Abp Rowan Williams will recieve a honoris causa doctorate at SVS

[Alveus Lacuna]

"Liberal" and "conservative" aren't really helpful designators, as they are both reaching for a good.  "Liberals" are essentially trying to liberate people from unjust treatment, while "conservatives" attempt to conserve those aspects of human life and morality that they consider to be of great benefit and worth holding on to.  Everybody's just trying to do the right thing, and most times, everyone is misguided.

[LBK]

As  conservative Anglicans break away from their church, how attractive would the OCA look to them as a refuge in this storm?

Oh, so that's the game we should be playing? We should make sure we appear conservative by US political standards in order to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Got it.

Pardon me, ozgeorge, but what have US political standards have to do with this matter? If disaffected Anglicans wish to explore Orthodoxy because they see it as being doctrinally sound, compared to what they have perceived as doctrinal mishmash in their own church, what's the problem? I have many friends who are Orthodox converts from Anglicanism, precisely because they were disillusioned with the incoherency and inconsistency of Anglicanism. Their decision was about theology and doctrine, not domestic politics.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" mean completely different things outside of the US. In fact, they mean the opposite in Australia to what they do in the US. They are American Political terms, so entrenched in the daily lives of people in the US that they assume the rest of the English speaking world knows what they mean. There is no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative" Orthodox doctrine. There is only Orthodox doctrine.

Please read my post again, ozgeorge. I simply referred to "domestic politics", not its flavor. The American and Australian definitions of liberal and conservative are quite irrelevant here. Neither should it be (indeed, neither can it be) construed from my post that I was suggesting the existence of critters called "liberal" or "conservative" Orthodox.

[ozgeorge]

As  conservative Anglicans break away from their church, how attractive would the OCA look to them as a refuge in this storm?

Oh, so that's the game we should be playing? We should make sure we appear conservative by US political standards in order to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Got it.

Pardon me, ozgeorge, but what have US political standards have to do with this matter? If disaffected Anglicans wish to explore Orthodoxy because they see it as being doctrinally sound, compared to what they have perceived as doctrinal mishmash in their own church, what's the problem? I have many friends who are Orthodox converts from Anglicanism, precisely because they were disillusioned with the incoherency and inconsistency of Anglicanism. Their decision was about theology and doctrine, not domestic politics.

"Liberal" and "Conservative" mean completely different things outside of the US. In fact, they mean the opposite in Australia to what they do in the US. They are American Political terms, so entrenched in the daily lives of people in the US that they assume the rest of the English speaking world knows what they mean. There is no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative" Orthodox doctrine. There is only Orthodox doctrine.

Please read my post again, ozgeorge. I simply referred to "domestic politics", not its flavor. The American and Australian definitions of liberal and conservative are quite irrelevant here. Neither should it be (indeed, neither can it be) construed from my post that I was suggesting the existence of critters called "liberal" or "conservative" Orthodox.

I have read your post which includes the original quote I commented on from OCA news:
"As conservative Anglicans break away from their church, how attractive would the OCA look to them as a refuge in this storm?"
So what is a "conservative Anglican"? And would they be preferable to join the Orthodox Church than a "liberal Anglican"? (Whatever that is).
Here is the reality: people in the US from various non-Orthodox Churches decide to come to the Orthodox Church. Those who do so for political reasons, thinking the Orthodox Church is more "conservative" or more "liberal" than their Church invariably get disappointed and start "jurisdiction hopping" and then leave all together. Those who come to the Orthodox Church from other confessions for reasons other than Dogma and Ecclesiology are doomed to failure as converts. I would prefer the most "liberal" Unitarian choosing to come into the Orthodox Church because he recognises it as the Church than for the most "conservative" Anglo-Catholic turning to Orthodoxy because he thinks it is more "conservative" than the Oxford Movement. The former will remain, and the latter will start his journey out of the Church the first time he hears a Divine Liturgy which omits the prayers for the Catechumens.

[Aristobolus]

V. Rev. Father Patrick Reardon, Pastor of All Saints Orthodox Church in Chicago, has weighed in on this issue:  http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=11929

[Paisius]

"Liberal" and "Conservative" mean completely different things outside of the US. In fact, they mean the opposite in Australia to what they do in the US. They are American Political terms, so entrenched in the daily lives of people in the US that they assume the rest of the English speaking world knows what they mean.

Well then maybe the rest of the English speaking world should get with the program eh? 

[Nebelpfade]

You mean, the 'programme' right?

[Robb]

I thought that most of these conservative Anglicans had already worked some deal out with Rome and were on their way to becoming RC's?  Is there at present any movement within Anglicanism for whole parishes to become Orthodox?

