|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Requirements" for Communion talks
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Oops, sorry Barnabas62 - I'm not helping, am I.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If the Orthodox want unity with us, they will have to assent to unity with Anglicans who believe in their own validity. Presently, the Roman Catholics can't, the Orthodox can't, but we have Jesus to stand up for us all the same.
Interesting thing about unity journeys. By their very nature, no one is forced to do anything. The Orthodox don't "have" to do anything, and neither do the Anglicans. Differences provide this scary opportunity for each of us to outdo the other in behaving with charity and grace. I think that's what preferring each others' needs is about.
When it comes to sticking points in belief, it depends how we do the sticking. I guess the approach first of all is to hear out what the other person thinks and believes, and ask questions about it. Who knows, there may be stuff there we can learn from But a similar argument applies to others listening to us.
We may end up closing the gap somewhat, or even identifying that we can't do that. No reason why we can't be friends after such dialogue. Heck, we're encouraged to love enemies. An extreme guideline which applies even if we see "enemy action" at work. And, let's face it, most ecumenical dialogue does not involve Christians of one colour of the rainbow seeing those of another colour of the rainbow as "enemies". Whatever the historical causes of the alienation, we weren't born when they happened. We didn't actually cause them. There are reasons why we see the causes of alienation differently. That's a consequence of alienation, more often than not.
Sometimes we're just required to put behind us all that is past (suffering, injustices, the whole nine yards of that) and try to get out of "tit for tat" somehow. It's good to try.
[ 28. March 2013, 01:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
Correct me if I´m wrong, but in order for the Anglican Churches to be in full communion with the Russian Church, they would have to be in full communion with all other Orthodox Churches aswell, and that would require much more then simply abstaining from ordaining women bishops. The C of E would need to be received as an autonomous church inside the Orthodox Church, or put into the jursidiction of some orthodox patriarch? That seems quite impossible to me. My understanding is that, from Orthodox´s point of view, the anglican churches are not "truer" churches then the average Assembly Of God congregation.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
I've always been a bit puzzled by denominations that shrug their shoulders while other denominations let priests who publicly admit they can't say the Creeds without their fingers crossed stay on the roster, but then have a conniption fit when said denominations want to treat homosexuals like human beings or allow the womenfolk to speak out loud.
Oh wait, I'm not puzzled at all. They're just hypocrites.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whatever the historical causes of the alienation, we weren't born when they happened. We didn't actually cause them.
True, but that doesn't disguise the fact that the ordination of women in churches of the Anglican communion, and the explicit claim by the said churches that those women are priests in the apostolic succession, in the same way that the Orthodox and RC understand "priest", is a further step apart, and it's our generation that is doing this, rather than some distant ancestor.
Neither side holds their position on a whim - each side has a seriously thought-out position, but we don't agree.
Skirting perilously close to the pony paddock, the question of whether women can be priests - whether the ontological change occurs in a woman, if you will - is a question with a definite answer. The problem is that, absent some kind on ontological priesthood detector, we don't know the answer, so we have to do the best we can with some combination of tradition, scripture and reason, and as it stands, the Anglican churches have come to a different conclusion from the Orthodox and RC, and it's happening now.
We have to face up to that and deal with it - not try to sweep it under the "ancient split" carpet.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It's not happening now. The ordination of women in the Anglican Communion is a done deal. And for all the talk of "drifting apart," it doesn't seem we were any closer to reunion before.
For that matter, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox can hardly countenance each other when they don't have Protestants to complain about.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not happening now. The ordination of women in the Anglican Communion is a done deal.
"Now" in the sense of "within the lifetime of most of the posters on this thread," which is certainly "now" on the scale of the great schism.
In other words, we are responsible, not our distant ancestors.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
[QUOTE]Some of us might question what "proper" Ordination is, or whether it is even necessary ... but that's a different question!
Now, you haven't been taking your medicine have you? Or have you been playing with those naughty boys near the power station again?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The different "Dead Horses" positions - and all other differences, are either the cause of the splits, the short term consequences of the splits, or the long term consequences of the splits.
