OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Protestant Discussion => Topic started by: ICXCNIKA on April 18, 2013, 07:53:29 AM

Title: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ICXCNIKA on April 18, 2013, 07:53:29 AM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Arachne on April 18, 2013, 08:03:54 AM
There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy. ;D
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jmbejdl on April 18, 2013, 08:16:53 AM
There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy. ;D

I'd say his friend sounds a lot more than Low Church-ish. The points made in the OP seem particularly Low Church. I spent most of my life worshipping in the low-ish Church end of Anglicanism (somewhere between the evangelicals and middle of the road is where my Lutheran mother felt at home) and those comments would have been beyond the pale for any of those parishes.

James
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jah777 on April 18, 2013, 09:04:13 AM
St. Raphael of Brooklyn expressed himself well on the subject of the Anglican Communion when he said:

Quote
...the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

The frustration that Orthodox have in speaking with Anglicans is that it is impossible to determine exactly "what they actually believe".  When one Anglican tells you "what they actually believe", most often you are just being told what this one person, as an Anglican, "actually believes".  The vagueness of their teaching is largely due to the fact that Anglicanism was not founded so much on conviction but on compromise.  Anglicanism was an attempt to find some kind of middle way of compromise between Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it seems that most Anglicans decide for themselves where they want to be in that spectrum.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: dcommini on April 18, 2013, 01:03:29 PM
The Episcopalian Church that I remember attending when I lived in Central Florida I think was maybe low-church. I remember that they had vestments, but they also had electric guitars and drums. That was my real first impression of the Epsicopalians and I thought that all of their churches were like that.

When I was younger I never knew that the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian Church was the same thing. Knowing now that are the same, I am still at a loss to even begin to describe what they believe, because ISTM that most of them don't know what they believe; some are for gay marriage and gay bishops, others are against both; some are for women clergy, and others are against; some seem to think that they don't need the bishops and other clergy, and others insist that they are needed.

Don't feel bad if you can't figure out what they believe, they are in the same boat*!  ;D








*I'm sure one of our Anglican/Episcopalian members will find this thread and then tell us what it is they believe. However, I'm sure another could come and give us another answer entirely. I guess we should just add everything up and take the average or the mean of what is left and then we might be able to generalize their beliefs.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 18, 2013, 01:24:48 PM
St. Raphael of Brooklyn expressed himself well on the subject of the Anglican Communion when he said:

Quote
...the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

The frustration that Orthodox have in speaking with Anglicans is that it is impossible to determine exactly "what they actually believe".  When one Anglican tells you "what they actually believe", most often you are just being told what this one person, as an Anglican, "actually believes".  The vagueness of their teaching is largely due to the fact that Anglicanism was not founded so much on conviction but on compromise.  Anglicanism was an attempt to find some kind of middle way of compromise between Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it seems that most Anglicans decide for themselves where they want to be in that spectrum.
as someone put it, no one is safe from being Anglican.  All that bridge building leads to nowhere.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on April 18, 2013, 01:47:44 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Arachne on April 18, 2013, 03:58:17 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesR on April 18, 2013, 04:11:26 PM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on April 18, 2013, 04:21:10 PM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

 :laugh:
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: podkarpatska on April 18, 2013, 04:40:07 PM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*


I have plenty of issues with Anglicanism but your observation is about as useful as say, this little ditty from an Evangelical site :

"Whilst we may take God-fearing and Christ-honouring Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mormons and Lutherans seriously we, as New Covenant Christians, cannot extend the same respect to their respective traditions."  http://www.nccg.org/FAQ011-OrthCh.html.   

or this one from a Comment board on Rotate Caeli:

"Anonymous said... Eastern "orthodoxy" is not the path to salvation no matter how beautiful the liturgy is. The denial of Peter as the head of the church as JESUS himself made him is not a little matter. Outside the Church there is NO Salvation so if i was a member of that schismatic body and was concerned for my salvation i would be searching for an Eastern Rite CATHOLIC church immediatedly!!"  http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/julian-calendar-christmas-greeting.html





Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Iconodule on April 18, 2013, 04:44:02 PM
He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary.

There are still some Calvinists in Anglican circles.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 04:51:21 PM
Having fun?....  in Lent...

 :(
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 04:54:54 PM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters.  Will you now please?  Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 04:56:03 PM
Thank you, Podkarpatska.  Your post is appreciated.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesR on April 18, 2013, 04:56:31 PM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters.  Will you now please?  Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Sure. I don't remember what you are talking about though. Feel free to ask them again.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 04:59:31 PM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters.  Will you now please?  Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Sure. I don't remember what you are talking about though. Feel free to ask them again.

Thank you.

Do you recall at all a thread about Anglicans within the past few months and in which you made some erm "Broad brush" remarks about Anglicans?   I shall go check for the precise one

It was this one:  
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49845.0.html

You did not start it but made some  posts.  

MY apologies for the error of who the OP was.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 18, 2013, 05:01:42 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I am not sure there is an single accurate statement above and I know almost nothing about the Church of England.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 05:05:43 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Arachne on April 18, 2013, 05:10:17 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Annulments are granted by the RC, and probably, if the English-Spanish relations were not as prickly at the time, the issue would have been resolved. Still, after the break with Rome, the dissolution of that first marriage is considered by historians a divorce, de facto if not de jure.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 18, 2013, 05:11:25 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 05:14:38 PM
I am not quite sure as the the proper method of referencing things in threads that have been locked such as copy-and-paste, so I will just start JamesR with you used the term "Pseudo-liturgicalism" in writing about my Church in general.  I asked 1) would you please explain what you meant by that phrase?  and 2) What personal experience or knowledge you may have had with anything Episcopalian/Anglican that you could base this opinion upon?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesR on April 18, 2013, 05:17:09 PM
Quote
First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

What I've read about their doctrinal statements and take on matters--such as approving of homosexuality and abortion, having atheist Bishops and allowing anyone to commune. I know that for a time, Anglicanism was respectable and actually very close to being reconciled with the Orthodox Church, but then the liberalization ruined it.

Quote
Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

I don't know how to answer this without disrespecting him, but JamesRottneck seems to fit my description perfectly and still adheres to the beliefs of Anglicanism even when people on this board have proved him wrong countless times.

Quote
Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

Yeah. But Anglicanism is not my Church. I don't agree with this new relativistic view in society that refuses to discern between truth and falsehood. My Church is true and theirs is false. And we can debate it logically to prove so.

Quote
But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?

Doctrinal disunity, open communion, approval of homosexual lifestyle and abortion, atheist Bishops, atheist members, etc.

Quote
Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".

I know that, but I just think that--in my experience--Anglicans are especially like that though. I've met several Anglicans/Episcopals who--for the most part--were really just agnostic atheists wanting some sense of spirituality in their life, even if they thought the religion was bogus.  
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on April 18, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Annulments are granted by the RC, and probably, if the English-Spanish relations were not as prickly at the time, the issue would have been resolved. Still, after the break with Rome, the dissolution of that first marriage is considered by historians a divorce, de facto if not de jure.

It is true that annulments has certainly been granted in the past and often with the lack of a male heir being part of it.  That the Bishop of Rome was essentially a prisoner of the Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, influenced matters against the case.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Arachne on April 18, 2013, 05:25:09 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

Henry VIII wanted a change of jurisdiction, with himself as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope. He favoured Catholic practices himself, and the Reformation didn't go far during his lifetime. More Protestant forms were adopted under Edward VI, when Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury. The definite turning point was probably the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. Mary I tried to reestablish Catholicism, so Elizabeth I swung further the other way when her turn came.

As for the CoE not allowing remarriage to divorcees... I said generally. It is left to the discretion of each vicar whether they are willing to perform the rite, and a great majority aren't. It would have made things much easier for me and my husband if they were.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 18, 2013, 05:28:50 PM
I am not quite sure as the the proper method of referencing things in threads that have been locked such as copy-and-paste

PM some of the more "active mods" and ask them. It is a good question. Sometimes locked threads get locked after they spiral out of control into very different places than where they began. You might be allowed to reference a locked thread's content, if it is for good reason and the mod hasn't said otherwise.

If you get an answer, let us know.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ICXCNIKA on April 19, 2013, 10:39:52 AM
I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: James2 on April 19, 2013, 02:56:43 PM
While the Anglican cited in the OP certainly represents the "snake-belly" low form of Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church clearly considers episcopacy to be optional, as evidenced by its full communion with Lutherans.  Non-episcopally ordained Lutheran ministers can become Episcopal priests without being reordained.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 19, 2013, 03:39:09 PM
I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.
You do; Anglicanism doesn't.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Doubting Thomas on April 24, 2013, 04:22:53 PM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof. 

