford him an opportunity for interview.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I have a offspring who is Anglican, dating an RC. They take communion at either. And yes, it was discussed at both. Closed and open are relative terms I guess.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Point of information: is an Anglican priest legally required to offer communion to everyone living in the parish, should they request it?
Not unless something has changed that I'm unaware of - when I was growing up the line was "anyone who would normally receive communion in their own church...", and if one were going by the strict rubric of the 1662 BCP then it was certainly possible to refuse communion on the grounds of grave unrepented sin:
quote:
If a Minister be persuaded that any person who presents himself to be a partaker of the holy Communion ought not to be admitted thereunto by reason of malicious and open contention with his neighbours, or other grave and open sin without repentance, he shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary of the place, and therein obey his order and direction, but so as not to refuse the Sacrament to any person until in accordance with such order and direction he shall have called him and advertised him that in any wise he presume not to come to the Lord's Table; Provided that in case of grave and immediate scandal to the Congregation the Minister shall not admit such person, but shall give an account of the same to the Ordinary within seven days after at the latest and therein obey the order and direction given to him by the Ordinary; Provided also that before issuing his order and direction in relation to any such person the Ordinary shall afford him an opportunity for interview.
The position on the admission of children to communion has changed - it used to be that one first had to be confirmed but that is no longer the case. In other words I don't think a general duty to offer communion to anyone who desires, unlike with baptism or marriage, exists in the CofE.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that the closed communion thing is the kind of thing that people from an open communion background love to bunch their panties over every fucking time it comes up. To the point of ripping the fibres even. It might as well be a dead horse.
Meanw.hile we've completely railroaded this thread which was about one person's personal decisions, and how to navigate the world given his/her decisions.
Not from me. I don't agree with closed communion, but it's not for me to make the rules for the Orthodox, the RC's, the Grace Baptists (a new one for me) or whoever. I'll go to their services and participate as much as I'm allowed to under their rules
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
This tangent has become too 'noisy' and I apologise if I've played a part in turning the volume up to 11.
Context is everything and in the context of the discussion as it played out it seemed perfectly reasonable for the Orthodox priest to venture that request - simply that the Anglican pass something on as a point of information. Of course the Anglican priest could have told him where to get off, but he didn't. He was very gracious and could see the problem and also the Orthodox guy's suggestion as a possible solution.
Under the circumstances, I can't see what else he could have done without causing offence or picking a fight or disrespecting someone else's tradition.
If the two of them wanted to have a discussion about the validity or otherwise of particular forms of communion then I'm sure they could have done so.
As it was, there was a particular pastoral issue to resolve. Turning round to the Orthodox guy and saying, 'Fuck off, I don't give a rat's arse what you think you beardy bastard but I'm convinced of the validity of my own eucharistic celebration ...' isn't going to resolve anything.
Whereas, informing the Orthodox that he was more than happy for them to receive communion himself but it had come to his attention that the Orthodox rubrics didn't allow it, would certainly help as the Orthodox could then make an informed decision.
That's got nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of the Anglican Eucharist but everything to do with sorting out protocols in a win/win kind of way.
If I were the Orthodox involved, I'd be grateful to the Anglican priest for pointing it out, because then I could make an informed decision.
But this is a tangent and we've probably spent long enough on it.
I'm a member of The Fellowship of St Alban & Sergius so I do have some idea of how Anglican / Orthodox dialogue works out in practice. In some ways, reasonably well, in others, very badly ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It seems to me that the closed communion thing is the kind of thing that people from an open communion background love to bunch their panties over every fucking time it comes up. To the point of ripping the fibres even. It might as well be a dead horse.
Meanw.hile we've completely railroaded this thread which was about one person's personal decisions, and how to navigate the world given his/her decisions.
Not from me.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
So even though the Orthodox do not recognise the validity of Anglican orders, an Anglican soi-disant priest is to be trusted in passing on a doctrinal point to those who have come to him to receive God's Grace? I'm sorry, but in my book that's not on.
[ 14. January 2017, 21:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
I'm actually in favor of "closed communion" since the Eucharist cannot be detached from the community. In Orthodoxy the priest is supposed to guard the chalice. That should be true in any Eucharistic gathering.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Anglicans generally practice open communion, so that might be a problematic for you. In the Episcopal Church, some priests not only offer communion to all baptized Christians, which is the official teaching of the church, they offer it to anyone who presents him/herself at the communion rail. Jesus didn't require that people be baptized before he broke bread with them -- why should we be pickier than Jesus?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Well, I still maintain that there is not a mainstream church that doesn't and/or hasn't gone beyond, behind or around Jesus.
Not arguing the justifications for this*, but still.
*Not in general. In specific I have and likely will again.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, I still maintain that there is not a mainstream church that doesn't and/or hasn't gone beyond, behind or around Jesus.
Does that invalidate their efforts to emulate him?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Well, I still maintain that there is not a mainstream church that doesn't and/or hasn't gone beyond, behind or around Jesus.
Does that invalidate their efforts to emulate him?
Generally speaking, no. Though I reserve the right to qualify this when it comes to specifics.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Jesus didn't require that people be baptized before he broke bread with them -- why should we be pickier than Jesus?
I am not at all picky about who I break bread with. But breaking bread <> the sacrament of the eucharist. Jesus broke bread with a lot of people. He instituted the last supper with the twelve.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
In my local situation, any Orthodox have had to drive for two hours plus pay $50 bridge toll to get to an island where there is a functioning Orthodox community. I have no idea what the local Anglican priests do beyond telling people at the beginning of the service that any person baptised in the Names of the Trinity could take communion, as this was between that person and God. We have RCs who take the bread but not the wine; we have Baptists who do not communicate; we do not ask anyone about the reason for their (non)participation. Oh, and we do buffet suppers to which all our immediate physical neighbours are invited, and we don't fuss about breaking bread with (un)believers. That is not in our paygrade.
Being grumpy about this online just shows that a bit more discernment on the teachings of Jesus might be a good thing.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Going back a long ways upthread: Mr. Cheesy:
quote:
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.
Some of the "angels-on-a-pin-head" arguments look kinda weird. What is so unChristian about breaking bread together?
I do know one priest (ACC) who would be mystified by the idea that a non-congregant might want to take Comminion, but all the rest I know would be in the mode I described just now. My own congregation would be in the mode described by mr. c. above: God loves people. Why is this so difficult?
And maundering on about which ancient quarrel will govern your choice of church totally misses the point about there being "church" in the first place. If trying to live by the Two Great Commandments is something that gets in the way of your Christian walk, then the problem is not the ancient quarrels. Rather, it is a misunderstanding of what we are all trying to do, here, now.
Standing in a parking lot, debating whether this makes you a car, is kinda irrelevant when you don't have the wheels.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I've just noticed the item about Orthodox communing in an Anglican church. For many years, this was common in my home town (stinky eastern Ontario rustbelt city of 50,000) where the small Arab Christian community went to the Anglican church for Easter and Xmas communion. As a young person, I asked about this and was told that this was all right because it was too expensive to pay for the priest to come from Montréal except for special occasions.
The people involved either: a) knew darn well what the Orthodox church's teaching was but also knew that there was no priest available, or b) thought it was OK on the basis of a statement by Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (later clarified and reversed by him).
Since then, I have spoken with other Orthodox in similar situations, who take their children to Anglican churches as there are no Orthodox facilities available. Again, they know what the rules are, but feel that this is better than nothing. Orthodox clergy I have spoken to are aware of this in almost every situation and shake their heads in understanding despair.
In the situation abovementioned, about the only thing to be done is to let the wandering Orthodox know where they might find a church and leave it up to them. And if one of the kosher (canonical) Orthodox churches tries to set up a local franchise, then assist them with publicity, and let individuals decide what they wish to do.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In the instance I cited, the Orthodox knew were the nearest Orthodox parish was but couldn't always get there on a Sunday due to travel difficulties.
What they didn't know was their own Church's rules about receiving communion elsewhere.
So pointing that out to them doesn't seem to be unreasonable. They can then decide whether to continue receiving communion at their nearest Anglican parish or not.
Pointing such a thing out to them in no way compromises the position of those who are happy to serve communion to any baptised Christian - or whoever comes up to receive it. How often do any priests check the 'credentials' of people who come up to receive communion?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
*snip* What they didn't know was their own Church's rules about receiving communion elsewhere.
So pointing that out to them doesn't seem to be unreasonable. They can then decide whether to continue receiving communion at their nearest Anglican parish or not.
Pointing such a thing out to them in no way compromises the position of those who are happy to serve communion to any baptised Christian - or whoever comes up to receive it. How often do any priests check the 'credentials' of people who come up to receive communion?
I think it is reasonable to suggest to people that they check on their own church's policies-- given the plural nature of Orthodoxy, all an Anglican can do is point out to (e.g.) Constantinople's or Belgrade's or Skopje's or Moscow's or Tuckahoe's or Kiev's or Antioch's perspective, so it's just better to tell them to find out themselves, rather than try to interpret Orthodox canon law and spiritual discipline for them (my own grumpy perspective is that Anglican clergy are often uneven in interpreting Anglican canon law and spiritual discipline for Anglicans).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well yes, which is no more than the Orthodox priest was asking his Anglican counterpart to do. He wasn't expecting him to know all the ins and outs, simply asking him to direct the Orthodox to their own priest for clarification.
Anyhow, this is a tangent ...
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Pointing such a thing out to them in no way compromises the position of those who are happy to serve communion to any baptised Christian - or whoever comes up to receive it. How often do any priests check the 'credentials' of people who come up to receive communion?
When I was Orthodox I served in the Altar, which meant that I also had to hold the Communion cloth under the Chalice while the Eucharist was administered to the faithful. If someone approached the Chalice that our priest did not recognize, he would politely question where they were from, are they properly prepared to receive the Gifts, etc. Some people were politely turned away and it was never a big deal.
When I traveled, I always contacted the parish priest before Sunday Liturgy to let him know that I was going to attend his parish and where I was from. They really appreciate this because they are entrusted to "guard the Chalice".
I imagine in Anglicanism this would not happen. But how would the Anglican priest know if there are "wolves" approaching the Lord's Table?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Anyhow, this is a tangent ...
Golly, wish someone had noted this half a page ago.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
I imagine in Anglicanism this would not happen. But how would the Anglican priest know if there are "wolves" approaching the Lord's Table?
As we've been trying to tell you: he/she doesn't know. If he/she happens to know then on very rare occasions something can be done. But in most Anglican churches in most parts of the world, the priest is not going to ask you who you are before offering you the Eucharist.
That just isn't how it works.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
At least one of the priests at the Cathedral in Oban is in the habit of asking your name prior to celebrating, but I'm pretty sure that's so he can address you by name when administering the sacrament rather for exclusionary purposes.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That just isn't how it works.
Understood, and I certainly don't mean to be argumentative. But why not?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Understood, and I certainly don't mean to be argumentative. But why not?
I'm not sure how far back the origins of this are, but by longstanding Anglican practice, nobody asks who you are before distribution.
The Priest reminds the congregation of who is welcome - "all who know and love the Lord" is often used in my bit of the Anglican church - and then all are (usually) served of they indicate they want to be served.
The attitude is that this is between you and God. If you've done it unworthily, then you are pouring the proverbial onto your own head.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Correction: they may ask you your name for the purpose of saying "Mr cheesy: the body of Christ broken for you". What you are not going to get is the third degree to check you are a proper person to receive the sacrament.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
One thinks of Elizabeth Tudor: "I would not open windows into men's souls".