Of course, within Anglicanism, there have been folks who have argued, not without justification, that the aim of restoring unity, or a greater measure of unity, will be made even more difficult if Anglicans introduce any move away from, or development of, existing understandings which takes Anglicanism further away from the basis of unity forged by the original ecumenical councils.
I've argued on one of the other new-Pope-inspired threads that the absence of a continuing world-wide basis for Christians to discuss their differences together (other than a surrender or submission first of all) is at the heart of these things. I am as sure as it is possible to be that all folks who are considering seriously any renewed - and partial - ecumenical dialogues know that there is not going to be any "lay down your arms and surrender to mine". Given present circumstances, if the only position over unity is "you must cross the Tiber" or "you must cross the Bosphorus" then there would seems to be little point in discussions.
So I say, let people hold onto their bottom lines at this stage, but let us see what modelling a greater friendship, a co-operation over projects in which we find a common interest will do. Perhaps the current bottom line intransigence may soften somewhat. And on a personal level, I try to build friendships, discuss differences amicably, understand better. A kind of bottom-up approach to bottom-line intransigence.
My wife and I helped organise a Christmas charity restaurant about 20 years ago. The initiative came from Steve Chalke in the UK. Part of it was to encourage young people to do a lot of the basic work, with some experienced help. We talked across the board to local churches with the permission of local church leaders. It turned out to be a much bigger project than we ever imagined - we were given the opportunity to make temporary use of a hotel which had recently changed hands. We put together a voluntary team of about 80 young people, whose denominational backgrounds ranged from Pentecostal to Catholic and who differed over many things. But there did not appear to be any dogma associated with the practicalities of some painting and decoration and initial building electrical repair (place was in a run down state), or once the restaurant got off the ground, the practicalities of equipment maintenance, talking to the suppliers of food donations, food preparation, serving at tables, washing up, etc.
It was pretty intensive, nerve-wracking and exhausting at times for us, but the young volunteers had a whale of a time, the levels of responsibility and co-operation shown were very high, and we raised over £20,000 during the three pre-Christmas weeks the project was open. It was a very good witness, got a lot of excellent local publicity, and the volunteers were all saying "can't we do this again? Please?"
One of the regrets of my life is that for a whole variety of reasons it turned out to be a "one off". But as an exercise in what we can do together, I think it was a fascinating example of mutual help and co-operation. There was some genuine communion going on. Just not over the particular use of bread and wine that we are in our different ways accustomed to.
I'm just saying that there is more scope for mutual co-operation and friendship-building than we may sometimes be able to see.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife and I helped organise a Christmas charity restaurant about 20 years ago... We put together a voluntary team of about 80 young people, whose denominational backgrounds ranged from Pentecostal to Catholic and who differed over many things. But there did not appear to be any dogma associated with the practicalities of some painting and decoration and initial building electrical repair (place was in a run down state), or once the restaurant got off the ground, the practicalities of equipment maintenance, talking to the suppliers of food donations, food preparation, serving at tables, washing up, etc.
This is wonderful, Barnabas62, and I share your sadness that the project ended up not being repeated. Your experience, though, highlights for me how we absolutely can have unity of purpose among Christians of many flavours, even though unity of doctrinal belief shows no sign of happening.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
John 17:20-23
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me...
Are you seriously saying these words of Christ are not about unification, nor that this is Christ's desire?
Yeah, I guess I am... For me, it's more about the unity of purpose illustrated by Barnabas62 above, not about all Christians believing precisely the same things.
In any case, not all Orthodox Christians believe precisely the same about everything regarding the faith, likewise for Roman Catholics and any other Christian denomination. Are you seriously saying, Mark, that God's will is for us all to believe identically about every conceivable facet of faith and spirituality? Or is it for you really about authority, with the unity God wants being about all Christians fitting within the one human hierarchy? I'd reject that idea too, as you might guess!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe the CofE isn't the only part that counts, but as a non-Anglican I've noticed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the 'the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion', according to Wiki, is always a British person. No one non-British is ever seriously in line for the job, even though it's a worldwide denomination. John Sentamu's name comes up, but he's has been in the UK since 1974, which suggests that it's desirable to be settled in the UK and 'acculturated', at the very least.