[Robb]

Maybe the problem is that we expect too much from converts.  When I converted, the main goal I had was to "fit in" with my parish.  This meant imitating the behavior and practices of the cradle Orthodox I saw around me.  I never had any notion in my head of becoming "super Orthodox" in anything.  I just wanted to go to church on Sunday and be like everyone else around me.  This is the most pragmatic approach that one can take when converting to any religion and perhaps the only sane one which, in the long run, cuts down on any disappointments that one may get when their expectations for anything run too high.

I realize that such a lofty, assimilationist goal is hard for those to accomplish when they are from parishes which were brought into Orthodoxy "en masse" from another denomination and whose members are not that familiar with Orthodox life and pr axis.  This can often lead to all kinds of strange behavior  which tends to emanate from convert parishes and missions (with behavior usually leaning towards the right of center). 

This "fit in" notion I realize is not as romantic or thrilling as some would hope for. However, it is far better to learn through imitation then to try and learn on ones own. 

[Ebor]

I thought that most of these conservative Anglicans had already worked some deal out with Rome and were on their way to becoming RC's?  Is there at present any movement within Anglicanism for whole parishes to become Orthodox?

No, that is not the case. There is an proposed program from Rome that not all "conservative" Anglicans would choose. I have not heard of any sizeable or even small movement for entire parishes to become EO.

Ebor

[Alveus Lacuna]

You mean, the 'programme' right?

He meant "pogrom."

[augustin717]

I thought that most of these conservative Anglicans had already worked some deal out with Rome and were on their way to becoming RC's?  Is there at present any movement within Anglicanism for whole parishes to become Orthodox?

No, that is not the case. There is an proposed program from Rome that not all "conservative" Anglicans would choose. I have not heard of any sizeable or even small movement for entire parishes to become EO.

Ebor

May God preserve us from such an invasion. Those Anglicans that want to become Orthodox should do it individually. There is no "re-entering into communion" with them, because we were never in communion with each other to begin with.
I don't know why some Orthodox encourage the Anglicans into thinking, that, in our perspective, they are in any substantial way any different than any Protestants.

[Robb]

Western rite Orthodoxy never really appealed to me.  I don't understand why anybody who wanted to join the Orthodox Church would choose to enter it and belong to a "Western rite" of it?

When I wanted to become Orthodox it was because I liked Eastern Orthodoxy.  If I wanted to worship in some type of fancy, Anglicized form of Christianity then I would have joined some form of Anglicanism.  Besides, if you've ever seen a Western rite parish, they are pretty Easternized in the first place.  They have Ikon's instead of statues and use a table instead of a marble altar.  It seems to me that the OC has done hear is exactly them same thing that they criticize the RCC for having done with the Eastern rite Catholics.

My taste do not lean towards novelty, so I'll just stick to plain, ordinary Eastern Orthodoxy.  What is good enough for around 300 million people is good enough for me.

[mike]

They have Ikon's instead of statues and use a table instead of a marble altar.

I suppose a marble altar is a quite expensive item and not every one WRO Parish can afford it.

[Second Chance]

If one of these days, we unite with the Romans, lots of EO will have to eat their words. I also prefer the Eastern Rite but that is just a preference; I would not hesitate to attend a Western Rite Orthodox parish if it was the only choice I had. Please, let us not widen divisions when there is no need for that.

PS: Before I get pilloried about the possible union with the Romans, you need to understand that I do not mean on their terms. So relax!  

[Robb]

How can our Eastern form of Christianity be relegated to a mere preference?  It has gone on continuously around 15 hundred years while these other Western rites were lost long ago and only recently reconstructed by Liturgist.  They obviously did not have the lasting impact on people as do the great liturgies of the east have.

[HandmaidenofGod]

I thought that most of these conservative Anglicans had already worked some deal out with Rome and were on their way to becoming RC's?  Is there at present any movement within Anglicanism for whole parishes to become Orthodox?

No, that is not the case. There is an proposed program from Rome that not all "conservative" Anglicans would choose. I have not heard of any sizeable or even small movement for entire parishes to become EO.

Ebor

May God preserve us from such an invasion. Those Anglicans that want to become Orthodox should do it individually. There is no "re-entering into communion" with them, because we were never in communion with each other to begin with.
I don't know why some Orthodox encourage the Anglicans into thinking, that, in our perspective, they are in any substantial way any different than any Protestants.

Because "from our perspective" they ARE different from other Protestants. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, he took with him the Bishops, thus giving the Church of England Apostolic Succession. Furthermore, up until the 1960's, if an Orthodox Christian lived in an area where no Orthodox parishes were available, he/she was encouraged by Orthodox Bishops to attend an Anglican Church.