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Nobody asks who you are before distribution.
I was once asked at the communion rail in an Episcopal church: "Are you baptized?" The only time I've been "carded" at communion.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I was once asked at the communion rail in an Episcopal church: "Are you baptized?" The only time I've been "carded" at communion.
Be curious if that's ever happened to anyone else.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The one time I presented myself for communion to a strange priest, I told him my name, my parish, and my priest's name. He said, "Thank you" and communed me.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
But that's expected of you as Orthodox, isn't it?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
But that's expected of you as Orthodox, isn't it?
Not sure what the "proper" protocol is. It worked.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
One thinks of Elizabeth Tudor: "I would not open windows into men's souls".
No, but she was quite prepared to separate those souls from their bodies if they failed her in ceremony, or certification, or sacrament.
With respect to Mr Cheesy's query, I know of two instances where an intending communicant was asked if they were baptized. One was not, and he was given a blessing.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
At St Sanity, there would be a general invitation to the table, including the words that you had to be baptised to take communion.
As a bit of a tangent but sparked by A the A's post. I know of Orthodox-Anglican links under James I and VI (can't think now the name of the Orthodox divine who went to England and then returned). Does anyone know of any similar links under Elizabeth and how they were treated?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK, let me correct myself again: it is not unknown for people to be asked their baptismal status in an Anglican church, but it is rare.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
(can't think now the name of the Orthodox divine who went to England and then returned).
Patriarch Metrophanes of Alexandria ?
---
And in case the OP is reading... My advice in changing churches: make sure you are running towards something, not running away. You want to move because you are convinced of the truth of something, not because you don't like something.
But then I could be considered an apostate/excommunicate due to my lack of church habits [various issues] so you can take what I say with a sack of salt.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No, not him, but the article gives the link to Cyril Lucaris, the one of whom I was thinking. The site for him give links to Marcantonio, another in this shadowy world.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
And in case the OP is reading... My advice in changing churches: make sure you are running towards something, not running away. You want to move because you are convinced of the truth of something, not because you don't like something.
This.
My advice, fwiw, is not to look at the Anglican church if you have issues about distributing the Eucharist widely and want to confess to a priest regularly.
I suppose it is a bit late, but I wonder what it was about Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that the OP disliked. Orthodoxy to RC to (maybe) Anglicans are big moves for anyone to contemplate.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I get the impression that the desire to move expressed in the OP is a more a cultural than theological thing, ie. the poster feels more 'at home' and comfortable in an Anglican setting because it is culturally more familiar.
I have come across a number of people - online rather than in real life - who moved from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy only to return to their original affiliation because they found it more conducive.
They didn't particularly have any major theological issues with the Orthodox as such - although one could argue that they'd failed to grasp Orthodox ecclesiology as Orthodoxy is something of a one-way-street in that respect.
Rather, it was aspects of practice and they missed familiar elements they treasured from their Anglican days.
I can understand that, but generally don't think it's a good idea to change traditions unless one is absolutely convinced that it is the right thing to do.
The Orthodox do tend to allow enquirers to attend for a good while before they may or may not decide to take the plunge, so in some ways I'm surprised that these former Anglicans went the whole way before doing a U-turn. I'd have thought they'd have had plenty of opportunity to suss out whether Orthodoxy was or wasn't for them, as it were.
It's not only the Orthodox who allow time for people to test and discern whether it's the place for them, the Quakers do the same. You can attend Friends Meetings for years and years without signing on the dotted line.
By and large, I think that's a good principle, particularly for those churches which have a particular defining feature or two.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get the impression that the desire to move expressed in the OP is a more a cultural than theological thing, ie. the poster feels more 'at home' and comfortable in an Anglican setting because it is culturally more familiar.
It is both cultural and theological. I left Orthodoxy and went back to the Roman Catholic Church (my cradle faith) for a year. However, I am much closer to the Orthodox theologically, so I was not comfortable in the RC. (I left Orthodoxy because I realized, after many years, that I was born in the "West" and you can't really take yourself out of your culture).
Anglicanism seems to me to be a good fit since its core is the Scriptures, the first seven ecumenical councils, a good common prayer book and, for the most part, right worship.
The thing that I struggle with is that for most of church history, the church fathers were concerned with church unity and breaking that unity was a grave sin. Church history is certainly not neat and clean. Nevertheless, there must be something (or somethings) that "makes the church". E.g. apostolic succession, sound theological faith, the sacraments, etc.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, I get all that ... the problem, of course, is that whilst the Anglicans see themselves as being in Apostolic Succession, neither the Orthodox nor the RCs would recognise that and see Anglicans as schismatic.
I suppose that's the number one issue you'd need to resolve in your own mind.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
If you believe Cranmer and Hooker, that Anglicanism is the purest Christianity for being both "Catholic" (retaining the structure of the ancient church, namely, having bishops and a liturgy, and using tradition and reason to understand scripture) and "Reformed" (agreeing with the first Protestants about scripture's authority, the early Christians, and the church aside from keeping its old structure, so a rewrite of the liturgy was called for), then Anglicanism's for you.
As for me, there's my trip through Orthodoxy for over a decade.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I get all that ... the problem, of course, is that whilst the Anglicans see themselves as being in Apostolic Succession, neither the Orthodox nor the RCs would recognise that and see Anglicans as schismatic.
Maybe they do see that Anglicans have a line of apostolic succession, but they broke away and severed unity with "the Church". I guess what may make me comfortable with Anglicanism is that it holds to the authority of scripture, the early Church Fathers, the seven ecumenical councils and the Creed.
It seems to me that these above are the marks of the Church - historic, apostolic Christianity.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Maybe they do see that Anglicans have a line of apostolic succession, but they broke away and severed unity with "the Church". I guess what may make me comfortable with Anglicanism is that it holds to the authority of scripture, the early Church Fathers, the seven ecumenical councils and the Creed.
It seems to me that these above are the marks of the Church - historic, apostolic Christianity.
I'm not sure we're getting anywhere here. You may indeed find people within the Anglican church who agree with you and your practices. But you'll also find an overwhelming number who don't do confession, are not interested in whether or not they have correct apostolic succession and have a different understanding of tradition and the bible to you.
It is basically down to you to decide whether you have enough people that you'd get along with, whether you can in good conscience be in a church which has so many people who fundamentally are not interested in the things you are (if not actively doing something different) and so on.
We can't help you make that decision.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]We can't help you make that decision.
I am not looking for others to make a decision for me. I simply want to understand how Anglicans understand themselves...even if it may be different from how I feel about these questions. Just looking to learn and not challenge others. My views on these issues have evolved over time, so I am not fixed on one way of thinking.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
I am not looking for others to make a decision for me. I simply want to understand how Anglicans understand themselves...even if it may be different from how I feel about these questions. Just looking to learn and not challenge others. My views on these issues have evolved over time, so I am not fixed on one way of thinking.
Anglicanism is a massively broad thing, it isn't possible to tell you "how Anglicans understand themselves" because the answer will depend on who you ask.
For example, there exist within the Anglican church people who are essentially memorialist with regard to the Eucharist. At the other end there are people who hold to Real Presence.
Both are fully Anglican.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Equally, I'm sure there are Anglicans around who wouldn't recognise all 7 Ecumenical Councils. They might recognise the first three or four but tend to get a bit wobbly and 'Ooh, well, I'm not so sure ...'
Whatever else it might be I'm not sure the Anglican Church is simply the Orthodox but with an English accent ...
Or any other Anglophone accent ...
Some might like to think we are but the Orthodox don't.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whatever else it might be I'm not sure the Anglican Church is simply the Orthodox but with an English accent ...
Or any other Anglophone accent ...
Some might like to think we are but the Orthodox don't.
And, probably, a large percentage of Anglicans couldn't give a monkeys what the Orthodox, RCC.. or anyone else.. thinks of them.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, but if one is concerned about Catholicity in the Big C sense, the 7 Ecumenical Councils - or Rome's 21 Councils or however many it is - and so on then these things do have a bearing.
The point I was trying to make was that it may look to Stoic29 that the Anglican Church is Orthodoxy but without Eastern Mediterranean or Slavic cultural patterns but it doesn't necessarily look that way to his fellow Orthodox - nor indeed to many Anglicans - some of whom would be hard pushed even to name one Ecumenical Council let alone seven ...
A friend of mine grew up in an Anglican vicarage. He tells me that his father's stock, parsonical answer to any question about where the Anglican Church stood on any issue was, 'It depends ...'
So it does depend. Stoic29 might land on his/her feet in part of the Anglican Communion where some of the issues he is concerned about still hold traction.
But then again, he/she might not.
It depends ...
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
A friend of mine grew up in an Anglican vicarage. He tells me that his father's stock, parsonical answer to any question about where the Anglican Church stood on any issue was, 'It depends ...'
So it does depend. Stoic29 might land on his/her feet in part of the Anglican Communion where some of the issues he is concerned about still hold traction.
But then again, he/she might not.
It depends ...
Very much so. There is a little book by Sam Wells, the Vicar of St. Martin in the Fields in London, called 'What Anglicans Believe'. I can't decide whether it is much too thin or much much too thick for that title...
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Surely that depends on the specific Anglican?
[ 17. January 2017, 17:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course, Baptist Trainfan, which is part of the point I was making.
I'm neither trying to encourage nor discourage Stoic29 in his searchings and investigations.
But he'll get almost as many answers to his questions as there are Anglicans to answer to them.
Some would argue that's why the Anglicans are in decline numerically across most of the Northern Hemisphere.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The point I was trying to make was that it may look to Stoic29 that the Anglican Church is Orthodoxy but without Eastern Mediterranean or Slavic cultural patterns but it doesn't necessarily look that way to his fellow Orthodox - nor indeed to many Anglicans - some of whom would be hard pushed even to name one Ecumenical Council let alone seven ...
The Orthodox ethos is much different, but your observation is pretty much correct.
Trying to define Orthodoxy in a universal sense is difficult also since it has such a deep "eastern" flavor to it. Some long-standing theological topics such as theosis, the extensive use of icons, fasting, etc don't neatly translate to the West. The West either does not emphasize some of these topics or uses different language.
So, is Anglicanism Orthodoxy in the West? Perhaps. Again, if Anglicanism means that scripture has primacy of place, adheres to the teaching of the first seven ecumenical councils, offers God-centered worship and administers/celebrates the sacraments and follows/has apostolic succession, then, yes, it is the Orthodox Church of the West.
Christianity in the West does not need "ecumenical" councils after the seventh. It does not need a magisterium, indulgences, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So it seems to me that the Anglican Church is the church that best mirrors Christianity in the East.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can see why you might say that and to some extent I'd say that might have been the case at one time - or at least close inany respects. But the 39 Articles were hardly Orthodox - and ok, they were a Church of England thing and not necessarily something the worldwide Anglican Communion espoused ...
On an individual level, you will find Anglicans who are very Orthodox ...
But equally you'll find others who are about as far away from Orthodoxy as it is possible to be. Some clergy are closet Unitarians it seems to me ...
I'm not trying to put you off, simply saying that because something looks and sounds quite Orthodox that this is in fact the case.
Most of the Orthodox clergy I know are former Anglican priests. If you asked them about the Orthodoxy of the Anglican Communion they'd splutter into their beards ...
How about Western Rite Orthodox? Are there any near you?
On balance, I think it would be feasible for a westernised Orthodox Christian to feel quite at home in the Anglican Church - provided they could find the right parish and with the right clergy.