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues. 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 24, 2013, 07:12:08 PM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 24, 2013, 09:50:55 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations

   I attend the diocese of Central Florida of the Episcopal Church, FWIW.   Your puzzlement is due to the fact that Anglicanism is alot less authoritarian and dogmatic in tone, however that doesn't mean that Anglicans have no belief.  Anglican belief is shaped by the worship, prayer book, and creeds.  There is a great deal of respect for individual opinions on non-essential matters or things indifferent:  places where the Bible, Creeds, or Councils are silent.

  Your friends views sound like an extreme fringe.  Most Anglicans believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, albeit one that is re-presented rather than repeated.   Calling the altar a "table" also doesn't much reflect on the Eucharistic theology of the congregation, either, and I don't personally have anything against calling the altar a table if it looks like one.   That I'm more "Anglo-Catholic" leaning that the priest, who might have a more "Evangelical" or Lutheranesque understanding doesn't bother me.   I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 24, 2013, 11:35:10 PM
I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Mockingbird on April 25, 2013, 12:07:55 AM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

In the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral the Episcopate is listed as one of the essential components of Christianity.

Our Eucharistic liturgy states in no uncertain terms that we are "offering" to God a "sacrifice" of praise and thanksgiving.

In the Church consecration rite we are invited to pray for "the setting apart of the Altar."  The Bishop goes on to pray,
Quote
Lord God, hear us.  Sanctify this Table dedicated to you.  Let it be to us a sign of the heavenly Altar where your saints and angels praise you forever.
 The following rubric directs
Quote
Members of the congreation vest the Altar, place the vessels on it, and light the candles.
 In the Lamplighting rite the Holy Table is used as an altar of light and incense, for the rubric directs
Quote
The candles at the Altar are now lighted, as are other candles and lamps as may be convenient.
 Throughout the Book of Common Prayer "Priest" and "Presbyter" are used for the most part interchangeably.

Article XXXI states
Quote
XXXI.  Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.  

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
 This clearly refers to a specific doctrine, according to which Jesus was destroyed afresh in every Eucharist for the remission of sins that his death on Calvary had somehow failed to reach.  I'm not sure that even the Latin church teaches this anymore.  If your lot teach it, it's the first I've heard of it.  From the reformers' standpoint, Christ died "once for all."  The "sacrifices of Masses" taught that Jesus died once for some, then again for some more, then again for some more, and so on, being killed afresh in each Eucharist for sins he hadn't gotten to yet.  One may regret that the reformers had a somewhat constrained theological context to work in, but within those constraints I think they made the right choice.

Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on April 25, 2013, 03:25:53 AM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Deep Roots on April 25, 2013, 08:34:25 AM
I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
:o
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Doubting Thomas on April 25, 2013, 12:10:14 PM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 25, 2013, 12:27:31 PM
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
That's not the Teaching.

(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
Like what?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2013, 12:45:35 PM
I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2013, 12:46:57 PM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof. 

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues. 
how can it, if you embrace diversity as a dogma at the expense of Truth?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2013, 12:49:24 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
Yes, the Holy Spirit doesn't bind dead, gangerous limbs to a live Body.  And the Apostles and the saints aren't dead.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 25, 2013, 12:50:20 PM
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
Such as?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on April 25, 2013, 01:27:09 PM
I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail.  We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg.  The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything.  That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: stanley123 on April 25, 2013, 03:10:58 PM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
Would you be willing to elaborate on the second issue (2) ?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 25, 2013, 03:30:47 PM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
Would you be willing to elaborate on the second issue (2) ?

The 2s have it!
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Severian on April 25, 2013, 04:04:40 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
POTM nomination.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 25, 2013, 04:35:23 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
POTM nomination.

I guess, but you realize you are considered to among the first Protestants around here?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Doubting Thomas on April 25, 2013, 05:01:06 PM
So it looks like a few folks wanted me to elaborate on issue #2 in my last post regarding why I ultimately moved on from being and Orthodox catechumen to a Anglican Catholic. 

Issue #2 was regarding my thought that certain important doctrines tended to be underemphasized in Eastern Orthodoxy, and to elaborate I primarily had imputed justification and the substutionary atonement in mind. I know these issues have debated ad nauseam at this forum--and I have participated in some of this discussions over the years--which is why I didn't specifically identify these in my previous post.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Severian on April 25, 2013, 05:08:47 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
POTM nomination.

I guess, but you realize you are considered to be among the first Protestants around here?
1) Fixed your sentence for you. Not trying to be a snob, I just edited it for the sake of clarification.

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Alpo on April 25, 2013, 05:19:44 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.

Don't buy that triumphalist nonsense. They might be outside of the Church but they still love God and do good deeds. That is defininitely an act of Holy Spirit. Boundaries of the Church are not boundaries of Grace.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 25, 2013, 05:19:48 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
POTM nomination.

I guess, but you realize you are considered to be among the first Protestants around here?
1) Fixed your sentence for you. Not trying to be a snob, I just edited it for the sake of clarification.


No worries I frequently drop words and other errors when typing. Most have grown used to it.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 25, 2013, 05:23:35 PM
2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Severian on April 25, 2013, 05:24:53 PM
2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.
Do you mind explaining your exasperation?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 25, 2013, 05:32:01 PM
2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.
Do you mind explaining your exasperation?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Severian on April 25, 2013, 05:37:25 PM
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 25, 2013, 06:07:22 PM
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.



Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 25, 2013, 11:52:45 PM
I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail.  We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg.  The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything.  That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.

Exactly, the idea that there are no disagreements in the Eastern Orthodox church is silly.  It's one thing I realized the more I explored Orthodoxy, there are real differences over issues like ecumenism and engagement with the modern world.  They simply aren't as prominent as in Protestantism.

  In Anglicanism what is and is not dogma is ultimately found in the Creeds and the Bible, the Church is to teach, administer sacraments and make disciples, but can't bind souls to doctrines not found in the Scriptures or reasonably deduced from them.  Those things are adiaphora, at liberty to be disputed.  In practice it isn't that different from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which refuses to dogmatize things such as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Dormition of the Mother of God, and so on.   What's different for Orthodoxy from Anglicanism?  In my estimation because most Orthodox have lived under authoritarian, traditionalist societies where questioning anything was heavily discouraged.  In American society individualism is encouraged: perhaps to a fault.  But its not right to pretend that one cannot disagree with other believers about secondary matters and still be orthodox.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2013, 12:21:46 AM
I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail.  We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg.  The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything.  That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.

Exactly, the idea that there are no disagreements in the Eastern Orthodox church is silly.  It's one thing I realized the more I explored Orthodoxy, there are real differences over issues like ecumenism and engagement with the modern world.  They simply aren't as prominent as in Protestantism.

  In Anglicanism what is and is not dogma is ultimately found in the Creeds and the Bible, the Church is to teach, administer sacraments and make disciples, but can't bind souls to doctrines not found in the Scriptures or reasonably deduced from them.  Those things are adiaphora, at liberty to be disputed.  In practice it isn't that different from the Eastern Orthodox Church, which refuses to dogmatize things such as the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Dormition of the Mother of God, and so on.   What's different for Orthodoxy from Anglicanism?  In my estimation because most Orthodox have lived under authoritarian, traditionalist societies where questioning anything was heavily discouraged.  In American society individualism is encouraged: perhaps to a fault.  But its not right to pretend that one cannot disagree with other believers about secondary matters and still be orthodox.
I don't recall Henry VIII tolerating a lot of questioning.

When it comes to dogma and Creeds, no, the Orthodox do not disagree.  That's why we have dogma and Creeds.

We don't dogmatize the IC because we don't believe it.  Or rather, because it never happened.

The Dormition isn't dogmatized, but try to find an Orthodox who doesn't believe in it.

And many of those "authoritarian, traditionalist societies where questioning anything was heavily discouraged" in which many Orthodox lived were not Orthodox societies (the Caliphate, Turkocratia, Polish Commonwealth, etc.), in which they had to have a good reason to go against the grain. Especially when it often was a matter of life or death.  Doesn't leave much for the luxury of speculation.