Up until recent theological developments in the Anglican Church over the past 40 years, they were quite similar to Orthodoxy in theology. For many years there had been chatter about possible reunification between the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches.

You must understand that for many years, the British Isles had their own rites and forms of Christianity. It wasn't until the invasion of the Normans that they truly fell under Rome's power, and began using the same Mass as Rome. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, his Bishops restored some of these ancient rites.

To dismiss the Anglican Church as some "Johnny-come-lately" is unfair and untrue to their history.

The British Isles were Christian for almost a century before the Slavs were baptized.

So yes, "from our perspective" they ARE different.

[HandmaidenofGod]

How can our Eastern form of Christianity be relegated to a mere preference?  It has gone on continuously around 15 hundred years while these other Western rites were lost long ago and only recently reconstructed by Liturgist.  They obviously did not have the lasting impact on people as do the great liturgies of the east have.

Prior to the schism of 1054 multiple rites existed, and different expressions of Christianity abounded. After the schism, due to geography, only the Eastern form was prevalent in Orthodoxy. (Even to this day within the Roman Catholic Church, there are more than just two rites in existence. I believe, and someone correct me if I am wrong, there are over 40 Rites within the Catholic Church.)

These Rites have been passed down through the ages.

For the Orthodox Church to restore some of these Rites is merely expressing Christianity as it was over a millenia ago. Furthermore, it's not that these rites didn't have a lasting impact. War and politics destroyed them.

The invasion of the Normans into England and Ireland changed their form of worship. It was not by choice but by the sword.

Today, Orthodox Christians in the US have the choice of worshiping in two ancient expressions of Christianity. One is not superior to the other. They are different but equal.

Furthermore, the Western Rite was established by two saints of the Church: St. John the Wonderworker and St. Tikhon Enlightener of America. They weren't just put together by a couple of guys in a back room. They were put together by two well respected Bishops of the Orthodox Church.

[augustin717]

Because "from our perspective" they ARE different from other Protestants. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, he took with him the Bishops, thus giving the Church of England Apostolic Succession. Furthermore, up until the 1960's, if an Orthodox Christian lived in an area where no Orthodox parishes were available, he/she was encouraged by Orthodox Bishops to attend an Anglican Church.

Up until recent theological developments in the Anglican Church over the past 40 years, they were quite similar to Orthodoxy in theology. For many years there had been chatter about possible reunification between the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches

Anglicanism was definitely Protestant since the beginning; these allowances that were made here in America, like attending Anglican services and communing there, were mistakes, huge mistakes, no matter who made them.
I would rather commune with the Catholics, if I had to choose.

[Iconodule]

Because "from our perspective" they ARE different from other Protestants. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, he took with him the Bishops, thus giving the Church of England Apostolic Succession.

Only if you consider Apostolic Succession to be nothing more than a mechanical laying on of hands and uttering of prayers, without any regard for Apostolic faith.

Up until recent theological developments in the Anglican Church over the past 40 years, they were quite similar to Orthodoxy in theology.

Except for the iconoclasm and other heresies embedded into their official statements of faith.

You must understand that for many years, the British Isles had their own rites and forms of Christianity... When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, his Bishops restored some of these ancient rites.

Not really. There were many changes since the schism.

[HandmaidenofGod]

Because "from our perspective" they ARE different from other Protestants. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, he took with him the Bishops, thus giving the Church of England Apostolic Succession.

Only if you consider Apostolic Succession to be nothing more than a mechanical laying on of hands and uttering of prayers, without any regard for Apostolic faith.

Up until recent theological developments in the Anglican Church over the past 40 years, they were quite similar to Orthodoxy in theology.

Except for the iconoclasm and other heresies embedded into their official statements of faith.

You must understand that for many years, the British Isles had their own rites and forms of Christianity... When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, his Bishops restored some of these ancient rites.

Not really. There were many changes since the schism.

Iconoclastic? Many Anglican Church's have icons in them, many more have stained glass windows and statues in them. I wouldn't say they are Iconoclastic.

Also, I wasn't saying there hadn't been changes since the schism, but it's not like the entire deposit of faith was lost.

I am also not saying that the Anglican Church is Orthodox. What I am saying is that you can't put them in the same bucket as those faith traditions which emerged from the Protestant Reformation. The Anglican Church is it's own "kettle of fish" if you will. It is not Protestant or Catholic.

As they famously refer to themselves, they are "via media."