End up in the wrong place and you'll wonder why you left the Orthodox in the first place.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I may be mis-remembering, but I seem to recall that only the first four ecumenical councils are widely accepted by Anglicans. Certainly the 7th, repudiating iconoclasm, would be controversial.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Most of the Orthodox clergy I know are former Anglican priests. If you asked them about the Orthodoxy of the Anglican Communion they'd splutter into their beards ...
And some Orthodox are Apollinarians and practical Pelagians.
While the Liturgy of St. Basil is heaven on earth, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can be viewed as Apollinarian since the Gifts are not offered to the Father primarily, but to the Trinity.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, I get all that ... the problem, of course, is that whilst the Anglicans see themselves as being in Apostolic Succession, neither the Orthodox nor the RCs would recognise that and see Anglicans as schismatic.
If you're worried about Anglicans and the Apostolic succession, you should probably read what the Porvoo statement says about it. The C of E signed up to the Porvoo agreement, which includes some churches which broke the direct Bishop-to-Bishop touch. If you can't accommodate yourself to the way Porvoo describes what "apostolic" means, Anglicanism might not be for you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard some Orthodox accuse Calvinists of being Pelagian ...
Work that one out!
I've not attended a Liturgy of St Basil. I'd like to.
I'm sure you there are all sorts of odd views in both communions, as indeed there are across all Christian traditions.
I don't know how one goes about deciding between competing claims.
I read once that the Greek Orthodox began to investigate the Anglicans more closely after the 1928 Prayer Book came out - before it was effectively sat on by Parliament here in the UK. They were wondering whether the Prayer Book meant that they could now recognise the Church of England as a fellow Orthodox Church. After some investigations they concluded that there were still too many differences.
As for heaven on earth ... I've known times in Orthodox services where I've felt 'This is the house of God, this is the very gate of heaven ...'
At other times it's felt like they're simply chuntering away by rote.
There have been times in Anglican services where I've felt the same, and indeed in independent Protestant settings too.
To what extent is that some kind of guide?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
And in case the OP is reading... My advice in changing churches: make sure you are running towards something, not running away. You want to move because you are convinced of the truth of something, not because you don't like something.
This is my advice also to people thinking of changing churches in a major way (not just going from one evangelical non-denom to the one on the next block over, but really changing churchmanship).
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I have come across a number of people - online rather than in real life - who moved from Anglicanism to Orthodoxy only to return to their original affiliation because they found it more conducive.
Conducive to what?
quote:
Rather, it was aspects of practice and they missed familiar elements they treasured from their Anglican days.
I wonder if they tried the "Western Rite" flavor of Orthodoxy?
quote:
I've heard some Orthodox accuse Calvinists of being Pelagian ...
Work that one out!
Somebody frothing at the mouth throwing out whatever insult they think will hurt their opponent the most.
quote:
I've not attended a Liturgy of St Basil. I'd like to.
It's a lot like Chrysostom. The central prayer (anaphora? I forget the name) of the priest is considerably longer; there are few other differences your average floor-warmer would notice.
quote:
Originall posted by Stoic29:
(I left Orthodoxy because I realized, after many years, that I was born in the "West" and you can't really take yourself out of your culture).
Hmm. I'm hearing St. Vladimir saying, "I left Christianity because I realized I was born in Russian polytheism and you really can't take yourself out of your culture." Or any convert from a non-Christian religion to Christianity. What would you say to them?
quote:
Trying to define Orthodoxy in a universal sense is difficult also since it has such a deep "eastern" flavor to it. Some long-standing theological topics such as theosis, the extensive use of icons, fasting, etc don't neatly translate to the West. The West either does not emphasize some of these topics or uses different language.
Of course some of these things the west USED to emphasize, but has since let slide. Such as fasting.
But my question would not be "is theosis too eastern?" but "is theosis an accurate description of the salvation of the human being?" If the latter is true it doesn't matter how eastern it is. If it's false, well, it doesn't matter how eastern it is.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And, probably, a large percentage of Anglicans couldn't give a monkeys what the Orthodox, RCC.. or anyone else.. thinks of them.
Nor, probably, should they. If they cared, they maybe should convert.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
(I left Orthodoxy because I realized, after many years, that I was born in the "West" and you can't really take yourself out of your culture).
As per Mousethief's response I'm not sure that is universally true.
Apart from a few old hymns nothing moves me nearer to God than a Byzantine Lenten evening service. I found the chants of the Arabs, Greeks and Russians I've worshipped with strange, but they became familiar, and loved, and I still find myself humming them -- the Russian less so, but that is perhaps I first encountered Arabic/Greek style. I thought I fitted in "culturally".
Did I miss Anglicanism? Yes. Very much at times. But the cultural fit was not the problem for me.
Sadly in my case, to bastardise Chesterton,
the Orthodox ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried. I may try and make a fourth return after at least a year away (again). Sadly various struggles and temptations and an academic love of religion make practising something like Orthodoxy rather difficult I find.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Mousethief, I meant conducive in the cultural sense, less 'alien' in feel ...
I don't think there are many Western Rite Orthodox around. I've heard they are out there but I've not met any.
I don't know about the US but my impression here in the UK is that Western converts tend to be steered away from the Western Rite, but that might be a wrong impression on my part.
The whole Orthodox scene here is a dog's breakfast in jurisdictional terms without adding different rites into the equation.
My impression of Anglicans who boomerang across the Bosphorus and back is that they want their cake and eat it. I don't blame them for that. It'd be an easier transition if Orthodoxy were culturally closer, if some of the Orthodox weren't so freaking odd and if they weren't so pissy towards anyone who wasn't Orthodox.
But then, Anglicanism would be a lot better if some Anglicans weren't so freaking odd and if they had some backbone at times rather than being Vicars of Bray and bending every which way the wind blows ...
Meanwhile, yes Arethosemyfeet, my understanding is that the Anglicans would be comfortable with the first four Ecumenical Councils and start getting iffy with the last three.
On the issue of comparisons between Anglican and Orthodox worship. I've been at ecumenical conferences where the Orthodox have been impressed with the way the Psalms have been chanted antiphonally at Evensong. They have also expressed frustrating with some of their own priests who rattle through the Liturgy as if it's a racing commentary or a 'How many Saints names can you rattle off in a minute ...' competition.
They find Anglican worship - at its best - slower, more reflective and dignified.
I can see what they mean. I get the impression that Orthodox worship can be like eating Christmas cake or plum-duff all year round when sometimes a simple piece of toast would do.
Of course, not all Orthodox rattle through the Liturgy at a rate of knots without pause and if it's some kind of mathematical or computer formula.
I'm blown away every time I attend an Orthodox Easter Vigil. If someone shoved a piece of paper and a pen under my nose at that point and said, 'Sign up here ...' I'd be hard pressed not to.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
This thread is veering in a direction of something that has quite intrigued me for some time.
Orthodoxy presents itself as the Ancient Faith, that which was once and unchangingly delivered. I get the impression that many Orthodox in the West take the line that the rest of us are just benighted and wrong. It would not be enough simply for us to drop three words from the Nicene Creed. We should give up everything else we have ever done and worship God in the right way, using a Tudor English translation of the Liturgy set to Greek, or more usually Russian music. Then Jesus's prayer that we shall all be one, will be answered.
But every nation, every ethnic group and now, every ecclesiastical household, has its accustomed way of doing things, its own subculture.
'All services 1662' people feel God only really wants to be worshipped the way he was in 1952.
LeFebvrists believe much the same except their version of 1952 is in a different country.
Traditional Methodists can't really imagine worshipping in a way that isn't founded in Wesley hymns. For some Gaels, it has to be metrical psalms sung in a way that the rest of us can't even work out what the tune is. For Old Time Revivalists, it's got to be Moody and Sankey or the Old Rugged Cross. For New Time Revivalists, it's got to be guitars, plenty of amps and a drummer in a perspex box.
Mousethief may well say, 'Yebbut. We are Orthodox. We have what was once delivered. All this other stuff was all written by heretics and schismatics anyway. Give it up. It's only pandering to your inner heresy anyway. You'll soon find the true version expresses you real spiritual needs'.
Stoic is saying, I think, 'I've tried that and it hasn't worked'.
I don't really know what Western Rite Orthodoxy is. If it's a mixture of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and bits of a medieval Western liturgy purged of western heresies, and all sung to some sort of plainsong, it sounds about as arcane and as relevant to most peoples' spirits as Lefebvrism - but the Lefebvrists already know what they want.
Our forefathers evangelised Africa, taking the 1662 prayer book, or in the case of the UMCA, an anglocatholicised version of it, Hymns A&M or the English Hymnal, and translating them into local languages.
Clergy in Africa wear black cassocks, white surplices, black scarves and coloured stoles. The services are usually loosely much the same shape, but loosely and the music is now fairly different.
Stoic, are you saying 'I'm not really Orthodox'? Or are you saying 'I'd like to be Orthodox, but culturally I am not, never have been, and never will be, Russian, Greek, Roumanian, Serb or any of these'?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
The Western Rite has nothing whatever to do with Chrysostom. It's a western rite. Closest to "Sarum" whatever that is, I'm told.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Stoic, are you saying 'I'm not really Orthodox'? Or are you saying 'I'd like to be Orthodox, but culturally I am not, never have been, and never will be, Russian, Greek, Roumanian, Serb or any of these'?
If I was born in Greece or Russia or Serbia or Romania or Bulgaria, I would be Eastern Orthodox. I believe that I am "Orthodox", but that means accepting the primacy of the Scriptures, apostolic succession, seven ecumenical councils, God-oriented traditional/orderly worship, the Sacraments, the fellowship of the Saints, etc. But again, "Orthodox" Christianity does not require all the teachings demanded by Rome: papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, indulgences, so on and so on. The Church has existed without these teachings.
So, can "Orthodoxy" be found in the Anglican Church? It seems so to be, but I have limited experience. And no church is perfect.
I think there is a basic set of criteria that marks the Church (as I stated above). In other words, Dick and Jane can't decide one day to open a shack, set up an altar, celebrate the Eucharist and claim they are the Church. In order for the Church to be present, the bishop must have succeeded from the Apostles, must be recognized by other bishops, must teach and proclaim the historic Christian faith and then one can discern that, yes, this is a gathering of the Church.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm also told that some Western Rite Orthodox retain hymns familiar to Anglicans and other Western Christians - but whether these are J M Neale settings/translations of earlier hymns, I don't know.
I've heard 'Let all Mortal Flesh keep Silence' sung in an Orthodox service to the tune I'm familiar with and thought, 'Aha! They sing some Anglican hymns ...' before I learned that it's a very ancient hymn of course and simply has an English translation and tune.
To be fair to the Orthodox, those I know here in the UK who aren't ethnically Greek, Russian or Romanian are trying to find ways of 'enculturating' their faith in a UK context, but it's a long, slow process.
Ok, so it might only extend to them having Welsh Cakes (those lovely griddled 'cacs bach' we took to as soon as we were weaned and where we each think our own Mam makes the best) and Eccles Cakes at celebrations alongside those creamy, fussy Eastern European ones ...
What they haven't done yet is adopt English terms for bits of ecclesiastical kit and impedimenta where perfectly adequate English equivalents exist. What's wrong with calling a stole a 'stole'?
Why doe it have to be a 'Stoliopodoupoulous-oron' or a 'Vasilystoleovitch' ...?
Why do English priests with perfectly Biblical or Saintly names have to become 'Athanasius' or something when they are already called Matthew, Mark, Luke or John ... ?