In Anglicanism, what isn't a "secondary matter"?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nicene on April 26, 2013, 02:41:48 AM
Im more concerned with their communion with blatent heretics, AKA spong.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: LBK on April 26, 2013, 03:21:14 AM
Quote
The Dormition isn't dogmatized, but try to find an Orthodox who doesn't believe in it.

Given that the Dormition of the Mother of God is one of the twelve highest feasts, and of an importance of rank among them that a two-week fast of the same rigor as that of Great Lent is appointed for it, it would be a tad difficult for an honest Orthodox to say "I don't believe in it".  ;)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on April 26, 2013, 08:13:51 AM
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054

I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 26, 2013, 08:50:25 AM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on April 26, 2013, 09:11:56 AM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.



I don't know how there can be Truth that isn't exclusivist.  Something is either truth, partially true or completely untrue.  Partial truth is still untrue, just in differing degrees.  Some is fatal, some is not.  Orthodoxy isn't like fundamentalist evangelicalism that states if you don't believe what they believe you are going to hell. Instead, Orthodoxy states, this is what is Truth, but it leaves the ramification of what happens if you do or do not follow it up to God.  I don't understand how that can be uncharitable
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Happy Lutheran on April 26, 2013, 09:25:09 AM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2013, 09:32:39 AM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: leap of faith on April 26, 2013, 09:33:48 AM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.



Trisagion's last sentence is how it has also been explained to me by real people, but I have read what Daedelus1138 is stating by other Orthodox individuals...on this forum as well as others.  I'm the sole Orthodox person in my entire family, but I have many family members whose relationship with God is exemplary.  But, I confess that I wonder how much more-so that relationship would be if they were within the community of believers who I do believe has access to the fullness of truth and worship.  At the end of the day, I believe that Orthodox individuals would be wise to remember that if we make the claim that the Orthodox Church is THE Church, containing within her the fullness of truth and right worship, then we had better humble ourselves and recognize that, along with that claim, comes a higher responsibility.  We will have no excuse when we stand to give an account for our lives that we didn't have access to those truths and the opportunity to live our lives by them.  None.  Therefore, the claim should produce humility, fear and trembling in a right-minded person and not pride, idle talk and judgement of other individuals.  (Addressing false teachings are, of course, another story.)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Happy Lutheran on April 26, 2013, 09:36:06 AM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.

My apologies, I agree, although even in my Orthodox Study Bible I have in my hand as we speak, uses the word it.  
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2013, 09:40:08 AM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.
Often Truth is "uncharitable" by your definition.  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life," not "an option out of many."

Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2013, 09:42:25 AM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.

My apologies, I agree, although even in my Orthodox Study Bible I have in my hand as we speak, uses the word it.  
ah, the evils of copyright.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 26, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

  I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shlomlokh on April 26, 2013, 12:57:58 PM
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

  I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.

Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on April 26, 2013, 01:03:34 PM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.

It shouldn't even say "Holy" to begin with. Tὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Happy Lutheran on April 26, 2013, 01:21:01 PM
It shouldn't even say "Holy" to begin with. Tὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ.

I never gave a direct quote, are you saying the verse is not about the Holy Spirit? That would go against every commentary, including the commentary in the Orthodox Study Bible that Jesus was clearly referring to the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure if your post is just for information purposes or if you are giving some sort of rebuttle?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: NicholasMyra on April 26, 2013, 01:30:06 PM
All this stuff about hyperexclusivism is a straw man.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 26, 2013, 01:40:23 PM
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

  I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.

Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,
Andrew
btw, the Nestorians in the East are in the same boat as "the West's sacraments" as far as the Church is concerned.

The Vatican doesn't recognize Episcopalian sacraments (except baptism and marriage, but then it recognizes those done by Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc.): is that also from "mutual antipathy"?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Rufus on April 26, 2013, 02:23:51 PM
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.

I am still here lurking. Since all but a couple of the posters I follow have been banned or excommunicated by now, my enthusiasm for posting has died down.

Besides, I've been saving my posts so I can quit the forum exactly when my post count reaches 1337.

As for Severian's post, there's no question that in order to live sanely we have to be able to at least pretend we have different attitudes towards people's abstract attributes than towards the people themselves. I'm actually much more sceptical of the first part of his statement: "I *DO* despise Protestantism."
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Rufus on April 26, 2013, 09:40:27 PM
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.

I am still here lurking. Since all but a couple of the posters I follow have been banned or excommunicated by now, my enthusiasm for posting has died down.

Besides, I've been saving my posts so I can quit the forum exactly when my post count reaches 1337.

As for Severian's post, there's no question that in order to live sanely we have to be able to at least pretend we have different attitudes towards people's abstract attributes than towards the people themselves. I'm actually much more sceptical of the first part of his statement: "I *DO* despise Protestantism."

"Kill the Turk, not the man."
                --Erasmus
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on April 26, 2013, 11:06:57 PM
The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.

So doctrine which does not conform to your predispositions is uncharitable?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Rufus on April 27, 2013, 10:58:01 AM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: stanley123 on April 27, 2013, 04:14:39 PM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.
I read somewhere that Bishop Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, has said that all Catholics will go to hell?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: mabsoota on April 27, 2013, 04:34:14 PM
i doubt this is true.
current relations are good:

Another sign of rapprochement is the fact that Tawadros last month attended the inauguration of the new Coptic Catholic patriarch, Ibrahim Sidrak, an unprecedented gesture.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Apr-24/214923-coptic-orthodox-leader-to-meet-pope-francis-in-may.ashx#axzz2RgdA8EAK

(with thanks to biro for posting the original link in this story)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on April 27, 2013, 05:42:31 PM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

I seriously doubt that.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: stanley123 on April 27, 2013, 07:48:51 PM
i doubt this is true.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=20612.980;imode
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on April 27, 2013, 08:00:37 PM
What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

You are like my much quieter and much more well liked me.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 27, 2013, 09:28:31 PM
Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,
Andrew

   Why is it necessary to only hold to doctrines the East holds to?   I would submit that the Protestant doctrine of "sola fide" does not in itself make Protestantism a "sect".  It is a source of division but then again, so is the Eastern insistence that the hallmark of a true Christian is kissing icons (despite the fact that many old, apostolic churches do not have icons) or subscribing to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas.

  In some Protestant groups such as Anglicans, the doctrine of "sola fide" is not necessarily considered a matter one must believe in order to be saved, so its possible to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic or Orthodox understandings of justification have some merit.  However, this doesn't mean that "Sola fide" is wrong to teach, it is just a reflection of a generous orthodoxy to credit that the Roman Catholic or Orthodox understandings are also true in their own way.  Salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit in man, ultimately trying to describe these things in a systematic way just will not work.  However, justification by faith alone is a good explanation to emphasize the fact that people do not earn the forgiveness or love of God.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Father H on April 27, 2013, 09:48:58 PM

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

James, while I would agree with you if you had said "Episcopalianism," I do believe that most worldwide Anglicans (outside of ECUSA and British Isles agnosticism) are rather traditional (I believe the largest part is the Africans, who are quite traditional Christians).  I have a few good friends among Anglican clergy that are traditional Anglicans and want nothing to do with the pagan pseudo-Christianity found in the large local lot in the US.  To be honest with you, I think that a few would become Orthodox if they could keep an Orthodox western rite and not have to go to ROCOR (where they are forced to be on the old calendar) or Antiochians where they are...  well, I'll stop there.   
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Rufus on April 27, 2013, 09:57:41 PM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.
I read somewhere that Bishop Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, has said that all Catholics will go to hell?

If you're right, you should be able to provide a more compelling example than this one.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2013, 10:06:38 PM
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.

I can understand the surprise, given the nature of this forum and many of the posts here. Most of the heresy comes from people describing themselves as Orthodox, though.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2013, 10:10:37 PM
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.

   This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.



LOL. I hope you find a religion good enough for you that will live up to all your personal preconceptions.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2013, 10:13:43 PM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.

I'm sure He was pleased to blow on Arius and his ilk, but they did not receive Him, holding to their own opinions, rather than the revelation of God preached by the Church.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shanghaiski on April 27, 2013, 10:16:05 PM
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.

  I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.


It is not simple mutual antipathy, but Rome's adoption of another faith and cutting herself off from the Church in the advancement of this other faith.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 29, 2013, 04:38:16 PM
In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that. 

  Rufus, I don't think this attitude is all that rare among Orthodox Christians in the US, especially converts.

