|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Orthodox and 'Original' Sin
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Keromaru:
Best explanation I've heard, from a priest at my old church teaching a small class on the BCP catechism: Baptism is a sacrament, which means it's an outward sign of an inward grace.
Be aware however that not everybody defines "sacrament" thusly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Keromaru
Apprentice
# 15757
|
Posted
Duly noted! I should have clarified that she was referring to the definition in the prayer book.
Posts: 26 | From: Diocese of East Tennessee | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Cool Jude. Sooooooo. What's behind the metaphor?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Some church traditions teach that baptism is dying to sin and self and rising to new life in Christ, particularly where total immersion is practised. First the candidate is lowered into the water symbolising dying to the old self, but by being raised up out of the water, to a new resurrected life in Christ. ...
Leaving aside arguments about how literal immersion has to be, I thought all traditions taught this. Is there someone somewhere who doesn't?
Sorry if this was not clear. As far as I am aware, all traditions teach about baptism constituting new life in Christ, but I will leave others to say if there is someone somewhere who doesn't.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ˇFelices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Ingo B - I thought that St Augustine taught that through the sin of Adam we are all tainted and therefore thoroughly depraved. Isn't this what the RC church teaches?
No, that's not what the RCC teaches. "Total Depravity" is the the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP", but is not a RC teaching. Human nature was damaged in the fall, but certainly not totally corrupted. To quote from the
quote:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
406 The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Ingo B - I thought that St Augustine taught that through the sin of Adam we are all tainted and therefore thoroughly depraved. Isn't this what the RC church teaches?
No, that's not what the RCC teaches. "Total Depravity" is the the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP", but is not a RC teaching. Human nature was damaged in the fall, but certainly not totally corrupted. ....
I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't think that's what 'total depravity' originally meant. It's both the meaning of 'total' and possibly the wrong choice of the word 'depravity' that are problems. The 'total' here, does not represent a statement that we are utterly and completely without virtue. It means that there is no part of human nature that is not affected by sin. Unlike Achilles, the term indicates a belief that there is not a part of us that is somehow untainted.
Where I would come down definitely on the Protestant side of the fence, are,
a. As much by observation of oneself and others as theology, it appears to me self-evident that we are all tainted, all prone to sin and cannot be even moderately good by ourselves.
b. We all need God's help to live a good life. Again, we cannot do that by ourselves.
c. We all need salvation, and we cannot do that ourselves either. We can only draw near because Christ has died for us.
Coming from the country that invented Pelagianism, where people still, 1500 years later, are profoundly prone to believe they can do it by themselves, I'm prepared to accept a certain amount of rhetorical overstatement as to how and why we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.
This may not be the issue in other parts of the world, but far too many of my countrymen think they are doing God a tremendous favour by believing in him, that it is a demonstration of their own virtue that they have done so and that since they think they are jolly good chaps or chappesses, God must agree with them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
Ingo B - I thought that St Augustine taught that through the sin of Adam we are all tainted and therefore thoroughly depraved. Isn't this what the RC church teaches?
No, that's not what the RCC teaches. "Total Depravity" is the the "T" in the Calvinist "TULIP", but is not a RC teaching. Human nature was damaged in the fall, but certainly not totally corrupted. ....
I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't think that's what 'total depravity' originally meant. It's both the meaning of 'total' and possibly the wrong choice of the word 'depravity' that are problems. The 'total' here, does not represent a statement that we are utterly and completely without virtue. It means that there is no part of human nature that is not affected by sin. Unlike Achilles, the term indicates a belief that there is not a part of us that is somehow untainted.
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
No, Enoch, we know we are not perfect, but think that God, being a decent cove, will make allowances for us.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not a Calvinist, but I don't think that's what 'total depravity' originally meant. It's both the meaning of 'total' and possibly the wrong choice of the word 'depravity' that are problems. The 'total' here, does not represent a statement that we are utterly and completely without virtue. It means that there is no part of human nature that is not affected by sin. Unlike Achilles, the term indicates a belief that there is not a part of us that is somehow untainted.
Well, I'm not a Calvinist and I have no intention to misrepresent Calvinism, about which I know little. My main point was that a doctrine of literally "total depravity" is not Catholic. What you explain there sounds rather compatible with Catholic teaching though.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
Has there ever been a Christian who has said otherwise? This is such a straw man. It's not even clear that Pelagius himself believed we can save ourselves.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So we might as well have to be YECists? We HAVE to believe in a literal Adam for Jesus' sacrifice to have any meaning?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'm not sure you have to be a YEC to believe in a literal Adam, neither am I sure you have to believe in a literal Adam to believe in Christ's sacrifice. For my part I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, though I'm not a YEC.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I'm not a Calvinist and I have no intention to misrepresent Calvinism, about which I know little. My main point was that a doctrine of literally "total depravity" is not Catholic. What you explain there sounds rather compatible with Catholic teaching though.