I've heard an Orthodox priest say that he 'doesn't trust' most Western-rite clergy - as if the Orthodoxy of these guys is somehow compromised or called into question ...
It all seems very messy - eccentrically and attractively so in some ways but frustratingly so in others.
It ain't for any of us here to suggest to Stoic29 what he does - but I think there's a good question here ... what is it that attracts him away from Orthodoxy into Anglicanism?
If he believes that he'll find Anglicanism as some kind of exact mirror of Orthodoxy, only more Western, then I suspect he will quickly become disabused of that notion.
Just if I were to cross the Bosphorus and expect to find something that was a mirror-image of Anglicanism only with a few more exotic bits and bobs ...
I've heard Bishop Kallistos Ware say how the Anglicans and Orthodox are tantalisingly close on so, so many issues - and yet frustratingly far apart on others. He ought to know, he's been involved with ecumenical dialogue for decades - and gets some stick for it within his own Church too.
For what it's worth, I'd say that 1950s style Anglicanism was a lot closer to Orthodoxy than it is now and that 1920s and 1930s Anglicanism was probably even closer. Anglicanism in the 1820s, less so. Anglicanism in the broader sense in the 2000s, less so again.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry, cross-posted with Stoic29.
I would say that 'orthodox' Christianity certainly exists within the Anglican Communion - and indeed any other Christian church we might care to name apart from some fringe outliers ...
What may or may not be the case is the extent to which 'Orthodoxy' Big O can be found there.
For instance, you keep mentioning the Seven Ecumenical Councils. I'm not aware that officially, the Anglican Communion DOES accept all Seven Councils. Individuals within the Communion might, but that's a different thing to those Councils being universally accepted as that believed everywhere and in all places and by all ...
So, for instance, on a personal level, I don't have an issue with iconography and I use icons in my own personal devotions - but only because I've learned that from the Orthodox. I wouldn't have done so otherwise. Equally, if some folk in my own parish church here knew I did such a thing they would be puzzled at best, outraged at worst ...
Similarly, I make the sign of the cross (Orthodox style because that's who I picked it up from) in my private devotions or if I'm in a setting where that would be appropriate. I don't do so when I go to my local parish church because that'd puzzle people and also probably draw attention to myself ...
Heck, even my own wife has been shocked when she's seen me do that ...
Ok, I know all these things are customs and practices to a certain extent - but in Orthodoxy they go beyond that and become part of the non-negotiable furniture ...
Which is why I've observed to Stoic29 that it very much depends on where he/she lands in the Anglican landscape that would determine how comfortable or otherwise he/she would feel.
I take it the issue of female ordination isn't an issue to you, Stoic29?
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I take it the issue of female ordination isn't an issue to you, Stoic29?
I don't think there is a theological argument against it other than something like Jesus is a man so all priests should be also. Or the weight of history and tradition. It really doesn't bother me, although I do think we should rely on and defer to tradition.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I may have entirely misunderstood the argument of C B Moss' magisterial pamphlet on the Seventh Council, but it would appear that Anglicanism accepts the first six with the proviso of being agreeable to scripture etc. The diligent reader of the BCP during long sermons will of course recall that Article XXI refers to the first four (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon), but Moss notes that the Homilies refer to the first six, adding Constantinople II and III.
He later goes on to suggest that Anglicanism adheres in essence to Nicaea II (the seventh council) but needs to assent more formally. For the Council-marginal among us, its decisions focus on idolatry and veneration of images.
But this is a side issue. Stoic29 is looking for orthodox christianity in a culturally western setting- were there any western-rite Orthodox parishes within reach, and there's not a lot around the world, that would be his best bet (the two services I went to were Dearmerite in approach, and the liturgy a mix of CoE 1928/Canadian BCP 1959 with a few Byzantine prayers in the Canon).
Otherwise, he may well find what he is looking for in Anglican church life, and it's there, but he will have to look for it. It might be that if we had an idea of his geography, shipmates might have specific suggestions, but a poster has lots of legit reasons to post a general query.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, that makes sense Augustine the Aleut.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Otherwise, he may well find what he is looking for in Anglican church life, and it's there, but he will have to look for it. It might be that if we had an idea of his geography, shipmates might have specific suggestions, but a poster has lots of legit reasons to post a general query.
I've been to western-rite services, but did not come away with a good impression. My thought was that these folks should just join Rome or the Anglican communion.
There is a very good, traditional Anglo-Catholic parish not far from where I live. I plan on continuing to attend this parish.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
I've been to western-rite services, but did not come away with a good impression. My thought was that these folks should just join Rome or the Anglican communion.
There is a very good, traditional Anglo-Catholic parish not far from where I live. I plan on continuing to attend this parish.
Fair play to you and good luck.
However, I'm thinking I'm probably not the only person who #facepalmed when you said you were Western and therefore couldn't be Orthodox (and, by implication, were more likely to be Anglican).
Anglicanism is not a Western thing any more. Years ago when I visited the Anglican Cathedral in Cairo, the vast majority of the services were in African languages - and the English services had a tiny attendance. I'm not sure how "high" the African-language services were, but I'm guessing not particularly.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Anglicanism is not a Western thing any more. Years ago when I visited the Anglican Cathedral in Cairo, the vast majority of the services were in African languages - and the English services had a tiny attendance. I'm not sure how "high" the African-language services were, but I'm guessing not particularly.
I guess I would argue that the cathedral in Cairo ought to be Coptic Orthodox...not Anglican. There is a long, beautiful history of Christianity in Egypt and it is Oriental Orthodoxy.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
I guess I would argue that the cathedral in Cairo ought to be Coptic Orthodox...not Anglican. There is a long, beautiful history of Christianity in Egypt and it is Oriental Orthodoxy.
There are many beautiful Coptic churches in Cairo, and I'm sure many beautiful Copts. But just because it is Egypt does not mean Christianity is by necessity Coptic Orthodox.
Sheesh.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
And, I might add, that there happens to be a Coptic church down the road from me here.
Just because it is the Welsh valleys does not mean that they're unwelcome.
You seem to think that Christianity is a geographical thing. I can't tell you how annoyed Theology of the Land makes me.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You seem to think that Christianity is a geographical thing. I can't tell you how annoyed Theology of the Land makes me.
No I don't. My point is this: if I traveled to some small country half a world a way from me and they never heard the Gospel, I would not help them build a church with a Lady Chapel and eat cucumber sandwiches during coffee hour. You have to consider the culture and let Christianity grow organically.
When St. Thomas brought Christianity to India, he did not found the Greek Antiochian Church of India...he founded the Church of India.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
No I don't. My point is this: if I traveled to some small country half a world a way from me and they never heard the Gospel, I would not help them build a church with a Lady Chapel and eat cucumber sandwiches during coffee hour. You have to consider the culture and let Christianity grow organically.
When St. Thomas brought Christianity to India, he did not found the Greek Antiochian Church of India...he founded the Church of India.
Rather a lot has happened in 1500 years, chum.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Rather a lot has happened in 1500 years, chum.
Okay, but how does that negate my point?
Look at the mess in America for the Orthodox. Each Patriarch or mother Church tries to impose its own ethnicity, ridged customs, etc on churches in the U.S.. It doesn't work. The liturgical expression (which will extend to the hierarchy) needs to be natural and organic to the culture. If not, it will not attract people.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
How do you square that with the largest Christian denominations in India being those encouraged by western missionaries, whether Catholic or Protestant? Should they have butted out because the Mar Thoma churches were already active?
I can have some sympathy with the idea of a national church inculturated within a particular country but part of a wider, global, Christian community. That was long the ideal of the Church of England, but I'm wary of the idea that one's Christian beliefs should be dictated by your culture. How far does this idea extend? If you grow up in Utah are you supposed to be Mormon, or is Mormonism beyond the pail?
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
How do you square that with the largest Christian denominations in India being those encouraged by western missionaries, whether Catholic or Protestant??
The Catholic Church is comprised of both the Western and the Eastern Rites. A great many of the Catholics in India belong to one of the Eastern Catholic Churches (such as the Malabar Catholics, etc.)
[ 18. January 2017, 20:21: Message edited by: Pancho ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You mean 'pale' ... As in palings. The phrase was coined in Ireland I believe to describe those who were outside the stockade that surrounded English-occupied Dublin ...
The question I'd have for Stoic29 as an American (which I think he/she is) is this, which cultural expression of Christianity best suits or serves the US?
They are all imports.
To what extent is Anglicanism any more appropriate there than Lutheranism, say?
If Western Rite Orthodoxy isn't for you then it looks to me that you don't want Orthodoxy but you want something else.
It might be Anglicanism. But why try to make out that it is the equivalent/parallel to Orthodoxy only in an Anglophone style?
If that was the case then surely the Orthodox and the Anglicans would be closer to some kind of union than they are at present.
If you want to become Anglican for whatever reason then fair enough. That's your choice. Your former Church mates among the RCs or the Orthodox may wish you well but they would both consider you to have left the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Become Anglican by all means, there's a lot to recommend it, but do so under Anglicanism's own multifarious terms and not because you imagine it to be a mirror image of your former affiliation only in more culturally appropriate terms.
I'm something of an Orthophile but Orthodoxy is completely messy across 'the Diaspora'. Anglicanism at least doesn't claim to aim for consistency. I suppose you could interpret it however you wish.
Nobody's going to fall out with you among the Anglicans if you hold them to be the Western Orthodox, even if that's not how they see themselves ...
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I can have some sympathy with the idea of a national church inculturated within a particular country but part of a wider, global, Christian community. That was long the ideal of the Church of England, but I'm wary of the idea that one's Christian beliefs should be dictated by your culture. How far does this idea extend? If you grow up in Utah are you supposed to be Mormon, or is Mormonism beyond the pail?
Agreed. However, there needs to be a healthy balance. Culture cannot dictate Christian beliefs - culture ought to reflect the beliefs of the faithful.
If you are a missionary to a non-Christian country, of course you should try to convert people to Christ, to traditional, apostolic Christianity. What form this Christianity takes, however, depends on the existing culture. The culture ought to be renewed in the light of Christ, where things that people are familiar with now have a new meaning.
You can't dump Westminster, Moscow, Athens or Rome onto this new Christian land - it doesn't work very well. Some things will certainly carry over from one culture to another...this is inevitable and historically correct. And this can be a very good thing. But most of the liturgical expression needs to be related to the existing culture and lives of the people.
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The question I'd have for Stoic29 as an American (which I think he/she is) is this, which cultural expression of Christianity best suits or serves the US?
They are all imports.
I'm American and a he
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Good question and a complex one. I think a high Anglican or high Roman is best suited.
But is there anything more American Christian than a white-walled Baptist church in the South?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, over here we'd think of Southern Baptists, say or various types of Pentecostal being more 'American' in feel than Episcopalians or RCs.
There are of course many America's. There are at least 11 according to some punters.
I'm not suggesting that 'High Church' forms are less American nor that they can't flourish there. I met a young ACNA ordinand last year and his parish in Tennessee is booming as it swells with refugees from megachurches and the 'non-denoms'.
That's not happening here in the UK.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
On the other hand, we don't really have megachurches and I get the impression that our non-denoms usually function in smaller units.
I also get the impression that in the US, what was fairly obviously and Episcopal Church that one could call Anglican, has recently started, for different reasons, to emulate the Orthodox in having a multiplicity of parallel jurisdictions, some of which don't recognise some of the others, and some of which are linked up with different provinces of the Anglican Communion. So that may feel a bit familiar!.