   I'm realizing more and more this idea that the Christian faith must reveal a systematic approach to life, even the issues of ecclessiology, is error.  Orthodox Christians should understand this well, there must be a place for mysteries in our theology because life itself confronts us with so much paradox and mystery.  That we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and yet confront a Christian world with divisions is one of those mysteries.  It doesn't need to send us into existential crisis. 

 The whole issues of conversionism our western culture is steeped in, especially in the US, stemming from individualism and consumerism, needs to be challenged from a truely Catholic viewpoint, realizing that conversion of life and obedience necessitates stability- loyalty to the situation one finds oneself in as in itself part of the sacramental life of Christ, which is really what the Church is- not a mere human institution but all the means of grace that the Christian encounters.   Religious triumphalism becomes just another manifestation of the ego and a tool of Satan.  Even seemingly good things, the worship of God in truth, can be twisted by the Enemy for his purposes.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on April 29, 2013, 05:16:18 PM
In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that. 

  Rufus, I don't think this attitude is all that rare among Orthodox Christians in the US, especially converts.

   I'm realizing more and more this idea that the Christian faith must reveal a systematic approach to life, even the issues of ecclessiology, is error.  Orthodox Christians should understand this well, there must be a place for mysteries in our theology because life itself confronts us with so much paradox and mystery.  That we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and yet confront a Christian world with divisions is one of those mysteries.  It doesn't need to send us into existential crisis. 

 The whole issues of conversionism our western culture is steeped in, especially in the US, stemming from individualism and consumerism, needs to be challenged from a truely Catholic viewpoint, realizing that conversion of life and obedience necessitates stability- loyalty to the situation one finds oneself in as in itself part of the sacramental life of Christ, which is really what the Church is- not a mere human institution but all the means of grace that the Christian encounters.   Religious triumphalism becomes just another manifestation of the ego and a tool of Satan.  Even seemingly good things, the worship of God in truth, can be twisted by the Enemy for his purposes.


The fact that you don't realize the irony of that statement shows you must not having been paying attention during your catechumenate.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Rufus on April 29, 2013, 09:35:13 PM
In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that. 

  Rufus, I don't think this attitude is all that rare among Orthodox Christians in the US, especially converts.

   I'm realizing more and more this idea that the Christian faith must reveal a systematic approach to life, even the issues of ecclessiology, is error.  Orthodox Christians should understand this well, there must be a place for mysteries in our theology because life itself confronts us with so much paradox and mystery.  That we believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and yet confront a Christian world with divisions is one of those mysteries.  It doesn't need to send us into existential crisis. 

 The whole issues of conversionism our western culture is steeped in, especially in the US, stemming from individualism and consumerism, needs to be challenged from a truely Catholic viewpoint, realizing that conversion of life and obedience necessitates stability- loyalty to the situation one finds oneself in as in itself part of the sacramental life of Christ, which is really what the Church is- not a mere human institution but all the means of grace that the Christian encounters.   Religious triumphalism becomes just another manifestation of the ego and a tool of Satan.  Even seemingly good things, the worship of God in truth, can be twisted by the Enemy for his purposes.


I really liked your last paragraph. Now I'm going to tell you why you're wrong. First, every Orthodox I've ever known who said that Catholics or Protestants didn't constitute the Church in some way certainly didn't act like it, and was even on good spiritual terms with non-Orthodox Christians when they weren't spewing vitriol. Of course, many Orthodox hold a moderately exclusive ecclesiology, but only in a very tame sense, so that's not what I'm talking about here.

Second, I don't doubt that converts are more likely to say these sorts of things. But how many converts are there? If you live in a place where there are lots, you probably have a case of sampling bias.

There's a third point, but I'm worried about unnecessarily stirring up trouble, so I'll leave it for now.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on April 29, 2013, 09:50:38 PM
The whole issues of conversionism our western culture is steeped in, especially in the US, stemming from individualism and consumerism, needs to be challenged from a truely Catholic viewpoint, realizing that conversion of life and obedience necessitates stability- loyalty to the situation one finds oneself in as in itself part of the sacramental life of Christ, which is really what the Church is- not a mere human institution but all the means of grace that the Christian encounters.   Religious triumphalism becomes just another manifestation of the ego and a tool of Satan.  Even seemingly good things, the worship of God in truth, can be twisted by the Enemy for his purposes.


Honestly that just seems like a sentimental justification for denominational indifference.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 29, 2013, 11:20:24 PM
Honestly that just seems like a sentimental justification for denominational indifference.

   It's what works for me, and it is something that is coming to me through some spiritual direction on the part of others (including my former Orthodox priest).  It really goes against my own instincts, but I'm starting to realize "Church Shopping", even trying to find the "One True Church", is a distraction from following Jesus and having faith in God.   I'm not indifferent to denominations, just more zealous for listening for God's presence in my life, right now.

  Ex-evangelicals misrepresent the orthodox, catholic way of life, I believe, because they are bringing their spiritual consumerism to their quest for the historic Church.   Look for instance at Frederica Matthewes-Green's writings and lectures- I enjoy her informative approach but I can't help but think she is somebody that uses her religion to cover up some personal flaws, as do many people.   Underneath her writings and speech, which is often condescending in tone when talking about all things "western", is a "spirituality" that fits right in with consumerist approaches to the faith, just slanted more in favor of a conservative, "Jesus-talking" variety.   It's even possible to see her and her husbands departure from the Anglican world in a similar light- he and a number of other Episcopalian priests wrote up a statement in the 90's objecting to the suppossed apostate trend of the Episcopal Church and affirmed a bunch of things that most Episcopalian priests would not have any problems agreeing to (the Lordship of Jesus Christ and so on).  Perhaps they were just unhappy that they didn't get to dictate what the Christian faith was all about from their own viewpoint.  That sort of thing smacks of being very, dare I say, Protestant.

  This is why I'm just not interested in "ex-Evangelical convert stories" anymore, and I'm cautious about seeking out those types of people for spiritual reading or direction.  I'm trying to listen hardest to people that have deep roots in a tradition and community and pay attention to them and let them guide me.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on April 29, 2013, 11:59:42 PM
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.

I'm sure He was pleased to blow on Arius and his ilk, but they did not receive Him, holding to their own opinions, rather than the revelation of God preached by the Church.
Indeed.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on April 30, 2013, 12:26:15 AM
Honestly that just seems like a sentimental justification for denominational indifference.

   It's what works for me, and it is something that is coming to me through some spiritual direction on the part of others (including my former Orthodox priest).  It really goes against my own instincts, but I'm starting to realize "Church Shopping", even trying to find the "One True Church", is a distraction from following Jesus and having faith in God.   I'm not indifferent to denominations, just more zealous for listening for God's presence in my life, right now.

  Ex-evangelicals misrepresent the orthodox, catholic way of life, I believe, because they are bringing their spiritual consumerism to their quest for the historic Church.   Look for instance at Frederica Matthewes-Green's writings and lectures- I enjoy her informative approach but I can't help but think she is somebody that uses her religion to cover up some personal flaws, as do many people.   Underneath her writings and speech, which is often condescending in tone when talking about all things "western", is a "spirituality" that fits right in with consumerist approaches to the faith, just slanted more in favor of a conservative, "Jesus-talking" variety.   It's even possible to see her and her husbands departure from the Anglican world in a similar light- he and a number of other Episcopalian priests wrote up a statement in the 90's objecting to the suppossed apostate trend of the Episcopal Church and affirmed a bunch of things that most Episcopalian priests would not have any problems agreeing to (the Lordship of Jesus Christ and so on).  Perhaps they were just unhappy that they didn't get to dictate what the Christian faith was all about from their own viewpoint.  That sort of thing smacks of being very, dare I say, Protestant.

  This is why I'm just not interested in "ex-Evangelical convert stories" anymore, and I'm cautious about seeking out those types of people for spiritual reading or direction.  I'm trying to listen hardest to people that have deep roots in a tradition and community and pay attention to them and let them guide me.


Are you really saying that the apostate trend of tEC is merely "supposed"? Spong should have been declared a heretic quite some time ago. The current PB would rather depose orthodox bishops and priests for "abandoning the faith"- and do so in violation of the constitutions and canons of her own church. Things might be fine and dandy in your little corner of Florida, for now (so long as you guys are good little foot soldiers and your bishop makes no waves), but what just recently happened to the diocese of South Carolina is a travesty, not just of tEC, but of any sort of form of good governance.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 30, 2013, 09:55:22 AM
Are you really saying that the apostate trend of tEC is merely "supposed"? Spong should have been declared a heretic quite some time ago. The current PB would rather depose orthodox bishops and priests for "abandoning the faith"- and do so in violation of the constitutions and canons of her own church. Things might be fine and dandy in your little corner of Florida, for now (so long as you guys are good little foot soldiers and your bishop makes no waves), but what just recently happened to the diocese of South Carolina is a travesty, not just of tEC, but of any sort of form of good governance.