This state of affairs could well lead the Orthodox Church to jump to conclusions!
I don't think there's much prospect of anyone becoming Patriarch of Moscow who is not a Russian.
The late Alexei II was an Estonian of Baltic German descent.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Some of us might question what "proper" Ordination is, or whether it is even necessary ... but that's a different question!
Now, you haven't been taking your medicine have you? Or have you been playing with those naughty boys near the power station again?
Well, we're not that far from Sizewell here, and the wind has been blowing from the East ... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 28. March 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If he reversed it once, he can reverse it again.
Then God is a weathervane and of questionable trustworthiness.
Semi-flippant answer: For some of us, that wouldn't be a surprise.
Unflippant answer: Don't you think God would humble his Church, if it was for the sake of the world?
As for Jesus's prayer in John 17, which Mark Betts raised -
Semi-flippant answer: Well, Jesus wanted the Church to be a lot of things which it isn't, didn't he?
Unflippant answer: Jesus wanted the Church to be one as the Father and I are one. Are the Son and the Father identical? No. They're one in essence (ousia), but they are different persons. I don't think we should easily jump to the conclusion that Jesus wanted his Church to be a monolith.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My wife and I helped organise a Christmas charity restaurant about 20 years ago... We put together a voluntary team of about 80 young people, whose denominational backgrounds ranged from Pentecostal to Catholic and who differed over many things. But there did not appear to be any dogma associated with the practicalities of some painting and decoration and initial building electrical repair (place was in a run down state), or once the restaurant got off the ground, the practicalities of equipment maintenance, talking to the suppliers of food donations, food preparation, serving at tables, washing up, etc.
This is wonderful, Barnabas62, and I share your sadness that the project ended up not being repeated. Your experience, though, highlights for me how we absolutely can have unity of purpose among Christians of many flavours, even though unity of doctrinal belief shows no sign of happening.
I think different denominations etc. should still be able to get together to do these things, despite not being unified - nevertheless, I still believe Jesus desires Unification for His Church.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
John 17:20-23
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me...
Are you seriously saying these words of Christ are not about unification, nor that this is Christ's desire?
Yeah, I guess I am... For me, it's more about the unity of purpose illustrated by Barnabas62 above, not about all Christians believing precisely the same things.
In any case, not all Orthodox Christians believe precisely the same about everything regarding the faith, likewise for Roman Catholics and any other Christian denomination. Are you seriously saying, Mark, that God's will is for us all to believe identically about every conceivable facet of faith and spirituality? Or is it for you really about authority, with the unity God wants being about all Christians fitting within the one human hierarchy? I'd reject that idea too, as you might guess!
We need not be exact carbon-copies of each other in the Church - it is only dogmatic things we need to be agreed on, particularly those pertaining to the Ecumenical Councils.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Are we back to that old pain-in-the-arse notion that the only Anglicans that count are a) CofE and b) the kind who really want to be governed by the Pope and his Curia?
Maybe the CofE isn't the only part that counts, but as a non-Anglican I've noticed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the 'the symbolic head of the worldwide Anglican Communion', according to Wiki, is always a British person. Noone non-British is ever seriously in line for the job, even though it's a worldwide denomination. John Sentamu's name comes up, but he's has been in the UK since 1974, which suggests that it's desirable to be settled in the UK and 'acculturated', at the very least.
Wiki hasn't got it quite right. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the head of the C of E, and is considered "first among equals" among the other Anglican primates. Maybe that's what they mean by "symbolic" --- the ABC has no real jurisdiction outside of the UK.
Each province of the Anglican communion--C of E, Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopalian Church in the United States, etc--is self-governing. A member of the Anglican Church of Canada, for example, would no more be made Archbishop of Canterbury than a Canadian would be made prime minister of the UK (leaving aside any complicating matters such as dual citizenship).