[ 18. January 2017, 22:06: Message edited by: Enoch ]
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Eastern-rite churches lose most of their people in America within three generations of arriving. The kids and grandkids assimilate and leave.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Eastern-rite churches lose most of their people in America within three generations of arriving. The kids and grandkids assimilate and leave.
How are the rest of the churches doing with their kids? I'm pretty sure kids are dropping like flies out of every denomination.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
You're not wrong Mousethief, however, as a generalised comment, it seems that a pattern can be traced in the assimilation/identity of immigrant communities. This has effects on religion.
The "arrivers" retain strong links with their motherland and so (for instance) feel more "Pakistani" than "British". They may send their children on visits "home"*.
The second generation, while recognising their roots, tend to feel more of a kinship with the society in which they were born. They maintain some traditions of "the old country".
The third generation generally sit much looser to their "roots" (hence the dropping away from religious ties with recognisable ethnic origins). However the opposite can happen: they may strongly reassert their background and reject many aspects of their host culture. This can be evidenced in, say, the assertion of "black power" or Rastafarianism, or even radical Islamisation.
(*Obviously not true of all. My parents came as Jewish refugees from Germany and my mother in particular strongly rejected her background and all it stood for, making a conscious effort to be "British").
[ 19. January 2017, 06:41: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard the Orthodox here say it's a big problem, particularly among the Greeks and Cypriots.
To an extent it's been offset by an influx of Romanians and other Eastern Europeans but as far as I can gather the Greeks are losing their youngsters to secularism.
The same applies to the CofE and other 'indigeneous' churches too, of course.
The West Indian churches are losing a lot of their young people too, but in London and other major cities there's been a considerable rise in the number of African churches - Nigerian, Ghanaian, Ethiopian ...
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Good points, Mousethief and Gamaliel. Thanks.
The mainline Protestant churches (including the Anglicans) in America are losing their young too but this is recent, after a centuries-long good run. Ditto American Catholicism after Vatican II. But I think with the Eastern-rite churches, Catholic and other, which have really only been here about a century, it's always been a problem. Sure, you can prop up numbers with immigration. Most American Orthodox are Greek, and Greek immigration shores them up... until the next generation assimilates. American Catholic numbers are artificially high because of Mexican immigration; white attrition is as bad as the mainliners now.
My guess is American evangelicalism is holding its own. They lose a lot but gain and keep a lot too. Call it even?
American Catholicism will bottom out and end up much smaller than before Vatican II. It has two advantages over the Eastern churches: America's European culture is its culture, and it was so big for so long (my area, the Northeast, has long been de facto Catholic) that it can afford some losses.
Eastern-rite churches in America are small and culturally isolated. Without the home countries' cultures supporting them, they're likely to fold.
And I don't wish that on them. I worship at a Ukrainian Catholic parish 1/4 of the time. As a conservative Catholic I think the Eastern rites have much potential to reach ordinary Americans because they don't have some of us Latin Massers' cultural baggage while sharing all of our doctrine. But it just isn't happening. Just like the Orthodox, the Ukrainian Catholics move away and marry out; "the end."
My guess is the Orthodox convert boomlet is already fizzling. How many of those families will be Orthodox in three generations?
[ 19. January 2017, 09:49: Message edited by: Young fogey ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I heard a young Orthodox priest from London suggest that the number of Western converts to Orthodoxy had plateaued her in the UK.
Other Orthodox priests I know are less pessimistic. I do wonder how sustainable Orthodoxy is in Western cultures without immigration to replace the losses.
Evangelicalism tends to have a revolving door but can hold its own providing similar numbers are coming through the front door as are leaving ...
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do wonder how sustainable Orthodoxy is in Western cultures without immigration to replace the losses.
It isn't. Westerners who have the apostolic faith are Catholic! We don't want or need a foreign imitation.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do wonder how sustainable Orthodoxy is in Western cultures without immigration to replace the losses.
It isn't. Westerners who have the apostolic faith are Catholic! We don't want or need a foreign imitation.
Imitation? Even in my nastiest arguments with Bingo, I never referred to the Roman Catholic Church as an imitation church. This is astoundingly rude. Also demonstrably false but that's by the bye.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is astoundingly rude.
That's rich coming from the church that rebaptizes Catholics.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm not a church.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
My guess is American evangelicalism is holding its own. They lose a lot but gain and keep a lot too. Call it even?
Not according to Pew. Their numbers are falling, just more slowly than others. IMO due in part to the prosperity gospel and the cult of personality.
It is also not a single entity. One can find one's own flavour more easily. Something more difficult with more orthodox churches.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is astoundingly rude.
That's rich coming from the church that rebaptizes Catholics.
I can only speak directly from Canadian experience but to my knowledge the only rebaptizing Orthodox community are the Greek Old Calendarists, who have a complicated and tenuous connexion with Archbishop Sotirios of the Constantinopolitan metropolis. I was told that ROCOR clerics have been known in the past to rebaptize Anglicans, but were told to simply chrismate. I don't know the current situation.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Although most churches have a range of opinion besides their doctrine, in a sense you are who you are in communion with.
I can believe "evangelicalism is losing too, only slower." Relative to the American mainline and white Catholicism, that's "holding its own."
Regarding Orthodox rebaptisms, here's how it works: Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans, for example, recognize all baptisms done with water in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit as valid in themselves. Orthodox teaching doesn't. Their true-church claims says only their sacraments are in themselves sacraments. So receiving converts by baptism is always an option, though few now do it. The three largest Orthodox denominations in America, the Greeks, the OCA, and Antioch, have agreed not to, but that's not doctrine. In practice, the Orthodox recognize or don't recognize our baptisms if they feel like it, which we think is illogical; complete hash. The Greek Old Calendarists (and there are several sects of those) arguably aren't really Orthodox, and ROCOR arguably wasn't either until it reconciled with the Russian church 10 years ago ("the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Orthodoxy"), but like fundamentalist Mormonism is to Mormonism regarding polygamy, what they did or do in this regard is part of the parent church's teaching. We think rechrismating ex-Catholics is obnoxious too (same thing: it's not always done but it's an option) but then again we don't recognize Anglican orders (us: Anglicans are Christians but a church with Reformed theology about the Eucharist can't pass down holy orders; me: the Orthodox are bigots; they believe if you're not part of their culture, you're not even really Christian).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I have been accused of not being a 'proper' Christian by an Orthodox person only once as far as I can remember - and this was a particularly virulent former Protestant turned Orthodox who was making a nuisance of himself on an online forum - not here, I hasten to add.
That doesn't mean I haven't had arsey comments from the Orthodox in other ways. I most certainly have.
That said, I will accept that their baptismal polity can be problemmatic ... with some of them you get the impression that all Trinitarian baptisms are valid, with others that they are only potentially valid and only become so when they are accompanied later by Orthodox chrismation ... the invalidity or inadequacy is then smoothed out ...
I suppose it's a bit like those Big E Evangelicals who suppose that the only true or 'proper' Christians are those who are evangelical in some way ...
It's certainly an issue.
An Orthodox priest once told me that he wouldn't dream of baptising an RC, Anglican or Lutheran who converted but he'd not hesitate in baptising (or 're-baptising') someone from a non-denominational Protestant background as he felt they were all over the shop theologically and you couldn't guarantee an adequate Trinitarian understanding from those quarters ...
Whether this was simply his opinion or an indication of a particular line in his jurisdiction, I don't know.
We did have a Shipmate who was Orthodox - but who has now lapsed as far as I can gather - who was baptised about three times or so - as an RC, as something else, I forget which, and finally as Orthodox. He was involved with the Russians. I don't know whether they were ROCOR at the stage he was baptised the third time ... I suspect so ...
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
but then again we don't recognize Anglican orders (us: Anglicans are Christians but a church with Reformed theology about the Eucharist can't pass down holy orders;
Why can't Anglicans pass down holy orders? Is the official stance of the RC that there are no Anglican orders?
Why do the Orthodox have holy orders but Anglicans don't? In Rome's view, both churches broke communion with Rome.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think Rome's official view is that Anglican orders are 'null and void' but the Orthodox ones are simply impaired in some way.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Rome's point of view is that the time of the foundation of a Church of England independent of Catholicism only certain ,but not all, outward forms were kept,but that there was no intention to ordain bishops,priests or deacons in the Catholic understanding of ordination.
From this it follows,from the Catholic point of view,that Apostolic succession has,in the Catholic understanding of the term,not been passed on.
From that follows on the lack of priestly ordination,in the Catholic understanding, as well as the lack of episcopal confirmation,in the Catholic sense and the necessity to celebrate these sacraments when someone joins,as it were, the 'official'Catholic church.
It doesn't mean that God is not active in the Anglican church,nor does it mean that the clergy of the Anglican church do not celebrate valid sacraments for their parishioners BUT they do not celebrate sacraments which are accepted as Catholic,in the understanding of those who are linked in full communion with the See of Rome.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
Why do the Orthodox have holy orders but Anglicans don't? In Rome's view, both churches broke communion with Rome.
Because the Orthodox are still Catholic about the Eucharist; classical Anglicans were Reformed about it.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Our criteria for valid orders are in a sense our branch theory, but it's rather like the real Anglican branch theory, not the commonly assumed one of co-equal branches: a family of apostolic churches but only one branch is the true church (which classical Anglicanism at least implies).
The criteria are credal orthodoxy so basic that it includes the Nestorians, an unbroken claim to apostolic succession (them what got it don't pull out charts to try to prove their "lines"), and unbroken true teaching about the Eucharist (it's Christ's actual sacrifice made present and the elements completely change). Reformed theology falls short on the last one, so the Pope said no to Anglican orders, after centuries of caution treating them as invalid.
God created valid orders but he's not limited to them, which is why we don't dare say an Anglican priest of either sex's ministry is graceless. Nice Orthodox say the same of Catholics.
We see the Orthodox as estranged Catholics, not Protestants like the Anglicans; as they really are, they see us as part of undifferentiated darkness as much in need of baptism as non-Christians.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Except, of course, most Orthodox don't rebaptise Catholics ...
But yes, some do - and even those that don't tend to be pretty suspicious.
But then, I knock around with the folk from The Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius where despite obvious elephants in the room, Orthodox, Anglicans and RCs do tend to meet and discuss things very amicably.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Except, of course, most Orthodox don't rebaptise Catholics ...
But yes, some do - and even those that don't tend to be pretty suspicious.
But then, I knock around with the folk from The Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius where despite obvious elephants in the room, Orthodox, Anglicans and RCs do tend to meet and discuss things very amicably.
But much like with Mormons and polygamy, in theory they can.
C.S. Lewis once wrote that people at the hearts and centers of their churches are closer to God and thus to each other than the extremist fringes of those churches. Are pleasant ecumenical confabs "centrist" or outliers? Catholics and Anglicans have been jawing for 40 years; what of it?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Catholics and Anglicans have been jawing for 40 years; what of it?
Well, we've not been burning each other at the stake for a while. So there's that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
We see the Orthodox as estranged Catholics,
Estranged, imitation Catholics.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, a lot of credo-baptist Protestants would baptise - or rebaptise - Catholics ...
So it ain't just an Orthodox thing, of course.
That said, some Orthodox I've encountered online (rather than in real life) can be as virulently anti-RC as any tub-thumping Protestant fundamentalist I've come across.
I was once interested to hear a discussion between Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and a bevy of RC priests about divorce and remarriage. It was cordial but there were no holds-barred on either side. I was impressed by the robustness of the exchange. Anglicans tend to skirt around such issues.