In the sense of many of those since who have claimed to be out and out Calvinists, I'm not convinced Calvin was one either.
I also have my doubts as to whether, in that sense, St Thomas Aquinas was a Thomist.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So if it's not necessary to believe in a literal Adam, who did the original sin?
[ 06. July 2014, 16:32: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So if it's not necessary to believe in a literal Adam, who did the original sin?
You'll have to ask tvose who don't brlieve in a literal Adam. All I said was that I'm not sure.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'm asking you. You believe in original sin, no?
[ 06. July 2014, 16:44: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
As I said earlier, it depends what you mean by original sin, but assuming we're referring to the Orthodox understanding, thrn yes. Anyway, I believe in a literal Adam, so I still don't know why you're asking me.
[ 06. July 2014, 17:13: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What is original sin if Adam isn't necessary? And how does Adam fit in evolution?
[ 06. July 2014, 17:28: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
Has there ever been a Christian who has said otherwise? This is such a straw man. It's not even clear that Pelagius himself believed we can save ourselves.
Well, the implications can certainly be fleshed out a bit, but I don't know that it's a straw man. Enoch has it right—popular understanding of "total" and "depravity" notwithstanding, Calvin intended to express the Augustinian understanding of original sin.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, I'm not a Calvinist and I have no intention to misrepresent Calvinism, about which I know little. My main point was that a doctrine of literally "total depravity" is not Catholic. What you explain there sounds rather compatible with Catholic teaching though.
In the sense of many of those since who have claimed to be out and out Calvinists, I'm not convinced Calvin was one either.
Agreed.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Correct, and that as a result, we are unable to save ourselves.
Has there ever been a Christian who has said otherwise? This is such a straw man. It's not even clear that Pelagius himself believed we can save ourselves.
Well, the implications can certainly be fleshed out a bit, but I don't know that it's a straw man. Enoch has it right—popular understanding of "total" and "depravity" notwithstanding, Calvin intended to express the Augustinian understanding of original sin.
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Anyone?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
You seem to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I didn't suggest that any theologian or group has taught otherwise (though I think Pelagius comes very close), or at least I didn't intend to. I was simply confirming Enoch's response to IngoB about what is meant in Calvinism by total depravity. I wasn't suggesting any other Christians think people can save themselves; I was stating what is meant in the Reformed tradition by that particular, often misunderstood term—which means that what Calvin said really can't be left aside. It's central to the point I was making.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
You seem to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I didn't suggest that any theologian or group has taught otherwise (though I think Pelagius comes very close), or at least I didn't intend to. I was simply confirming Enoch's response to IngoB about what is meant in Calvinism by total depravity. I wasn't suggesting any other Christians think people can save themselves; I was stating what is meant in the Reformed tradition by that particular, often misunderstood term—which means that what Calvin said really can't be left aside. It's central to the point I was making.
If nobody has ever said this, then bringing it up in any argument is a straw man. Pretty much by definition.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
As an Anabaptist, I find this discussion somewhat perplexing. Our view is that scripturally, baptism is the outward sign of our commitment to follow Jesus. Yes, it has a symbolic meaning of washing away sins, but they have to be sins we have actually committed.
To commit to follow Jesus, is to be ready to die for him or for one's fellow Christians. This is therefore not an appropriate commitment for an infant to make, or others to make on behalf of the infant - any more than we marry or betroth infants any more.
As for 'original' sin (and an RC priest once said he had never encountered a truly original sin!), I personally prefer the Orthodox view, as far as I understand it, to the Catholic one. But this seems to have turned into a discussion of baptism not of original sin - I would very much like to see the latter.
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
Ingo B
I get what you say, humanity is not totally depraved, just spoiled. This is where we get the phrase in one of our confessions - "We have wounded your love and marred your image in us".
Something I believe is that somehow "very good" creation was spoilt and Jesus Christ is the One through whom it was originally made and will once again be made perfect.
So where does that leave us descendants of Adam? I'm really not quite sure.
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You haven't answered my question. I really don't give a fuck what Calvin said; leave him aside. Who says we can save ourselves? Who? What group, what historic church, what theologian?
You seem to be assuming I'm making an argument that I'm not making. I didn't suggest that any theologian or group has taught otherwise (though I think Pelagius comes very close), or at least I didn't intend to. I was simply confirming Enoch's response to IngoB about what is meant in Calvinism by total depravity. I wasn't suggesting any other Christians think people can save themselves; I was stating what is meant in the Reformed tradition by that particular, often misunderstood term—which means that what Calvin said really can't be left aside. It's central to the point I was making.
If nobody has ever said this, then bringing it up in any argument is a straw man. Pretty much by definition.