Mostly right but...any subject of the Queen can be (s)elected ABC, subject to the legal requirements of the CofE. Citizens of Canada, Australia etc. etc. are as eligible as citizens of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (which in this case are as non-CofE as the ACC or the Anglican CHurch of Australia)...or, of course, England.
I remember when Michael Ramsey retired...there was some interest in British newsmedia about the possible appointment of Ted SCott, then Primate in Canada. That was never going to happen for any number of reasons, but he could have been appointed had anyone in the process wanted him, and if he had wanted it. The legal position has not changed since that time.
John
Okay. I should have used an American Episcopalian as an example rather than a Canadian. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The point I was trying to make was that the different Anglican provinces are separate bodies each with its own governance and polity, and thus that each can enter into communion with other churches as they see fit.
The tricky bit, as I mentioned earlier, is if one province enters into communion with a church that doesn't approve of the practices of other provinces -- it would be like your sister having a new best friend who didn't like your family and might try to draw her away from the rest of the family.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
So in theory, any (male) Anglican could become ABofC, but in practice it's always an Englishman, a Scotsman or a Welshman.
Why do the Orthodox care about what an English church with largely British leaders chooses to do or not do about women bishops? The website of the Anglican Communion lists a whole bunch of provinces that the Orthodox could choose to enter into communion with if they wanted to. I'm sure they could find one that's less likely to ordain women bishops than the CofE is.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Of course, what the CofE does is up to the CofE. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. However, as far as relations between communions is concerned there is an obligation, when done in charity, to point out that certain actions have consequences, for which there is little chance of turning back.
As for the general question of unity that can only happen if we all confess the same faith: one faith, one baptism etc. There are no categories, only the faith as a whole. Local variences with regards to practice have always rightly been tolerated (when in Rome etc.) This is how is was in the beginning and is how it should be now. Those who do not confess the same faith are outside.
[ 28. March 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Of course, what the CofE does is up to the CofE. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. However, as far as relations between communions is concerned there is an obligation, when done in charity, to point out that certain actions have consequences, for which there is little chance of turning back.
As for the general question of unity that can only happen if we all confess the same faith: one faith, one baptism etc. There are no categories, only the faith as a whole. Local variences with regards to practice have always rightly been tolerated (when in Rome etc.) This is how is was in the beginning and is how it should be now. Those who do not confess the same faith are outside.
Yeah, but it's all depending innit? Like, is ordaining women against "the one faith" or is it something your lot don't currently do, but could in theory be variance in practice?
How do you decide?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
It is amazing to me that, after the first earthquake of ordination of women, and the more recent earthquake of consecration of lady bishops in the Communion, there have been people (mostly Anglicans, but not all) who have continued to live in some kind of fantasy world in which communion with the Orthodox was still possible.
Admission of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is far from the only reason communion between the Anglicans and the Orthodox won't happen, but it is probably the biggest thing right now that makes the prospect an absolute non-starter among the Orthodox.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Tradition.
And consensus with the WHOLE Church, if you're at all serious about unity (or unification), that is.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Tradition.
And consensus with the WHOLE Church, if you're at all serious about unity (or unification), that is.
Indeed. Even the holy councils of the Church were never declared ecumenical beforehand, despite what Roman Catholics might say. They were only understood to be ecumenical once they had been received by the whole Church and by the fruits thereof.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
The tricky bit, as I mentioned earlier, is if one province enters into communion with a church that doesn't approve of the practices of other provinces -- it would be like your sister having a new best friend who didn't like your family and might try to draw her away from the rest of the family.
Sort of like when the Southern Cone "adopted" (going against its own canons) the anti-gay diocese in Canada (ANiC), which enables ANiC's members to claim to be in communion with Canterbury (because they're part of the Southern Cone, don't you see) but not with the Anglican Church of Canada which is in communion with Canterbury.