As with everything else, the mileage varies. I've known cradle Orthodox Greeks who've rolled their eyes at their own Church's attitude towards Canterbury and Rome ...
It takes two sides to Schism and two sides to heal the divisions.
In some ways, I can see signs of softening but I don't see either side backing down on what they see as their non-negotiables soon ...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
In some ways those at the extremities of religious communities are closer to one another.
In politics there is little difference between extreme right and extreme left - in the sense that both of them have established views which very little will shift - they are right and any one who varies from their point of view is wrong.
It is the same wioth religious viewpoints.Fortunately,at least in mainstream religious communities or denominations ,there are many less committed who stop the extremists from going over the edge.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
That said, some Orthodox I've encountered online (rather than in real life) can be as virulently anti-RC as any tub-thumping Protestant fundamentalist I've come across.
I remember Pope John Paul II visiting some Orthodox-heavy country some time late in his papacy, and militant Orthodox activists staged a protest against him.
What was odd(from a westerners' perspective) was that some of these protestors were reverentially holding up pictures of Marian iconography. Such imagery being not something usually seen in an ANTI-Catholic demonstrations, to say the least.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
That said, some Orthodox I've encountered online (rather than in real life) can be as virulently anti-RC as any tub-thumping Protestant fundamentalist I've come across.
I remember Pope John Paul II visiting some Orthodox-heavy country some time late in his papacy, and militant Orthodox activists staged a protest against him.
What was odd(from a westerners' perspective) was that some of these protestors were reverentially holding up pictures of Marian iconography. Such imagery being not something usually seen in an ANTI-Catholic demonstrations, to say the least.
Well, not a at Protestant anti-Catholic demonstration, perhaps. You're kind of saying it was strange to you that the Orthodox weren't acting like Protestants.
[ 21. January 2017, 16:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
That said, some Orthodox I've encountered online (rather than in real life) can be as virulently anti-RC as any tub-thumping Protestant fundamentalist I've come across.
I remember Pope John Paul II visiting some Orthodox-heavy country some time late in his papacy, and militant Orthodox activists staged a protest against him.
What was odd(from a westerners' perspective) was that some of these protestors were reverentially holding up pictures of Marian iconography. Such imagery being not something usually seen in an ANTI-Catholic demonstrations, to say the least.
Well, not a at Protestant anti-Catholic demonstration, perhaps. You're kind of saying it was strange to you that the Orthodox weren't acting like Protestants.
Well, that's why I said "from a westerners' perspective". Prior to that point, I think the only religious anti-Catholic activism I had ever seen, in the media or in-person, was by Protestants. I'd imagine my experience would be similar to most people living in jurisdictions with lots of Protestants but few Orthodox.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, but some of the Orthodox anti-RC rants can sound very much like the late Rev Ian Paisley in full flight ... only with Eastern European accents rather than No'r'n Irish ones.
'Ulster says, "No!"'
'Moscow says, "Nyet!"'
'Athens says, "Oxhi"'
...
It's not uncommon to hear terms like 'Anti-Christ' and so on, so yes, the Orthodox can behave like Protestants ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not uncommon to hear terms like 'Anti-Christ' and so on, so yes, the Orthodox can behave like Protestants ...
Because Catholics don't behave like this? Yes it's embarrassing to more level-headed members of the group(s) in question, but it's hardly the preserve of non-Catholics.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not uncommon to hear terms like 'Anti-Christ' and so on, so yes, the Orthodox can behave like Protestants ...
Because Catholics don't behave like this? Yes it's embarrassing to more level-headed members of the group(s) in question, but it's hardly the preserve of non-Catholics.
Well, I think what we're talking about is the prevalence and style of ANTI-CATHOLICSM in different denominations. Obviously, there is no anti-Catholicism in Catholicism.
There is plenty religious bigotry in Catholicism, to be sure. One thing I will observe, though, is that Catholics seem less obsessed than Protestants with pointing to this or that rival faith group as "Antichrist", or some manifestation on that theme. More just that everybody else besides Catholics(regardless of the denomination) are in error and in danger of losing their eternal soul.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I've gotten plenty of stick from Catholics on this ship and indeed on this thread. In their anti-Orthodoxy. It cuts all ways.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not uncommon to hear terms like 'Anti-Christ' and so on, so yes, the Orthodox can behave like Protestants ...
Because Catholics don't behave like this? Yes it's embarrassing to more level-headed members of the group(s) in question, but it's hardly the preserve of non-Catholics.
The Roman Catholic equivalent, to my mind, is the term the Catholic faith. There is no such thing: it's the roman catholic version of the Christian faith.
They are part of the body of Christ with the rest of us. Rome has no monopoly on the truth. This is unavoidably true.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've gotten plenty of stick from Catholics on this ship and indeed on this thread. In their anti-Orthodoxy. It cuts all ways.
Oh, I don't doubt it. Though the Ship is not neccessarily the most accurate representation of a particular faith's adherents, since the people here tend to know more about what they believe, and have specific opinions about the faiths that are outside their own.
In my experience, the Catholic Church tends to have a "pride of place" in the "demonology" of militant Protestants, and there really isn't an equivalent church in the Catholic demonology. I'm hard pressed to think of a Catholic writer who has distinguished himself in attacking a particular Protestant faith, in the same way that numerous Protestants have distinguised themselves in attacking the RCC.
I once read a lecture by a theologian, non-Catholic, who argued that Catholics tend to be less panicked about "flashy heresies" than Protestants are, eg. Catholic publishers don't churn out book after book scrutinizing toys and comic-books for evidence of demonic influence. In my experience, he was pretty much correct about that.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's not uncommon to hear terms like 'Anti-Christ' and so on, so yes, the Orthodox can behave like Protestants ...
Because Catholics don't behave like this? Yes it's embarrassing to more level-headed members of the group(s) in question, but it's hardly the preserve of non-Catholics.
The Roman Catholic equivalent, to my mind, is the term the Catholic faith. There is no such thing: it's the roman catholic version of the Christian faith.
They are part of the body of Christ with the rest of us. Rome has no monopoly on the truth. This is unavoidably true.
Right. I think Catholic bigotry is a bit blunter in its application(which is NOT the same thing as saying it's more benign). They simply draw a line between "Catholics" and "Everybody Else", without going into too much detail about why each and every sect in the latter category is in error. Well, apart from papal encyclicals, which are rarely read by laymen.
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
Remember ,Thunderbunk ,that there are Greek Catholics,Maronite Catholics,Syriac Catholics,Syro-Malabar Catholics and others as well as Roman Catholics who all claim the name of Catholic, and who recognise the primacy of the Roman See.
The Catholics do not claim to have a monopoly of Truth but they do claim to have the fullness of Truth.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Good catch, Mousethief.
The Orthodox are estranged Catholics but...
...one wag has written that the notion of "the Orthodox Church" as a coherent entity comparable to the Catholic Church was invented by Russian émigré priests in a Parisian café in the '20s; the intelligentsia who became the OCA's few intelligentsia (Schmemann and Meyendorff).
Posted by Stoic29 (# 18712) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
The criteria are credal orthodoxy so basic that it includes the Nestorians, an unbroken claim to apostolic succession (them what got it don't pull out charts to try to prove their "lines"), and unbroken true teaching about the Eucharist (it's Christ's actual sacrifice made present and the elements completely change). Reformed theology falls short on the last one, so the Pope said no to Anglican orders, after centuries of caution treating them as invalid.
God created valid orders but he's not limited to them, which is why we don't dare say an Anglican priest of either sex's ministry is graceless. Nice Orthodox say the same of Catholics.
I was under the assumption that when Rome said "null and void" it meant that the sacraments in the Anglican communion are "without Grace".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I hate to intrude on someone else's spat - but that's never stopped me before ... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
So, Young Fogey, how do you account for 'unorthodox' doctrines such as Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of the Virgin (as opposed to the Dormition) and the Immaculate Conception of Mary being adopted by the apparently 'Orthodox' Roman Catholic Church?
Or are these 'Orthodox' and worthy of all acceptation?
And yes, I know the mileage varies within Eastern Orthodoxy (or, as the Orthodox would prefer, simply Orthodoxy) as to the extent that they regard these as outright heresies or permissible opinions ...
I've seen some Orthodox online who aren't too far from the RC stance on some of these things - other than Papal Infallibility of course.
Although before Mousethief or any other Orthodoxen protest, I am well aware that from an official Orthodox perspective all the 'extra' Marian bits and bobs are well wide of the mark ...
But then, from an Orthodox perspective, as a Protestant I'm simply the flip-side of the same bad Papalist penny ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
Good catch, Mousethief.
The Orthodox are estranged Catholics but...
...one wag has written that the notion of "the Orthodox Church" as a coherent entity comparable to the Catholic Church was invented by Russian émigré priests in a Parisian café in the '20s; the intelligentsia who became the OCA's few intelligentsia (Schmemann and Meyendorff).
This because the pope of Rome was a single patriarch who split from all of the rest. So the so-called Roman Catholic Church is one patriarchate, and the rest of the Church left behind consists of many, so there is less lockstep -- excuse me, less ecclesial "unity."
What is sneeringly called Orthodox disunity is what the church always was until the Pope declared himself universal ruler of all, and attempted for enforce his false unity on his brother patriarchs. The ultimate result of which was the schism of 1054.
[ 23. January 2017, 12:37: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
It's not just as simple as you say .mousethief.
The bishop of Rome is recognised,at the very least,as primus inter pares,first among equals.Antioch,Constaninople (new Rome) as well as Moscow (third Rome) claim their status as stemming from the See of Peter.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've heard both RCs and Orthodox acknowledge that it ain't all that simple ...
I'm not sure Mousethief is suggesting that things were as clear cut as that either.
Ok, as a Protestant it's in my spiritual DNA to baulk at Papal claims (transferring them instead to mini-popes or to a Paper Pope ... perhaps) ...
But one of the things I've never quite grasped about the Schism is how it suddenly made one side or the other apparently invalid ...
I mean, are we seriously suggesting, from the Orthodox perspective, that the very moment Cardinal Humbert marches into Hagia Sophia or wherever it was with the Papal Encyclical and has a hissy fit on the Pope's behalf, that way, way over in Western Spain or the Western Isles of Scotland a priest suddenly finds himself offering an 'invalid' Mass?
Or, from an RC perspective, that the moment Humbert shook the dust off his feet and left Constantinople the whole panoply of Orthodox orders and ceremonies were suddenly compromised?
What about someone over in Baghdad who wasn't aware of the spat between the Pope and the other Patriarchs?
Ok, I'm over-simplifying ... I know the Schism was more gradual than that ... and had, arguably, been looming for many, many years ...
But at what point did one side or the other's rites and ceremonies become invalid from t'other's perspective?
What does that even mean in practice?
How can we tell?
I know it doesn't come down to 'feelings' and fuzzy-wuzzy reactions ... if it did, then I'd be hard-pressed to assess the validity or otherwise of any side's rituals, ceremonies or clergy.
They both seem to convey grace insofar as I can tell - by the simple expedient of hearing wise words and grace-filled things expressed by clergy and laity on either side ... and by observing what I've taken to be grace-filled responses on the part of those who engage and partake in the services and so on on both sides ...
Of course, we can't open someone up or X-ray them to see what 'effect' it's having ... but if it was a by their fruits thing then I'm sure we could find examples of good and bad fruit in both East and West - across the whole kit and kaboodle ...
Sure, that's not to say that I don't see the differences - of course I do. There are very marked differences in terms of approach and mindset between East and West ...