(Where are Ebor and Liz when I need them? lol)

[Second Chance]

Because "from our perspective" they ARE different from other Protestants. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, he took with him the Bishops, thus giving the Church of England Apostolic Succession.

Only if you consider Apostolic Succession to be nothing more than a mechanical laying on of hands and uttering of prayers, without any regard for Apostolic faith.

Up until recent theological developments in the Anglican Church over the past 40 years, they were quite similar to Orthodoxy in theology.

Except for the iconoclasm and other heresies embedded into their official statements of faith.

You must understand that for many years, the British Isles had their own rites and forms of Christianity... When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, his Bishops restored some of these ancient rites.

Not really. There were many changes since the schism.

Iconoclastic? Many Anglican Church's have icons in them, many more have stained glass windows and statues in them. I wouldn't say they are Iconoclastic.

Also, I wasn't saying there hadn't been changes since the schism, but it's not like the entire deposit of faith was lost.

I am also not saying that the Anglican Church is Orthodox. What I am saying is that you can't put them in the same bucket as those faith traditions which emerged from the Protestant Reformation. The Anglican Church is it's own "kettle of fish" if you will. It is not Protestant or Catholic.

As they famously refer to themselves, they are "via media."

(Where are Ebor and Liz when I need them? lol)

Handmaiden--I am with you on this. I am frankly surprised that anyone could disagree with your points that were so beautifully stated.

[augustin717]

The Anglicans are the archprotestant church: look how everything seems to be up for a vote there.
Protestants with some Catholic trappings.

[Orual]

Because "from our perspective" they ARE different from other Protestants. When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, he took with him the Bishops, thus giving the Church of England Apostolic Succession.

Only if you consider Apostolic Succession to be nothing more than a mechanical laying on of hands and uttering of prayers, without any regard for Apostolic faith.

Up until recent theological developments in the Anglican Church over the past 40 years, they were quite similar to Orthodoxy in theology.

Except for the iconoclasm and other heresies embedded into their official statements of faith.

You must understand that for many years, the British Isles had their own rites and forms of Christianity... When King Henry VIII broke from Rome, his Bishops restored some of these ancient rites.

Not really. There were many changes since the schism.

Well said.  Apostolic succession means continual adherence to the fullness of the apostolic faith.  Not a partial adherence or a nominal adherence or even "mostly" adherence.  Becoming Orthodox is not a matter of taking out a checklist of beliefs and seeing how many match up.  

Out of all the public remarks made at this lecture, the only ones I found offensive were - to my great surprise, as I hadn't really expected to find anyone's remarks offensive - Metropolitan Jonah's.  

Anglo-Catholics are NOT closer to Orthodoxy than their low/broad church brethren.  They might be in a better position to recognize Orthodoxy, but there is no such thing as being part or quasi-Orthodox.  There is something incomplete and invalid in Anglicanism itself, and becoming Orthodox from that demands a complete conversion, not tacking on (or just superficially acknowledging the validity of) a few "extra" beliefs.

I feel bad for them being where they are, but there's no good in telling them they could be "recognized as a local Orthodox church" in "full communion", because either you're giving them false hope or committing blasphemy.  And it's not much fun to sincerely hope a bishop is just giving people false hope!

[Orthodox11]

It is not Protestant or Catholic.

It's both, and everything else in between.

[Robb]

Yes, I understand that the English/Celts worshiped Christ for many centuries before they were Romanized.  However when they became Romanized they dropped most of their old rites and adopted those of the Latin Church.  Nowhere, to my knowledge, did rites like Sarum survive in the British Isles. 

When the Cof E developed the Book of Common prayer in the mid 1500's, they did not rely on these ancient ceremonies for their liturgy but just invented new rites based on the existing Roman ones in use at the time in England.  The W. Rites are a modern compilation, even if they were compiled by Saintly men for noble purposes.  They lack the continuity that the already established Eastern rites do.

All the people who belong to and practice the Western rite of Orthodoxy are either converts or the children of converts who have chosen to practice the faith in this form.  They, unlike such groups as Russians and Greeks do not come from a culture which has worshiped in this form for many centuries.  I just don't understand why anyone who would want to join the Orthodox Church in the first place would choose to enter it through a Western rite instead of just staying with the Anglicans (whom, I assume, the vast majority of Western rite practitioners originally belonged to). 

Also, the Western rite is not universally accepted by all Orthodox Churches as a good idea.  The EP has not sanctioned it so far. 

People are free to do what they want but I'm just not sure why they would want to do this, unless their some type of super anglophiles or something? 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News > Topic: Abp Rowan Williams will recieve a honoris causa doctorate at SVS