  I don't agree.  I'm not privy to all the details and facts about South Carolina and there is a huge amount of emotionalism on both sides but I think Bishop Lawrence may have done some things that were indeed questionable and its not simply a matter of intolerance of conservatives.  

  Sometimes people like Lawrence can think they are motivated by perfectly biblical sensibilities but deep down there is a profoundly anti-Catholic distrust of the Church and its authority structures.  Especially Bishop Lawrence's attitude to the transsexuality issue (I watched him on youtube)- I don't understand his objection, it seems rooted in crude bigotry and ignorance.  The Episcopal Church has women priests already, why would he object to this?  There are alot of thinking, reasoning, and compassionate Christians that take the Bible just as seriously as Lawrence and yet come to very different conclusions about these things.  It's pure pride for people like him to assume that they are wrong and he alone is right.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on April 30, 2013, 10:00:17 AM
There are alot of thinking, reasoning, and compassionate Christians that take the Bible just as seriously as Lawrence and yet come to very different conclusions about these things.  It's pure pride for people like him to assume that they are wrong and he alone is right.

The Bible isn't a religion construction set.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on April 30, 2013, 01:43:47 PM
Are you really saying that the apostate trend of tEC is merely "supposed"? Spong should have been declared a heretic quite some time ago. The current PB would rather depose orthodox bishops and priests for "abandoning the faith"- and do so in violation of the constitutions and canons of her own church. Things might be fine and dandy in your little corner of Florida, for now (so long as you guys are good little foot soldiers and your bishop makes no waves), but what just recently happened to the diocese of South Carolina is a travesty, not just of tEC, but of any sort of form of good governance.

  I don't agree.  I'm not privy to all the details and facts about South Carolina and there is a huge amount of emotionalism on both sides but I think Bishop Lawrence may have done some things that were indeed questionable and its not simply a matter of intolerance of conservatives.  

  Sometimes people like Lawrence can think they are motivated by perfectly biblical sensibilities but deep down there is a profoundly anti-Catholic distrust of the Church and its authority structures.  Especially Bishop Lawrence's attitude to the transsexuality issue (I watched him on youtube)- I don't understand his objection, it seems rooted in crude bigotry and ignorance.  The Episcopal Church has women priests already, why would he object to this?  There are alot of thinking, reasoning, and compassionate Christians that take the Bible just as seriously as Lawrence and yet come to very different conclusions about these things.  It's pure pride for people like him to assume that they are wrong and he alone is right.

Regardless of what one might think of Bishop Lawrence's motivations, the fact remains that the PB undertook a decidedly illegal course of action in her accepting his resignation, which he never sent. The woman is mad, frothing, thinks herself pope, and needs to be gotten rid of.

Edit: While I have not seen Bishop Lawrence's youtube video, I doubt he went much further in his rhetoric than Reg from Monty Python's The Life of Brian, who I have always viewed as having a very sensible view on the subject of trans-sexuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2013, 07:36:06 AM
Regardless of what one might think of Bishop Lawrence's motivations, the fact remains that the PB undertook a decidedly illegal course of action in her accepting his resignation, which he never sent. The woman is mad, frothing, thinks herself pope, and needs to be gotten rid of.

Edit: While I have not seen Bishop Lawrence's youtube video, I doubt he went much further in his rhetoric than Reg from Monty Python's The Life of Brian, who I have always viewed as having a very sensible view on the subject of trans-sexuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c)

  All humor aside...  he implied that "individualized eros" was the motivation behind transgenderism, which doesn't do justice to the experience of transsexual individuals, most of whom felt that there was something wrong with their bodies long before they could even articulate expressions like "individualized eros".  Furthermore, there is some scientific evidence that transsexuals experiences correlate with data from brain imaging, irregularities in the hypothalamus and other brain regions may account for problems in perceiving ones body or sex.  These issues are unrelated to ones sexual orientation- there can be transsexuals that are gay or straight.   People like Bishop Lawrence are walking on dangerous ground because these attitudes can encourage injustice and ignorance.   I'm hardly a follower of Gene Robinson or Jack Spong but I recognize the duty of Christians, rooted in the Law and the Prophets, to care about the welfare of those that are marginalized.  Simply because the transsexual experience is unusual doesn't mean that it isn't a matter of justice.

  I don't understand Bishop Lawrence's attitude frankly, the Episcopal Church ordains women and eunuchs were accepted into the early church (some of them even became saints).  What's his issue with somebody that feels they must alter their body hormonally and surgically to achieve a degree of inner peace, isn't that a matter to be discerned between ones physician and psychiatrist?  Now wheather this was the straw that broke the camel's back for him, I am not sure . One thing is for sure, there are still other conservative bishops that haven't instigated these issues and that are remaining in the church.  My guess is that Lawrence just has a problem with the polity of the Episcopal Church.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 02, 2013, 08:27:16 AM
Regardless of what one might think of Bishop Lawrence's motivations, the fact remains that the PB undertook a decidedly illegal course of action in her accepting his resignation, which he never sent. The woman is mad, frothing, thinks herself pope, and needs to be gotten rid of.

Edit: While I have not seen Bishop Lawrence's youtube video, I doubt he went much further in his rhetoric than Reg from Monty Python's The Life of Brian, who I have always viewed as having a very sensible view on the subject of trans-sexuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c)

  All humor aside...  he implied that "individualized eros" was the motivation behind transgenderism, which doesn't do justice to the experience of transsexual individuals, most of whom felt that there was something wrong with their bodies long before they could even articulate expressions like "individualized eros".  Furthermore, there is some scientific evidence that transsexuals experiences correlate with data from brain imaging, irregularities in the hypothalamus and other brain regions may account for problems in perceiving ones body or sex.  These issues are unrelated to ones sexual orientation- there can be transsexuals that are gay or straight.   People like Bishop Lawrence are walking on dangerous ground because these attitudes can encourage injustice and ignorance.   I'm hardly a follower of Gene Robinson or Jack Spong but I recognize the duty of Christians, rooted in the Law and the Prophets, to care about the welfare of those that are marginalized.  Simply because the transsexual experience is unusual doesn't mean that it isn't a matter of justice.
Ah, how many crimes are committed in the name of justice!

I don't understand Bishop Lawrence's attitude frankly, the Episcopal Church ordains women and eunuchs were accepted into the early church (some of them even became saints).
A Eunuch isn't a transsexual.

As for your "understanding," it just shows that the Episcopalians aren't as inclusive as they claim.  Traditional Christian thought is not welcome.

What's his issue with somebody that feels they must alter their body hormonally and surgically to achieve a degree of inner peace, isn't that a matter to be discerned between ones physician and psychiatrist?
like an abortion?
Now wheather this was the straw that broke the camel's back for him, I am not sure . One thing is for sure, there are still other conservative bishops that haven't instigated these issues and that are remaining in the church.  My guess is that Lawrence just has a problem with the polity of the Episcopal Church.
those "conservative bishops" who remain "in the church" remain conservative no more.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 02, 2013, 08:43:14 AM
Are you really saying that the apostate trend of tEC is merely "supposed"? Spong should have been declared a heretic quite some time ago. The current PB would rather depose orthodox bishops and priests for "abandoning the faith"- and do so in violation of the constitutions and canons of her own church. Things might be fine and dandy in your little corner of Florida, for now (so long as you guys are good little foot soldiers and your bishop makes no waves), but what just recently happened to the diocese of South Carolina is a travesty, not just of tEC, but of any sort of form of good governance.

  I don't agree.  I'm not privy to all the details and facts about South Carolina and there is a huge amount of emotionalism on both sides but I think Bishop Lawrence may have done some things that were indeed questionable and its not simply a matter of intolerance of conservatives.  

  Sometimes people like Lawrence can think they are motivated by perfectly biblical sensibilities but deep down there is a profoundly anti-Catholic distrust of the Church and its authority structures.  Especially Bishop Lawrence's attitude to the transsexuality issue (I watched him on youtube)- I don't understand his objection, it seems rooted in crude bigotry and ignorance.  The Episcopal Church has women priests already, why would he object to this?  There are alot of thinking, reasoning, and compassionate Christians that take the Bible just as seriously as Lawrence and yet come to very different conclusions about these things.  It's pure pride for people like him to assume that they are wrong and he alone is right.
LOL.  Just like the Liberal church: challenge authority, until they are in charge-in which case absolute obedience is required.