Not disagreeing with you at all, but it's not a possibility or a hypothetical...it's real and it's here now.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Jesus wanted the Church to be one as the Father and I are one. Are the Son and the Father identical? No. They're one in essence (ousia), but they are different persons. I don't think we should easily jump to the conclusion that Jesus wanted his Church to be a monolith.
"One in essence and undivided" as our liturgy goes... even if Jesus doesn't want his church to be a monolith, surely he doesn't want division within His body?
I can't honestly look at the state of the Church nowadays and say that it's 'diverse, but not divided.'
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I expect that some day, when we end up with worldwide persecution, we'll have unity de facto. It's not easy checking denominational membership cards when you're huddled in an underground church.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Jesus wanted the Church to be one as the Father and I are one. Are the Son and the Father identical? No. They're one in essence (ousia), but they are different persons. I don't think we should easily jump to the conclusion that Jesus wanted his Church to be a monolith.
"One in essence and undivided" as our liturgy goes... even if Jesus doesn't want his church to be a monolith, surely he doesn't want division within His body?
I can't honestly look at the state of the Church nowadays and say that it's 'diverse, but not divided.'
Well then, it's divided. And my general advice would be "get over it". Christians are remarkably adept at beating their breasts while gazing at their navels - English Anglicans more than most, because we suffer from the insidious disease of wanting people to like us. I'd rather take all the time, effort and money that we put into what are likely to be unfruitful ecumenical efforts, put them into evangelisation, and see where that gets us. Jesus told us to preach the gospel and love our neighbour, not nurture a guilt complex and fret about not really getting on with our neighbour.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'd rather take all the time, effort and money that we put into what are likely to be unfruitful ecumenical efforts, put them into evangelisation, and see where that gets us. Jesus told us to preach the gospel and love our neighbour, not nurture a guilt complex and fret about not really getting on with our neighbour.
Totally. There's so much we Christians already agree on, so let's get on and play that up instead of homing in on where we disagree. Especially as the areas we are agree on are mainly to do with behaviour - which Jesus cared about (ISTM) far more than he was bothered by the details of our doctrinal beliefs.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I expect that some day, when we end up with worldwide persecution, we'll have unity de facto. It's not easy checking denominational membership cards when you're huddled in an underground church.
Yes Lamb Chopped - but I suspect most who don't really care about the unity of the Church (being too taken up with worldly matters) won't care too much about being part of an underground Church in the first place.
ETA: As for fanatical separatist sects - they will continue to be just that - separate.
THE END IS NIGH!! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
[ 29. March 2013, 11:35: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I expect that some day, when we end up with worldwide persecution, we'll have unity de facto. It's not easy checking denominational membership cards when you're huddled in an underground church.
Yes Lamb Chopped - but I suspect most who don't really care about the unity of the Church (being too taken up with worldly matters) won't care too much about being part of an underground Church in the first place.
Oh look. Another way of "subtly" suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you isn't really a Christian.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
The tricky bit, as I mentioned earlier, is if one province enters into communion with a church that doesn't approve of the practices of other provinces -- it would be like your sister having a new best friend who didn't like your family and might try to draw her away from the rest of the family.
Sort of like when the Southern Cone "adopted" (going against its own canons) the anti-gay diocese in Canada (ANiC), which enables ANiC's members to claim to be in communion with Canterbury (because they're part of the Southern Cone, don't you see) but not with the Anglican Church of Canada which is in communion with Canterbury.
Not disagreeing with you at all, but it's not a possibility or a hypothetical...it's real and it's here now.
John
I know -- but to my mind, there's a difference between splinter groups departing in a huff and a whole well-established province (and the mother of all provinces to boot) making a long-considered, long-negotiated move away from other parts of the Communion.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Of course, what the CofE does is up to the CofE. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. However, as far as relations between communions is concerned there is an obligation, when done in charity, to point out that certain actions have consequences, for which there is little chance of turning back.
As for the general question of unity that can only happen if we all confess the same faith: one faith, one baptism etc. There are no categories, only the faith as a whole. Local variences with regards to practice have always rightly been tolerated (when in Rome etc.) This is how is was in the beginning and is how it should be now. Those who do not confess the same faith are outside.