But are we talking about complementary and reconcilable differences?
Or are we talking about complete non-negotiables?
Neither side is denying the Trinity or the Deity of Christ or the Deity of God the Holy Spirit.
I don't want to get all reductionist here in a Protestant kind of way ... but I'm sorely tempted to whenever I sit in on a spat or a discussion between the Orthodox and the RCs ...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stoic29:
quote:
Originally posted by Young fogey:
The criteria are credal orthodoxy so basic that it includes the Nestorians, an unbroken claim to apostolic succession (them what got it don't pull out charts to try to prove their "lines"), and unbroken true teaching about the Eucharist (it's Christ's actual sacrifice made present and the elements completely change). Reformed theology falls short on the last one, so the Pope said no to Anglican orders, after centuries of caution treating them as invalid.
God created valid orders but he's not limited to them, which is why we don't dare say an Anglican priest of either sex's ministry is graceless. Nice Orthodox say the same of Catholics.
I was under the assumption that when Rome said "null and void" it meant that the sacraments in the Anglican communion are "without Grace".
IIRC, Cardinal Frings who was Joseph Ratzinger's mentor formulated that "channels of grace" line at the Second Vatican Council. Pope Leo, I dare say, was less complimentary. ISTR that Catholic theologians hold that grace is not 'a substance' but nothing less than the life of God, Himself, so I'm not sure exactly what benefit valid sacraments bestow if protestant sacraments bestow the life of God Himself
AIUI, according to Rome the Orthodoxen have valid sacraments for the reasons outlines by Young Fogey. The Orthodoxen divide into those who hold that the Orthodox Church definitely has valid sacraments and that God may well be working through the sacraments of other churches but only the Orthodox can be sure and those who hold that only the Orthodox have valid sacraments.
I think that the first of the two Orthodox positions has some merit. I am quite sure, for example, that the Holy Ghost is at work in churches which have a Zwinglian understanding of the Eucharist and which deny Baptismal regeneration but to say that their sacraments are 'valid' (meaning one claims for them what one claims for one's own sacraments) seems to involve a claim that the participants don't understand what they or doing or how God works in it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Do any of us understand what we are doing and how God works in and through it?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Sure, though we see through a glass darkly, we still see ...
Again, I'm reluctant to cite personal, subjective experiences but I can remember having a very real sense of the 'enormity' of what we were doing in a very prosaic, very memorialist Baptist setting in South Wales - when something the guy presiding at the 'table' said triggered a whole string of thoughts and associations that made me feel that were in some sense connected in a very real way to events in Palestine 2,000 years previously.
No flashing lights, but a sense that what we were doing went beyond 'mere memorialism' and had an eternal, cosmic and eschatological dimension.
That neither 'proves' the 'validity' or otherwise of Baptist 'ordinances' - arguably the 'church meeting' is the only Baptist sacrament ...
But I submit that it may indicate that whatever it is that any of us are doing we may well brush or touch the hem of His garment in some way ...
If it's true that 'the heavens declare the glory of God' and that God is 'present everywhere and filleth all things' then who are we to say what is or isn't going on in this, that or the other ceremony or ritual ...
Yeah, yeah, I know, that's all very Protestant ...
But let's turn it round. I once went to an RC Benediction and Exposition ... the Protestant wiring within my system was short-circuiting, crackling and fizzing like nobody's business ...
And yet ... and yet ... and yet I felt a sense of holy dread. Was that real, imagined or simply some kind of cognitive dissonance reaction?
I have no idea.
I have felt something very similar during the silence at an Orthodox vespers. Again ... how do we assess or evaluate that?
Was the Orthodox Vespers 'valid' but the RC Exposition 'invalid'? Were both valid? Were neither?
A hotter Prot than me would probably have taken issue with both ...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I think that Protestant 'baulking at papal claims' is not the same as Orthodox baulking at papal claims.
From the Catholic point of view the Orthodox have a valid episcopate and therefore valid sacraments
(in the Catholic understanding of the Sacraments)
Over the centuries of separation, no doubt misunderstandings on both sides have crept in, but on the Catholic side,at least at top administrative level,the Orthodox are fully accepted as a part of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.
This is not to say that all Catholics in areas where there is the same tension between the 'Catholic' and the 'Orthodox' church,as we have in the west between the Catholics and the Protestants will see things that way.
To me, the problems between the papacy and the Orthodox church are really political and historically cultural ones. Both sides have the same view of bishops,priests and deacons.Both sides have ultimately the same view of the sacraments. The external forms of the liturgy are really the same ,but there are immense cultural and historical divergencies,in particular with the universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It's not just as simple as you say .mousethief.
The bishop of Rome is recognised,at the very least,as primus inter pares,first among equals.Antioch,Constaninople (new Rome) as well as Moscow (third Rome) claim their status as stemming from the See of Peter.
But not content to be primus inter pares, he styled himself the ruler of inferiors. This started early and culminated in 1870.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Gamaliel, very good point about the R.C.. sacraments suddenly becoming invalid the moment that fool Humbert soiled the altar at Holy Wisdom. I don't have an answer to that. I wonder also about the popes and anti-popes at Rome and Avignon, and how the faithful and indeed the priests could know from Sunday to Sunday whether they were getting the real deal, or a false mass. The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops, as the old Orthodox adage goes.
Is this a discussion or a spat? Well I'd like it to be a discussion, but another party introduced abuse.
Callan, for what it's worth, I am off the opinion that God told us, the ancient, undivided Church, of which today's Orthodox Church is you might say the rump, how to continue in His grace as concerns the the sacraments. But the Spirit moves where it will, and we do not presume to tell God whom to bless and whom not.
Although as you say, there are those who think, I don't know what, that God perhaps promised to never bless anyone but us. I understand that in very early days, churches promoting strange gospels were a very real threat. But any modern church that accepts the Nicene-Constanopolitan Creed is in quite a different category, I believe, than those older guys. Maybe I'm wrong. But I'll wager that if I should go to Hell, it won't be for this.
Gamaliel, "enormity" means "great evil". Is that really what you want to ascribe to your Baptist friends?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
When did he drop the title Western Patriarch?
I sometimes wonder what would have happened had the Pope remained that and not made universal claims ... Would Constantinople have done so?
An Orthodox priest recently observed to me that whilst Byzantium didn't go quite as far as Rome, it only just stopped short ...
Meanwhile, fast forward to the 21st century and it seems Pope Francis is in trouble with some of his Cardinals for moving towards a more lenient - and more Orthodox - position on divorce and remarriage - or at least, the Eucharistic response in such circumstances ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
'Enormity' has come to mean that, Mousethief, but it can also, I think, be used to mean something enormous...
But perhaps 'immensity' would be the better choice of word, so substitute that and our Baptist friends are off the hook ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Yes, I remember Bingo made the Roman position on divorce a sine qua non of Catholicism, and an insurmountable deal-breaker to reunion between Rome and Orthodoxy. And the RCC redefined marriage to be the only sacrament whose minister was not clerical, presumably to build a foundation under the castle in the clouds that is the bizarre (one might say magical thinking) doctrine of its temporary permanent indissolubility.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It didn't come to mean that; that's the original meaning.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Good catch, Stoic; "absolutely null and utterly void" seems not to leave any wiggle room for the Holy Spirit to sneak in some grace; ha ha. My spin: it means they're not holy orders as we and the Orthodox have them; nothing more.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I hate to intrude on someone else's spat - but that's never stopped me before ...
So, Young Fogey, how do you account for 'unorthodox' doctrines such as Papal Infallibility, the Assumption of the Virgin (as opposed to the Dormition) and the Immaculate Conception of Mary being adopted by the apparently 'Orthodox' Roman Catholic Church?
Or are these 'Orthodox' and worthy of all acceptation?
Orthodox and worthy of all acceptation. Byzantine Catholics' calling is in part to bear witness to all Catholic teaching but entirely in Orthodox terms.
Papal infallibility: there is only one church, it has a head bishop, and as part of the church, sharing in the church's infallibility, he has certain narrowly defined powers.
The Assumption: talk about the Orthodoxen cutting off their noses to spite their faces! As I like to say, they try so damn hard to deny they're really Catholic that they make self-refuting statements. They end up Pelagian about original sin and Lutheran about the Eucharist. The Assumption is an Eastern legend! Talk about an own goal. Catholics can believe Mary died. We don't have to.
The Immaculate Conception: the shared Eastern and Western belief that Mary is all-holy, something the Byzantine Rite often proclaims, here in Western terms regarding original sin. Again, no problem so why create one?
The Orthodox assume an empire is the church.
[ 24. January 2017, 10:24: Message edited by: Young fogey ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Meanwhile, Mousethief is of course right that I haven't been using 'enormity' in its original sense, but the sense that I intended it has been in common use since the 18th century ...
Dang!
That's far too recent.
In deference to Mousethief's pedantry I will desist using the term in its post-1700s sense.
But I might ask him to trade some horribly recent Americanisms for older and more eloquent forms in return ...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
The title 'Patriarch of the West' was dropped by Benedict XVI.It was meant to ease sensitivity in the relations between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church.
Of course one can turn this round and say that it denies any limitation of jurisdiction on the part of the 'Patriarch of the West' and emphasises the claim to universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome who is also the 'Servant of the Servants of God'.
The pope can be seen then as the servant of unity,
but what's in a title ?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The title 'Patriarch of the West' was dropped by Benedict XVI.It was meant to ease sensitivity in the relations between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church.
Which is kind of weird because the Pope (any Pope) thinks he's the arch-patriarch of both East AND West. The throne of Peter, blah blah blah. (As you allude to.) If he would ONLY claim the "west" that might be a place to start talking. Or he might go back to his earlier title, Pope and Patriarch of Rome. But the Caesar complex has probably gone on too long to be reversed now.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But I might ask him to trade some horribly recent Americanisms for older and more eloquent forms in return ...
Many Americanisms are just older and more eloquent words that you Brits have tossed into the harbor. One might mention "gotten."
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wasn't thinking of the older ones that we've dropped and you've retained, Mousethief.
Need I spell out those I have in mind?
They'd probably bring you out in hives just as much as they would me ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't thinking of the older ones that we've dropped and you've retained, Mousethief.
Glad I could jog your selective memory.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Au contraire, I'm well aware of the words and phrases we've dropped and you guys have retained ... as I am of newly coined Americanisms, some of which are fine and dandy and others of which suck ...
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on
:
I get the impression from some Orthodox that whatever the pope may do with titles it is wrong. The present pope emphasises in many ways his position as Bishop of Rome - (and therefore Successor of the Prince of the Apostles ,blah, blah, blah or to use a papal Latin phrase, et cetera)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Au contraire, I'm well aware of the words and phrases we've dropped and you guys have retained ... as I am of newly coined Americanisms, some of which are fine and dandy and others of which suck ...
And vice versa with Briticisms. Why even bring this up? It serves no purpose in this discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I get the impression from some Orthodox that whatever the pope may do with titles it is wrong. The present pope emphasises in many ways his position as Bishop of Rome - (and therefore Successor of the Prince of the Apostles ,blah, blah, blah or to use a papal Latin phrase, et cetera)
It's more whatever the pope does with titles who gives a fuck?
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I haven't darkened the door of an Orthodox church for almost a year, but in my experience what MT wrote is true -- though no Orthodox I know dropped the f-bomb.
Whenever there was talk about the Pope, which was not very often at all, it was either (1) approvingly for him defending the Faith or (2) disapprovingly for him claiming more jurisdiction than the Orthodox thought was right.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I haven't darkened the door of an Orthodox church for almost a year, but in my experience what MT wrote is true -- though no Orthodox I know dropped the f-bomb.