Sure, if one actually is making an argument, which I wasn't. I wasn't arguing in favor of total depravity or even comparing it to any other understanding of human nature or original sin. I wasn't arguing anything at all.
I was confirming the understanding of the meaning of total depravity given by Enoch, who began with the disclaimer that he isn't a Calvinist. As one who is Reformed, I simply wanted to note he got it right. The addition of "and therefore unable to save themselves" was not intended to contrast total depravity to other beliefs; it is just part of the meaning of total depravity. Leave that part out, and one is left a partial definition that too often has been warped to teach that humanity is intrinsically bad.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
Total depravity as understood by the Reformed is the doctrine that, as Enoch said, because of original sin there is no part of human nature that is not touched or distorted (some would say enslaved) by sinfulness, and that as a result, even when we sincerely try to serve God, do good and lead holy lives our efforts are infected by sin and we are unable on our own to escape the effects of sin. It is only grace, offered freely and without any merit on our part, that can overcome this pervasive sinfulness and can enable us to accept salvation.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
A contrast would be with the kind of Platonic view you get in, say, Golding's Lord of the Flies. That states that humanity is a mass of vicious and violent impulses that are only kept in check by civilization. So, vicious impulses, evil, reason and civilization, good. Where civilization means some group or other of people able to exert control by force. Total depravity says that the civilization is as flawed as the impulses that are kept under control.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
When did we start?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
I may be mistaken, but I always understood the difference to lie in the idea that human beings were made in the "image and likeness" of God. In Orthodoxy, the likeness is spoiled as a consequence of "Adam's" sin, but the image remains. In the doctrine of total depravity, both image and likeness are effaced.
I think I got that from Kallistos Ware, but I may be misremembering.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
I seem to remember about 40 years ago some Reformed theologians accused some other traditions of teaching or implying that there was a part of human nature that was untainted by sin, that there was a bit that was like Achilles's heel. Some were accused of arguing that this was reason. It was untainted - which meant that they claimed or implicitly accepted that its conclusions could be trusted. Others were accused of arguing that this was the bit of us that believes. It must be untainted because otherwise how could we believe.
I don't know whether any tradition has ever seriously taught either of those views. Both strike me as unbelievable and untenable. I suspect that both were straw persons projected onto those traditions the theologians in question did not agree with.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But if EVERYBODY believes we're unable to save ourselves, what distinguishes total depravity?
I may be mistaken, but I always understood the difference to lie in the idea that human beings were made in the "image and likeness" of God. In Orthodoxy, the likeness is spoiled as a consequence of "Adam's" sin, but the image remains. In the doctrine of total depravity, both image and likeness are effaced.
I think I got that from Kallistos Ware, but I may be misremembering.
Yes, humans are still image-bearers of God, according to the Orthodox, even though we're not very much like him anymore. I'd be afraid of someone who said we are not icons of God. That would too easily lend itself to morphing into treating humans as means and not ends, or as mere animals.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
In Orthodoxy, the likeness is spoiled as a consequence of "Adam's" sin, but the image remains. In the doctrine of total depravity, both image and likeness are effaced.
No, the image of God (which is not distinguished from the likeness) is not effaced according to total depravity; it is distorted or marred. If one thinks of the image as a reflection in a mirror, total depravity would say the mirror is shattered—the reflection can still be seen, but it is a complete distortion.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
On another thread there was discussion about Catholic confirmation being carried out by priests
and not always by the bishop.
At the Easter vigil a parish priest is automatically allowed to confirm a candidate for full communion with the Church.At other times the parish priest can be delegated by his bishop to administer the sacrament of confirmation.Someone said that former RCs who convert to CofE have to be confirmed by a CofE bishop,if not already confirmed by an RC BISHOP.
What happens to orthodox who may convert to Cof ?.They will normally have been confirmed/chrismated by parish priest instead of the bishop.
According to the CofE's canon B28, a person seeking entry into the CofE, and who has been baptised but not episcopally confirmed (the canon makes a point of specifying this), must be confirmed at the hands of an Anglican bishop.
The plain reading of that is that those presbyterally confirmed/chrismated in the Catholic and Orthodox churches would need to be confirmed again if seeking entry into the CofE.
I once pointed this out on a thread where Orthodox baptism or at least chrismation of those already confirmed coming from elsewhere was being criticised by Anglicans, and was told that this was nonsense.
Whether or not this may be generally disregarded on the quiet by individual priests doesn't change the fact that that's the rule.
[ 10. July 2014, 06:24: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So were we sinless from two hundred thousand years ago up to six thousand?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
According to the CofE's canon B28, a person seeking entry into the CofE, and who has been baptised but not episcopally confirmed (the canon makes a point of specifying this), must be confirmed at the hands of an Anglican bishop.
