|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: From Roman Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
One thinks of Elizabeth Tudor: "I would not open windows into men's souls".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
But that's expected of you as Orthodox, isn't it?
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Young fogey
Shipmate
# 5317
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A conservative blog for peace
Posts: 961 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Surely that depends on the specific Anglican?
[ 17. January 2017, 17:04: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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'?
--------------------
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
The Western Rite has nothing whatever to do with Chrysostom. It's a western rite. Closest to "Sarum" whatever that is, I'm told.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoic29
Apprentice
# 18712
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Öd’ und leer das Meer
Posts: 36 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