Such is why I have little sympathy for the Episcopalians and their dilemma: it seems the "higher" the church, more it is just smells and bells covering up the stench of false preaching, and the more faithful the theology, the lower the church-i.e. the more it disconnects from apostolic worship.

No reward is going to be given for staying on that sinking ship as it goes down into Hades.  Those who are orthodox (or Orthodox-many are, but in name only), time has long passed to jump ship.  Get off while there is time, whether onto a seaworthy vessel (and in way of comparison, even the Vatican's Anglican personal prefecture is a viable option.  WRO, of course, is better, as that ship is on course)-even going off on a lifeboat of break away Episcopalian sect is better then going down with the ship that is sinking fast.

Just like PECUS's PB's bishop of NH: wants acceptance, and immediately purged his diocese of those who wouldn't accept, for instance, his leaving his wife for another man.

"Anti-Catholic distrust of the Church and its authority structures." That's absolutely classic rich.  It seems Bishop Lawrence isn't the one with the problem of pure pride.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on May 02, 2013, 04:05:26 PM
Regardless of what one might think of Bishop Lawrence's motivations, the fact remains that the PB undertook a decidedly illegal course of action in her accepting his resignation, which he never sent. The woman is mad, frothing, thinks herself pope, and needs to be gotten rid of.

Edit: While I have not seen Bishop Lawrence's youtube video, I doubt he went much further in his rhetoric than Reg from Monty Python's The Life of Brian, who I have always viewed as having a very sensible view on the subject of trans-sexuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c)

  All humor aside...  he implied that "individualized eros" was the motivation behind transgenderism, which doesn't do justice to the experience of transsexual individuals, most of whom felt that there was something wrong with their bodies long before they could even articulate expressions like "individualized eros".  Furthermore, there is some scientific evidence that transsexuals experiences correlate with data from brain imaging, irregularities in the hypothalamus and other brain regions may account for problems in perceiving ones body or sex.  These issues are unrelated to ones sexual orientation- there can be transsexuals that are gay or straight.   People like Bishop Lawrence are walking on dangerous ground because these attitudes can encourage injustice and ignorance.   I'm hardly a follower of Gene Robinson or Jack Spong but I recognize the duty of Christians, rooted in the Law and the Prophets, to care about the welfare of those that are marginalized.  Simply because the transsexual experience is unusual doesn't mean that it isn't a matter of justice.

  I don't understand Bishop Lawrence's attitude frankly, the Episcopal Church ordains women and eunuchs were accepted into the early church (some of them even became saints).  What's his issue with somebody that feels they must alter their body hormonally and surgically to achieve a degree of inner peace, isn't that a matter to be discerned between ones physician and psychiatrist?  Now wheather this was the straw that broke the camel's back for him, I am not sure . One thing is for sure, there are still other conservative bishops that haven't instigated these issues and that are remaining in the church.  My guess is that Lawrence just has a problem with the polity of the Episcopal Church.


The eunuchs who were accepted into the early Church were a very different matter from a "transsexual" already in the Church. Most eunuchs were forcibly made eunuchs as part of the terms of their slavery. The early Church took a very hard line on those who made themselves eunuchs (though in this case it was more due to a super-literal interpretation of Christ's saying that some would have to become eunuchs to obtain the Kingdom- that is, they were not becoming eunuchs to express their "natural" gender, but because they felt they could not successfully resist sexual temptation with their manhood intact) after conversion.

The problem with your "scientific" outlook on the matter is that the whole issue of gender and sexuality is so tied into politics in this day and age that if the Church were to offer a truly charitable solution, it would seem to be hate. Science might be able to tell us the cause of gender confusion, but it cannot tell us the moral response. For example, certain forms of mental illness are genetic, yet we still seek to treat these so as to help the sufferers live "normal" lives without public outcry. Come up with a medical solution for gender confusion or sexuality, and even make it voluntary, and witness the cries of oppression- even though, speaking from mere genetics and neuroscience, there is no difference between that and schizophrenia.

As for your suspicions about the Bishop Lawrence having issues with tEC's "polity"- the issues with polity have to do more with a wannabe-Catholic-lite pope altering the polity as she sees fit. Everything Bishop Lawrence has done has been legal and above board- the straw that broke the camel's back was not some youtube video, but the Bishop Lawrence allowing his diocese to alter its constitution without illegally overriding (according to the polity of that diocese) the decision of his parishes.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2013, 07:23:25 PM
The problem with your "scientific" outlook on the matter is that the whole issue of gender and sexuality is so tied into politics in this day and age that if the Church were to offer a truly charitable solution, it would seem to be hate. Science might be able to tell us the cause of gender confusion, but it cannot tell us the moral response. For example, certain forms of mental illness are genetic, yet we still seek to treat these so as to help the sufferers live "normal" lives without public outcry. Come up with a medical solution for gender confusion or sexuality, and even make it voluntary, and witness the cries of oppression- even though, speaking from mere genetics and neuroscience, there is no difference between that and schizophrenia.

  Treatments  for "gender confusion" already exist in the medical community. Counselling from a psychotherapist, with the possibility of referral to a gender clinic if the confusion or dysphoria is not resolved are the norm.  Traditionally, a harm-reduction approach is taken to this issue- some patients will respond to hormones, others will require genital surgery, with each step of the process being undertaken with psychological screening acting in a gatekeeping role to make sure that medical interventions are reserved for those who could most benefit from them.  Of the fraction of individuals with gender dysphoria, only a percentage of those- not all, will undergo genital modification surgery.  So psychological treatment does correct this problem in some cases, but in other cases pharmacological, surgical interventions, and legal change of ones sexual identity seem to help patients cope.   Untreated transsexualism is a serious issue that is not a joking matter, since there is a high risk of suicide assosciated with it.  

  And transsexuals deal with diferent issues from those in the gay community- a transsexual woman is not a gay man that likes to wear womens clothes, a transsexual woman is a person of any sexual orientation that has failed to identify with their assigned gender.  Bishop Mark Lawrence's comments failed to account for this reality behind his rhetoric of "individualized eros".  Transsexualism is not really a political issue beyond the need for somebody with gender dysphoria to get psychological, and if necessary, medical care. 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 06, 2013, 01:25:47 AM
"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  :D
Who said this? The reason I ask--and yes, this is a formal request--is that I need to know whether to attribute the profanity to you or to someone else so I can know how to respond appropriately. Please send me your response in the next 72 hours. Thank you.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 06, 2013, 01:46:50 AM
The problem with your "scientific" outlook on the matter is that the whole issue of gender and sexuality is so tied into politics in this day and age that if the Church were to offer a truly charitable solution, it would seem to be hate. Science might be able to tell us the cause of gender confusion, but it cannot tell us the moral response. For example, certain forms of mental illness are genetic, yet we still seek to treat these so as to help the sufferers live "normal" lives without public outcry. Come up with a medical solution for gender confusion or sexuality, and even make it voluntary, and witness the cries of oppression- even though, speaking from mere genetics and neuroscience, there is no difference between that and schizophrenia.

  Treatments  for "gender confusion" already exist in the medical community. Counselling from a psychotherapist, with the possibility of referral to a gender clinic if the confusion or dysphoria is not resolved are the norm.  Traditionally, a harm-reduction approach is taken to this issue- some patients will respond to hormones, others will require genital surgery, with each step of the process being undertaken with psychological screening acting in a gatekeeping role to make sure that medical interventions are reserved for those who could most benefit from them.  Of the fraction of individuals with gender dysphoria, only a percentage of those- not all, will undergo genital modification surgery.  So psychological treatment does correct this problem in some cases, but in other cases pharmacological, surgical interventions, and legal change of ones sexual identity seem to help patients cope.   Untreated transsexualism is a serious issue that is not a joking matter, since there is a high risk of suicide assosciated with it.  