Surely those in the c of e confess one faith, one baptism etc too, and value and utilise historical theological thought and practices. Are you saying here that in your opinion those who attend their churches don't confess the same faith and are therefore outside of the Christian religion?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
From an Orthodox perspective we do not confess the same faith, no. I mean, we don't even confess the same creed.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
From an Orthodox perspective we do not confess the same faith, no. I mean, we don't even confess the same creed.
It is the same creed - just without the filioque, which (incidentally) was the version they used at Justin Welby's enthronement.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Correct me if I´m wrong, but ... My understanding is that, from Orthodox´s point of view, the anglican churches are not "truer" churches then the average Assembly Of God congregation.
That's not true. I learned today (to my surprise) that while an Orthodox Christian and an Anglican can receive the sacrament of marriage in an Orthodox Church, an Orthodox Christian and a member of the Assemblies of God cannot. So, clearly, the bishops and theologians who work these things out consider Anglican church "truer" in some sense than the AoG.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
For that matter, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox can hardly countenance each other when they don't have Protestants to complain about.
This may be so if you take some of the hardliners, such as the Mt Athos communities, who would never countenance talking to Catholics until hell freezes over. But the leaders have a bigger vision. The attendance by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew at Pope Francis' inauguation was a historical first and this article demonstrates that the reality of the modern world make increased co-operation a pressing necessity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'd happily convert to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism on the same day if I could take communion in either fellowship as well as Anglican. Which I'd have to confess every time? Would the Reformed ONLY (i.e. non-Catholic?) have me?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
From an Orthodox perspective we do not confess the same faith, no. I mean, we don't even confess the same creed.
If we proclaim Christ the Son of God crucified and risen, and follow the example set by Jesus of inclusivity and demonstrated love of God and of others as ourselves as guided by the Holy Spirit, we confess the same faith.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Some of us might question what "proper" Ordination is, or whether it is even necessary ... but that's a different question!
Now, you haven't been taking your medicine have you? Or have you been playing with those naughty boys near the power station again?
Well, we're not that far from Sizewell here, and the wind has been blowing from the East ...
I was thinking more of a power station near Oxford .....
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Ah, but that one is coal, not nuclear!
And I don't know many of the boys - naughty or otherwise - from D*dc*t.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Here's an essay from Fr. Victor E. Novak, the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church located in the Ralston suburb of Omaha, Nebraska:
Orthodox Anglicanism and Christian Reunion
If you take the time to read it, you will see that reunion might in theory be possible - but there are lots of problems, not least of all "cafeteria christianity" - a sort of "pick 'n' mix" attitude to faith prevalent today.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I don't think we should easily jump to the conclusion that Jesus wanted his Church to be a monolith.
I think history has pretty well demonstrated that we humans are not capable of a monolithic organization that stays true to it's heaven-oriented purpose instead of pursuing temporal power.
That's not a slam on the RCC - some of the Conservative Christians openly desire temporal political power, and seem to cheerfully ditch their own moral standards in pursuit of temporal power.
I see the structural "disunity" of the organizational church as protective. Unity isn't suppose to be about imposed structure but about the heart.
We humans too easily get distracted by the physical - like focus on structure instead of on the purpose that structure is supposed to serve. Many a charity quickly seems to become more focused on the wellbeing of the organization and the careers of the offcers than on the outreach need for which the charity was formed. It's just human somehow.
God save us from a unified structural world-wide church! Imagine the bureaucracy!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
God save us from a unified structural world-wide church! Imagine the bureaucracy!
As you may remember from previous discussions, I'm on your side regarding this point, but let's not gloss over the dangers present in the non-institutional, organic end of the spectrum! There are certain benefits and safeguards that come with having a firm organisational structure, especially if those with the power manage to resist the corrupting influence of that power.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Here's an essay from Fr. Victor E. Novak, the rector of Holy Cross Anglican Church located in the Ralston suburb of Omaha, Nebraska:
Orthodox Anglicanism and Christian Reunion
If you take the time to read it, you will see that reunion might in theory be possible - but there are lots of problems, not least of all "cafeteria christianity" - a sort of "pick 'n' mix" attitude to faith prevalent today.