The plain reading of that is that those presbyterally confirmed/chrismated in the Catholic and Orthodox churches would need to be confirmed again if seeking entry into the CofE.
I once pointed this out on a thread where Orthodox baptism or at least chrismation of those already confirmed coming from elsewhere was being criticised by Anglicans, and was told that this was nonsense.
Whether or not this may be generally disregarded on the quiet by individual priests doesn't change the fact that that's the rule.
According to the CofE's
website
'Those who have been confirmed in a church whose ministerial orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England and in which confirmation is performed by a bishop, or by a priest acting on the bishop's behalf and using chrism blessed by the bishop, do not need to be confirmed. They are simply received into the Church of England instead.'
I'm sure I've seen a more authoritative statement somwhere defining the the meaning of 'episcopally' in the Canon, but I don't recall where for the moment.
[ 10. July 2014, 16:30: Message edited by: Stranger in a strange land ]
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What happened then?
[ 10. July 2014, 16:46: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stranger in a strange land:
quote:
Whether or not this may be generally disregarded on the quiet by individual priests doesn't change the fact that that's the rule.
According to the CofE's
website
'Those who have been confirmed in a church whose ministerial orders are recognised and accepted by the Church of England and in which confirmation is performed by a bishop, or by a priest acting on the bishop's behalf and using chrism blessed by the bishop, do not need to be confirmed. They are simply received into the Church of England instead.'
I'm sure I've seen a more authoritative statement somwhere defining the the meaning of 'episcopally' in the Canon, but I don't recall where for the moment.
If that interpretation is stated on the website I suppose it must represent an authoritative reading of the canon. It seems an imaginative reading of the word episcopally. Nonetheless, I sit corrected. Thank you, Stranger in A Strange Land.
[ 10. July 2014, 22:26: Message edited by: The Scrumpmeister ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
I made the mistake recently of joining & attempting to engage with FB groups entitled roughly "Discussions about Orthodoxy" - anything of the sort - came away with a bloody nose & threats of hell if I didn't benefit from the blessings of a bullet first...!
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
I made the mistake recently of joining & attempting to engage with FB groups entitled roughly "Discussions about Orthodoxy" - anything of the sort - came away with a bloody nose & threats of hell if I didn't benefit from the blessings of a bullet first...!
What does FB stand for in this context please?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It seems an imaginative reading of the word episcopally.
The theology, in those parts of the CofE that care about such things, is that priests act on behalf of the bishop, using powers delegated to them.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It seems an imaginative reading of the word episcopally.
The theology, in those parts of the CofE that care about such things, is that priests act on behalf of the bishop, using powers delegated to them.
So something is "episcopal" if the priest does it on behalf or instead of the bishop, such as confirmation, but is not episcopal if the priest does it... what? On his own authority? Like celebrate mass/communion/eucharist? Is there ANYTHING that a priest does that is not by licensure by the bishop?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
A priest does nothing apart from the bishop. Which is why, for instance, a priest dismissed by his bishop simply ceases to be a priest. Not any of that rubbish about being "valid but illicit".
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
You are quite right to say that a priest functions qua priest in the name of and by delegation from the bishop who is the chief pastor of the diocese.Of course,as a Christian,he functions as an ordinary individual just like any other Christian.
It's not however rubbish to say that a priest remains'sacerdos in aeternum' ( a priest for ever)
even if he abandons the Church. His celebrations of the sacraments are illicit,but valid, if celebrates without the agreement of the bishop of
the diocese.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In the Orthodox Church, a bishop gives a priest an antimension, a cloth that denotes his permission to say the Liturgy. Without it, there is no liturgy, even if all the words and actions are the exact same. The Antimension belongs to the bishop, and he can demand it back at any time, at which point that priest will not be able to say the Liturgy. A priest cannot use another priest's antimension.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
How would a priest be prevented from using another's antimension? Of course, a genuine priest wouldn't think of doing so, but how could a false priest be prevented?
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
facebook
Thank you. And there was I wondering what ecclesiastical in-crowd the initials might stand for 'Full Believers', 'Favoured Brethren', 'Fearful Bogomils' or what?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
How would a priest be prevented from using another's antimension? Of course, a genuine priest wouldn't think of doing so, but how could a false priest be prevented?
Of course you can't prevent that. Nor could you prevent a priest (or "priest") not using one at all but going through the same words and motions -- given the way an Orthodox church is set up, ad orientam (facing east), the antimension is generally not visible to the congo.
But it wouldn't be a valid Eucharist. According to the Orthodox Church, the bread would still be nothing but bread, and the wine would still be nothing but wine. They would not be the Body and Blood of Jesus, which is the point of the Eucharist (in the EOC). It would not be a Eucharist at all, but rather something somewhere between a fraud and a black mass.
[ 12. July 2014, 22:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