  And transsexuals deal with diferent issues from those in the gay community- a transsexual woman is not a gay man that likes to wear womens clothes, a transsexual woman is a person of any sexual orientation that has failed to identify with their assigned gender.  Bishop Mark Lawrence's comments failed to account for this reality behind his rhetoric of "individualized eros".  Transsexualism is not really a political issue beyond the need for somebody with gender dysphoria to get psychological, and if necessary, medical care. 
I know the idea that Bp. Mark Lawrence being right and the HIGHLY POLITICIZED psychiatric establishment being wrong spoils the narrative, but cures do not consist of trying to bend reality to confusion.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 06, 2013, 09:13:48 AM
I know the idea that Bp. Mark Lawrence being right and the HIGHLY POLITICIZED psychiatric establishment being wrong spoils the narrative, but cures do not consist of trying to bend reality to confusion.

   Treatments for transsexuality began decades before the gay rights movement became engaged with the psychiatric profession.  The motivation was the compassion of doctors (like Dr. Harry Benjamin) and their desire to end human suffering, not the desire to redefine gender categories or embrace "sexual individualism".   People like Mark Lawrence are quite wrong about the history or motivations of transsexualism.

  I have conversed with Orthodox clergy that can accept that transsexuality is a condition that can require medical treatment. Not all Orthodox are so indifferent to the practice of medicine and the care of actual human beings.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 06, 2013, 11:54:34 AM
I know the idea that Bp. Mark Lawrence being right and the HIGHLY POLITICIZED psychiatric establishment being wrong spoils the narrative, but cures do not consist of trying to bend reality to confusion.

   Treatments for transsexuality began decades before the gay rights movement became engaged with the psychiatric profession.
Magnus Hirschfeld was the first to "treat" transexuality with a sex change.  Decades before that, however, he actively championed "gay rights", advocating the legalization of homosexual activity and the acceptance of homosexuality as a life style, which he called "Justice through science."  He also fought for legalizing abortion (as a part of feminism),  and praised the Eugenics movement.

The motivation was the compassion of doctors (like Dr. Harry Benjamin)
a disciple of Hirschfeld's.
and their desire to end human suffering, not the desire to redefine gender categories or embrace "sexual individualism".   People like Mark Lawrence are quite wrong about the history or motivations of transsexualism.
because otherwise the narrative is upset.

  I have conversed with Orthodox clergy that can accept that transsexuality is a condition that can require medical treatment. Not all Orthodox are so indifferent to the practice of medicine and the care of actual human beings.
Where then you must be home then with the Episcopalians, where non-acceptance of the world's agenda is taken as "indifference" to the medical profession which has signed onto that agenda.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 06, 2013, 12:33:14 PM
Magnus Hirschfeld was the first to "treat" transexuality with a sex change.  Decades before that, however, he actively championed "gay rights", advocating the legalization of homosexual activity and the acceptance of homosexuality as a life style, which he called "Justice through science."  He also fought for legalizing abortion (as a part of feminism),  and praised the Eugenics movement.

    Just because an idea came from a given person doesn't mean the idea itself is influenced by their other ideas.  I'm not opossed to legitimate scientific research even in areas that the Church thinks it has all the answers.  Science doesn't work the way you think it does.  It doesn't have an agenda.  I also see nothing wrong with the liberalization of anti-sodomy laws.  Many conservative Christians would also agree, and this is a seperate issue from the sanctity of such activities, or lack thereof.  You seem to be arguing for the worst aspects of the medieval mindset be brought back into modernity.

Where then you must be home then with the Episcopalians, where non-acceptance of the world's agenda is taken as "indifference" to the medical profession which has signed onto that agenda.

  A Christian heart should be free from contempt.

   I don't think this is an admirable attitude to take to an entire profession that does alot of good in the world.   I agree with Martin Luther's commentary on the commandment to not bear false witness against ones neighbor, we should always take our neighbor's words and behaviors in the best possible light.  You seem to be focused on taking their actions in the worst possible way, creating conspiracies where none exist.  It's possible to deeply disagree with someone but recognize their good intentions.

  I'll let God judge people like Magnus Hirschfield and Alfred Kinsey.  I don't need to.  Undoubtedly they did things that were presumptuous and in error.  But then again, so do I.  And so do you.  But I know that both men were often motivated by a sense of compassion that few Christians at the time truly embraced, preferring to hide behind unquestioned customs and social traditions rather than to truly put on the mind of Christ.  
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 06, 2013, 01:13:13 PM
Magnus Hirschfeld was the first to "treat" transexuality with a sex change.  Decades before that, however, he actively championed "gay rights", advocating the legalization of homosexual activity and the acceptance of homosexuality as a life style, which he called "Justice through science."  He also fought for legalizing abortion (as a part of feminism),  and praised the Eugenics movement.

    Just because an idea came from a given person doesn't mean the idea itself is influenced by their other ideas.
So you are for schizophrenia.
I'm not opossed to legitimate scientific research even in areas that the Church thinks it has all the answers.
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?

Science doesn't work the way you think it does.  It doesn't have an agenda.
Peddle that c--p elsewhere.  I've spent decades in both academia and the medical profession and know better.

I also see nothing wrong with the liberalization of anti-sodomy laws.
I'm sure you don't.

Many conservative Christians would also agree
so more votes for the immoral minority.

and this is a seperate issue from the sanctity of such activities, or lack thereof.  You seem to be arguing for the worst aspects of the medieval mindset be brought back into modernity.
sorry, the mythology of progress went up in smoke up the chimneys of Auschwitz.

Where then you must be home then with the Episcopalians, where non-acceptance of the world's agenda is taken as "indifference" to the medical profession which has signed onto that agenda.
A Christian heart should be free from contempt.
Demonstrate that.

I don't think this is an admirable attitude to take to an entire profession that does alot of good in the world.   I agree with Martin Luther's commentary on the commandment to not bear false witness against ones neighbor, we should always take our neighbor's words and behaviors in the best possible light.  You seem to be focused on taking their actions in the worst possible way, creating conspiracies where none exist.  It's possible to deeply disagree with someone but recognize their good intentions.
Demonstrate that.

I'll let God judge people like Magnus Hirschfield and Alfred Kinsey.  I don't need to.
 
You already have, and given them your seal of approval.

Undoubtedly they did things that were presumptuous and in error.  But then again, so do I.  And so do you.  But I know that both men were often motivated by a sense of compassion that few Christians at the time truly embraced, preferring to hide behind unquestioned customs and social traditions rather than to truly put on the mind of Christ.  
Christ's mind had nothing to do with the self serving perversions of Alfred Kinsey.  It is easy to be compassionate when trying to get accepted as normal one's own abnormalities.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 06, 2013, 01:23:17 PM
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers? 

  I consider this statement right here to be very disturbing.  A Church that has all the answers, that has no sense of wonder left, is apostate.  Because if we claim to have exhausted all the understanding of God and his works, how is that not blasphemy?

  I think you should seriously rethink your position.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 06, 2013, 01:36:18 PM
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers? 

  I consider this statement right here to be very disturbing.  A Church that has all the answers, that has no sense of wonder left, is apostate.  Because if we claim to have exhausted all the understanding of God and his works, how is that not blasphemy?

  I think you should seriously rethink your position.

I think the Church has the best answers as far as how to connect with God. I wouldn't say they have ALL the answers, because I don't even think all the questions have been asked yet.

I don't think the Church has answers on scientific matters such as gravity, evolution, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 06, 2013, 01:57:10 PM
Christ is risen!
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?  

  I consider this statement right here to be very disturbing.
I'm sure you do: most people who take gray as they favorite color usually are disturbed by certitude.

 A Church that has all the answers, that has no sense of wonder left, is apostate.  Because if we claim to have exhausted all the understanding of God and his works, how is that not blasphemy?

  I think you should seriously rethink your position.
Funny, that's exactly my advice to you.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shanghaiski on May 06, 2013, 02:07:20 PM
Christ is risen!
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?  

  I consider this statement right here to be very disturbing.
I'm sure you do: most people who take gray as they favorite color usually are disturbed by certitude.


Perhaps Daedelus was feeling so symbolic, perhaps brought on by needing help to believe in anything, and no doubt also flying too close to the sun.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on May 06, 2013, 03:04:02 PM
Christ is risen!
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?  

  I consider this statement right here to be very disturbing.
I'm sure you do: most people who take gray as they favorite color usually are disturbed by certitude.

 A Church that has all the answers, that has no sense of wonder left, is apostate.  Because if we claim to have exhausted all the understanding of God and his works, how is that not blasphemy?

  I think you should seriously rethink your position.
Funny, that's exactly my advice to you.