Actually, if you take the time to read, the specific objections are about gays and women, and the fact that Anglicanism has more than just its Catholic members.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Actually, if you take the time to read, the specific objections are about gays and women, and the fact that Anglicanism has more than just its Catholic members.
I have taken the time to read it - and it took me a long time, so it's a shame you can just dismiss it with such a short and sweeping statement. There wasn't even any mention of gays, except a brief reference to homosexual marriage (which could easily have been missed). Is there nothing else which can be drawn from it apart from those two usual tired out old liberal issues?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I listed 3 issues. And it's pretty clear that the Orthodox derailed any discussion of unity when Anglicans started to recognise that women were being called to the priesthood. Rather than consider that idea they just decided the batten down the hatches.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
...And it's pretty clear that the Orthodox derailed any discussion of unity when Anglicans started to recognise that women were being called to the priesthood. Rather than consider that idea they just decided the batten down the hatches.
You guys wouldn't even discuss it or heed warnings from the mother Church (I mean Orthodox and RC here) - you just went ahead and did it unilaterally, as if you alone were the Mind of the Church, and others should follow.
**NEWSFLASH**
You're not, and they won't.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Anglicans spent years discussing it. Still are. The RCC and Orthodox have just said blanket "no way, can't happen ever". How exactly is that Anglicans refusing to discuss it?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Anglicans spent years discussing it. Still are. The RCC and Orthodox have just said blanket "no way, can't happen ever". How exactly is that Anglicans refusing to discuss it?
I didn't say they refused to discuss it among themselves - they spend so much time discussing it they haven't got much time for anything else - including their mission, whatever that is.
Both the RCC and Orthodox have given detailed reasons why it cannot happen, but the C of E wouldn't even consider them. I'm still of the opinion that this innovation was all for secular reasons and nothing to do with the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Don't you think that conservative Anglo-Catholics in Anglican discussions have been putting precisely the points of view you are advocating? It appears that discussion in your usage is code for acquiescence.
By what measure do you determine what the Holy Spirit is or isn't doing? The calling of women in the CofE is tested in exactly the same way as that of men, and the evidence from 20 years of their ministry is extremely positive. On what basis do you deny it?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Don't you think that conservative Anglo-Catholics in Anglican discussions have been putting precisely the points of view you are advocating? It appears that discussion in your usage is code for acquiescence.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "...discussion in your usage is code for acquiescence." In this matter, I just happen to agree with the orthodox Anglo-Catholics within Anglicanism. That is all.
quote:
By what measure do you determine what the Holy Spirit is or isn't doing? The calling of women in the CofE is tested in exactly the same way as that of men, and the evidence from 20 years of their ministry is extremely positive. On what basis do you deny it?
Good point. My problem is that, if a matter is said to be "guided by the Holy Spirit" you would be able to demonstrate this - not least of all from Holy Scripture.
For example, the only Bible reference which seems to be used to advocate women priests is Galations 3:28 - but this is about Baptism, it has nothing to do with women's ordination or consecration. So to misapply the scriptures to make changes to 2000 years of Church Tradition cannot possibly be "of the Holy Spirit" can it?
Positive evidence from 20 years of women's ordination is surely a matter of opinion - if people want it to be good, they will say it's good. But I cannot see the wisdom in pushing through such a drastic change, which created much division, and then wait 20 years before you decide whether it is God's will. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
What it certainly hasn't done is to bring the Church any closer to Unification, which ought to be the goal of all of us. It is for this very reason that some voted against the consecration of women bishops in the C of E.
I know most of this is dead horse stuff, but you did ask. Certainly, if any of us say anything is "of the Holy Spirit" or "not of the Holy Spirit" we need to be very careful that we can justify it.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