Pansies.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
The title 'Patriarch of the West' was dropped by Benedict XVI.It was meant to ease sensitivity in the relations between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church.
Of course one can turn this round and say that it denies any limitation of jurisdiction on the part of the 'Patriarch of the West' and emphasises the claim to universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome who is also the 'Servant of the Servants of God'.
Which is no doubt exactly how it was received there and in the Anglican communion as well. YMMV, but that, and the proclamation of the Personal Ordinariate, justify a new title of his - Benny the Rat.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The jogging about language, the 'word wars' if you like, was a tangent if course but in one sense it is pertinent by analogy as the divergence in vocabulary and usage on either side of the Atlantic - for Anglophones, Francophones and speakers of Spanish and Portuguese alike - is akin to what we've seen in the divergence between Eastern and Western Christianity ..
In the sense that it can be a tussle over arcane and minor differences in words and meaning very often rather than substantial differences in intent.
Call me simplistic but I can't see why some of these issues couldn't have been ironed out years ago - the filioque, for instance ...
I'd say the same about relations between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?
'Bloody sort it out, why dun yew?' he wrote in his vernacular ...
I notice Mousethief is the master of a particularly fruity old English word ...
Meanwhile, apropos of Transatlantic co-operstion our Prime Minister will be going down on your President later today in order to secure post-Brexit deals on the higher quality forms of British cheese, which would be good news for US palates as hopefully these will replace the plastic versions currently available in Wal Mart.
In exchange, we are going to let Uncle Sam take us up the ass on human rights, acquiescence to torture and the erosion of standards in food preparation, animal cruelty, ecology and climate-change.
Thanks.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, apropos of Transatlantic co-operstion our Prime Minister will be going down on your President later today...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Call me simplistic but I can't see why some of these issues couldn't have been ironed out years ago - the filioque, for instance ...
I'd say the same about relations between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox?
I know there was a quite a long dialogue, but if I recall "traditionalists" often had concerns for any closer ties, and communion itself. When you have memorandums from Mt Athos:
quote:
vigorously object[ing] to “purging the liturgical books of texts which refer to the Anti-Chalcedonians as heretical.”
The sacred services of many confessors of the Faith, of many righteous Fathers, and especially the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Council in Chalcedon will be mutilated...
[considering that the anathemas were laid upon the heretics by the Ecumenical Councils in a spirit lacking love, while today, since love now exists, union can be accomplished] directs a profound blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, through Whose inspiration these decisions were made, and against the sacred memory of the Holy Fathers...
source
I do not see much hope of unity soon.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
One could argue that Athos keeps us from going off the rails. One could also argue they keep us from going at all.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
One could argue that Athos keeps us from going off the rails. One could also argue they keep us from going at all.
I appreciate the shock of losing Constantinople, and then 360 or so years under Ottoman rule with its repression, but perhaps it's time for Athos to come up to date and indeed back onto the rails. But who has the power and interest in doing that? The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have the strength, and while the Russian church does, the Moscow Patriarch probably prefers to leave things as they are.
Posted by Young fogey (# 5317) on
:
Their battles royales:
The patriarchs of their old empire vs. their new one (Byzantine Christianity assumes an empire), the old being gone and its patriarch an employee of the Turks but he has Greek-American money backing him, the new being the only Orthodox country with any power (superpower with nukes).
Julian vs. Gregorian calendars: the Russians are old-calendar but many of the others have breakaways because of this.
Ecumenist vs. anti-ecumenist. The ones who talk to us and to Protestants are suspect. When you confuse your empire with the church, that's natural.
I don't have to tell you where Athos is in all that.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Gee D and Young Fogey, is it any of our business to tell the monks of Mount Athos what they should think or how they should conduct their affairs?
I've got my views on things various popes have and haven't done that I agree with and don't agree with. Some of them make reunion more possible and others that make it less. Nevertheless, as a member of the CofE, it isn't really my business how the RCC conducts its affairs, any more than it's Pope Francis's or the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster's how we conduct ours.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
My (recently deceased) cousin was born and raised Roman Catholic and was there many years, before joining the Church of England. I don't think she did so for any particular intellectual reasons, but it was apparent that within the CofE she found a lot more to do which suited her gifts and abilities.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't mean this as a dig at Rome, but I've often heard it said, both by RCs and non-RCs that it isn't very good at deploying it's laity to best effect.
Mind you, many Protestant churches run to the opposite extreme and fill their members' time to the extent that they hardly do anything that isn't connected with church ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't mean this as a dig at Rome, but I've often heard it said, both by RCs and non-RCs that it isn't very good at deploying it's laity to best effect.
Mind you, many Protestant churches run to the opposite extreme and fill their members' time to the extent that they hardly do anything that isn't connected with church ...
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Gee D and Young Fogey, is it any of our business to tell the monks of Mount Athos what they should think or how they should conduct their affairs?
Perhaps, but we can deplore the inability of the Ecumenical Patriarch to conduct his affairs.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Gee D and Young Fogey, is it any of our business to tell the monks of Mount Athos what they should think or how they should conduct their affairs?
Perhaps, but we can deplore the inability of the Ecumenical Patriarch to conduct his affairs.
In which case are we deploring Bart, or are we deploring the circumstances under which he finds himself? I think Ankara keeps him on a pretty short leash.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I deplore the way in which the present holder of a distinguished office is ignored right, left and centre; he should be treated by his own flock with the respect in which we Anglicans - heretics from a schismatic church - treat him.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm not part of his flock. He's not a pope.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No he's not a pope and has never pretended to be. I understand the long history of those seeking autocephalic status. Yet the present day Orthodox communities treat him as an irrelevance.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Well of course they do. Look who he hangs out with.
[/sarcasm]
With some communities, or keyboard warriors, I'd say it's contempt rather than irrelevance. I've read too many uses of the word heretic to pay much heed anymore.
[ 28. January 2017, 01:47: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
And various ++Cantaur as well.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Bart's getting a lot of stick at the moment, even from people who once spoke highly of him.
I've heard priests say that he's becoming too 'Papal' and that's why the recent Council hit the buffers.
I've also heard rumours that he_s got dementia.
Conversely, I know some of the Russian parishes here and splits there from have taken refuge under his jurisdiction. So he does have a flock here to some extent.
Those who have applied to him directly see him as a safer pair of hands than Kyrill's ...
The whole thing is a bloody mess.
Yes, I know Patriarch Bartholomew isn't the Pope but it does strike me that he is respected more outside his own Church than within it.
Who'd be Ecumenical Patriarch?
You'd get savaged by the Athonites on one hand and booted in the balls by Moscow ...
Moscow's throwing its weight around at the moment.
As I look down from my perch on the fence I see a lot of weeds in the Orthodox pastures. I see Southern US style religious conservatives setting up camp there, I see Moscow treading on tender plants. I see a resurgence of Slavic nationalism. I see incipient fascism.
Other than that ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Of course here in the US we don't need to squint to see incipient fascism. You have to close your eyes not to see the real thing.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
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.
How so?
It's been a while since I read them, so please forgive me if I am incorrect, but I seem to recall that the canons of the Church of England make it clear that, in order for a communicant member of another trinitarian church to receive communion in a CofE context, the person must be in good standing in their own church. Has that been changed?
If not, it seems to me that the Anglican priest is simply fulfilling his own canonical obligations as a priest of the Church of England, and I don't see how it is the duty of any Orthodox priest to intervene.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I may be misunderstanding [past my bedtime], but given the Orthodox canons are quite different and this person was Orthodox, and I assume attending an Orthodox parish, I'd be surprised if the Orthodox priest did not speak up.
My views may be coloured in that in my first Orthodox parish we were treated to a denunciation about the wrongness of taking the Eucharist in a Catholic Mass in place of the sermon by the priest; when it was somewhat known among the congregation a member was doing so.
Why it wasn't done in private I'll never know. I thought it rather poor form.
edit: I think the Copts were mentioned too. A few must've been visiting them on the not-so-quiet.
[ 13. February 2017, 10:34: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I just can't see why it is the obligation of an Anglican priest to explain Orthodox teaching. That surely is a job for the Orthodox priest.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I just can't see why it is the obligation of an Anglican priest to explain Orthodox teaching. That surely is a job for the Orthodox priest.
But they're not going to an Orthodox priest; they're going to an Anglican priest. And the Anglican priest's job is to gently explain why the rules of his church do not permit him to admit them to communion, as they are not in good standing in their own church.
If he then wants to direct them to an Orthodox priest for further clarification of why they are not in good standing, then let him do so.
[ 13. February 2017, 10:57: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That doesn't mean I haven't had arsey comments from the Orthodox in other ways. I most certainly have.
You have, and I know that I have been guilty of this in the past, for which I ask forgiveness.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
And the Anglican priest's job is to gently explain why the rules of his church do not permit him to admit them to communion, as they are not in good standing in their own church.
Depending on the flavour of Anglican involved, that's not even technically true. TEC admits "all baptized Christians," which would include the Orthodox couple whatever their standing with their own congregation.
With respect to the C of E, Canon B 15A (b) does indeed admit those who are communicant members of their own Trinitarian church, and in good standing with that church. Whether this obliges the C of E to pay attention to other churches' decrees of automatic sanction for various acts would be an interesting question for canon lawyers.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Does the CofE even have any Canon lawyers?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There is nothing to forgive, Scrumpmeister.
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There is nothing to forgive, Scrumpmeister.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
And the Anglican priest's job is to gently explain why the rules of his church do not permit him to admit them to communion, as they are not in good standing in their own church.
Depending on the flavour of Anglican involved, that's not even technically true. TEC admits "all baptized Christians," which would include the Orthodox couple whatever their standing with their own congregation.
That's true. I had assumed that, because Gamaliel is based in the UK that the situation he describes also was, but of course as he encountered it online it could have been anywhere.
quote:
With respect to the C of E, Canon B 15A (b) does indeed admit those who are communicant members of their own Trinitarian church, and in good standing with that church. Whether this obliges the C of E to pay attention to other churches' decrees of automatic sanction for various acts would be an interesting question for canon lawyers.
It would, and certainly when I was excommunicated by my former Orthodox bishop and somewhat at sea ecclesiastically, I was very grateful to find that Anglican clergy were willing to disregard the restrictions in this particular canon.
However, I cannot think of any reason why Canon B 15a (b), (thank you for finding the exact reference) would put that restriction in place if not as a mark of ecumenical respect for the discipline of other churches.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Does the CofE even have any Canon lawyers?
Dozens of them - am tempted to call them 'parasites'.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
However, I cannot think of any reason why Canon B 15a (b), (thank you for finding the exact reference) would put that restriction in place if not as a mark of ecumenical respect for the discipline of other churches.
I think it's probably more aimed at a situation where someone has been excommunicated by their own church for sleeping with their priest's spouse (or other egregious public sin): things that would be out of order whichever church you're a member of. I don't think the goal was to police the disciplinary quirks of particular denominations.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I read it even more broadly, as looking for an equivalent to confirmation. That is, or was, the standard of C of E membership in good standing as an adult. Since some other churches confirm/ed their members and others didn't/don't, a single phrase setting out the standard was required, and this is it.
Of course, if you are intending to be received into the C of E, that's a different matter since you then come under its discipline, and I can see no necessity to regard the regime of the other denomination as directly relevant.
I'm not a canon lawyer, but that seems to me to be what it's driving at.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0