If your Church has all the answers, explain to me how eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.  Explain, in detail, the change from bread and wine to the Son of God.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: stanley123 on May 06, 2013, 03:22:57 PM
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?
Since the Church has all the answers, what does it teach about intelligent life in outer space? Has God sent His Son to them, or would it be something else?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 06, 2013, 03:25:03 PM

Christ is risen!
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?  

  I consider this statement right here to be very disturbing.
I'm sure you do: most people who take gray as they favorite color usually are disturbed by certitude.

 A Church that has all the answers, that has no sense of wonder left, is apostate.  Because if we claim to have exhausted all the understanding of God and his works, how is that not blasphemy?

  I think you should seriously rethink your position.
Funny, that's exactly my advice to you.

If your Church has all the answers, explain to me how eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.  Explain, in detail, the change from bread and wine to the Son of God.
So this would vindicate changing a man into a woman?

How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?
Since the Church has all the answers, what does it teach about intelligent life in outer space? Has God sent His Son to them, or would it be something else?
Are you saying that transsexuals are aliens?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: stanley123 on May 06, 2013, 09:31:31 PM
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?
Since the Church has all the answers, what does it teach about intelligent life in outer space? Has God sent His Son to them, or would it be something else?
Are you saying that transsexuals are aliens?
Unlike you and your Church, I don't have the answer.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 10, 2013, 10:37:04 AM
Honestly that just seems like a sentimental justification for denominational indifference.

   I do think denominational issues matter alot but above ecclessiology must be Christology, because there is no Church without Christ. And Christ being at the right hand of Father is certainly capable of raising up children for God from stones.  Ecclessiology is important, but it's not the most important thing for us as human beings. It cannot be made into an idol.


  I used to be on the other side of this fence, a very high ecclessiology at one time in my life, almost exclusive.  And now I'm not.  Because it doesn't square with the nature of God I see revealed in the Bible or the God that I encounter in the lives of fellow Christians. 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Deep Roots on May 15, 2013, 04:18:08 PM
How about where the Church knows it has all the answers?
Since the Church has all the answers, what does it teach about intelligent life in outer space? Has God sent His Son to them, or would it be something else?
HERESY!!!!!!  ;)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 15, 2013, 06:12:13 PM
Honestly that just seems like a sentimental justification for denominational indifference.

   I do think denominational issues matter alot but above ecclessiology must be Christology, because there is no Church without Christ. And Christ being at the right hand of Father is certainly capable of raising up children for God from stones.  Ecclessiology is important, but it's not the most important thing for us as human beings. It cannot be made into an idol.
Only a false church can be made into an idol, as the One True Church (and yes, there is only one) is the Body of Christ.

I used to be on the other side of this fence, a very high ecclessiology at one time in my life, almost exclusive.  And now I'm not.  Because it doesn't square with the nature of God I see revealed in the Bible or the God that I encounter in the lives of fellow Christians. 
so you have fashioned an idol in your own image and likeness.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on May 16, 2013, 03:12:15 PM
Honestly that just seems like a sentimental justification for denominational indifference.

   I do think denominational issues matter alot but above ecclessiology must be Christology, because there is no Church without Christ. And Christ being at the right hand of Father is certainly capable of raising up children for God from stones.  Ecclessiology is important, but it's not the most important thing for us as human beings. It cannot be made into an idol.
Only a false church can be made into an idol, as the One True Church (and yes, there is only one) is the Body of Christ.

I used to be on the other side of this fence, a very high ecclessiology at one time in my life, almost exclusive.  And now I'm not.  Because it doesn't square with the nature of God I see revealed in the Bible or the God that I encounter in the lives of fellow Christians. 
so you have fashioned an idol in your own image and likeness.

To build on Isa's post, but with less polemics, he points out a very important fact, one I kept running my head in to when I was in very much the same mind-set you describe being in now.

The Church is the Body of Christ. This means that ecclesiology cannot be distinguished from Christology, rather that ecclesiology is a sub-section of Christology. What we teach about the Church has very important implications about our teachings on the Incarnation.

Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 16, 2013, 03:26:57 PM
The Church is the Body of Christ. This means that ecclesiology cannot be distinguished from Christology, rather that ecclesiology is a sub-section of Christology. What we teach about the Church has very important implications about our teachings on the Incarnation.

   That sort of logic sounds very self-serving and after-the-fact.  You are basicly saying that if you don't believe the Orthodox are the exclusive vehicle of salvation, you are a gnostic.  I'm not sure that follows.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 16, 2013, 03:30:36 PM
The Church is the Body of Christ. This means that ecclesiology cannot be distinguished from Christology, rather that ecclesiology is a sub-section of Christology. What we teach about the Church has very important implications about our teachings on the Incarnation.

   That sort of logic sounds very self-serving and after-the-fact.  You are basicly saying that if you don't believe the Orthodox are the exclusive vehicle of salvation, you are a gnostic.  I'm not sure that follows.

Care to elaborate on that?  How does gnosticism play into his statement?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on May 16, 2013, 03:31:40 PM
The Church is the Body of Christ. This means that ecclesiology cannot be distinguished from Christology, rather that ecclesiology is a sub-section of Christology. What we teach about the Church has very important implications about our teachings on the Incarnation.

   That sort of logic sounds very self-serving and after-the-fact.  You are basicly saying that if you don't believe the Orthodox are the exclusive vehicle of salvation, you are a gnostic.  I'm not sure that follows.

It might sound that way, but, for me, it was very before the fact. It took me several years after realizing that ecclesiology was directly tied to Christology to figure out who had the ecclesiology that properly fit in with Christology.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 16, 2013, 04:20:44 PM
  That sort of logic sounds very self-serving and after-the-fact.  You are basicly saying that if you don't believe the Orthodox are the exclusive vehicle of salvation, you are a gnostic.  I'm not sure that follows.

  Can you give me some references to sources that convinced you that ecclessiology followed from christology?

  I have been meeting with a group of Orthodox Christians from an OCA parish and we discuss theology matters for a few weeks.  A priest that I know supervises the group and invited me to attend weeks ago.  I am impressed with the group because the people are relatively open-minded and there were many people that were intellectually gifted there and also took their faith very seriously.   At one of the groups, there were various questions raised about the subject of marriage and sexuality, and alot of disagreement on the subject.  And at another group, church mission and Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Church" were discussed.

  In my experience the average Episcopalian I've talked to isn't interested in that sort of thing- people just don't feel that those things are worth discussing and many don't have the intellectualism to approach these topics.  At best, they are very picky about liturgy, but theology is not so important.   Maybe this is an American phenomenon- I know in England there is more of an intellectual tradition attached to Anglicanism, and the former Archbishop of Canterburry, Rowan Williams, was an intellectual heavyweight.

  Of course, this is an OCA parish, and a theology group, where alot of the people come from a Reformed Presbyterian background and are intellectual to start out with.  In the future, I believe Christians will need to be more intellectually robust to be taken seriously- there will be alot of hostility to Christians in the future as the US secularizes, so it's something I'm thinking about.  I'm not an intellectual lightweight myself, but I am wondering what is the point to be in a church denomination where that sort of thing just is not appreciated.  
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on May 16, 2013, 05:41:37 PM
What is it with you and having a denomination "being taken seriously"? Nobody cares. Christ said Christians wouldn't be taken seriously.

Look for salvation and truth. Not "intellectual heavyweights."
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 16, 2013, 05:54:28 PM
  I'm postmodern and skeptical when it comes to "truth claims", so I am really doing what some other people have suggested- praying about it and trying to follow God.    I think its normal to be attracted to places where you find something that clicks with you where you feel like you are part of something and contributing.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on May 16, 2013, 06:01:41 PM
 I'm postmodern and skeptical when it comes to "truth claims", so I am really doing what some other people have suggested- praying about it and trying to follow God.    I think its normal to be attracted to places where you find something that clicks with you where you feel like you are part of something and contributing.


I understand. I really like pierogies, gyros and chickpeas.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on May 16, 2013, 09:07:08 PM
  That sort of logic sounds very self-serving and after-the-fact.  You are basicly saying that if you don't believe the Orthodox are the exclusive vehicle of salvation, you are a gnostic.  I'm not sure that follows.

  Can you give me some references to sources that convinced you that ecclessiology followed from christology?

Wow, you messed up the quote tag for that one  :laugh: I clicked reply after reading the response, understanding exactly what you meant to quote, only to get in the post window and think "I didn't say that, he did...."

It's kind of hard to give references to sources, given how omnivorous my reading was during this period, as well as the partying I was doing during the downtime I didn't spend researching church history- I took my play very seriously in those days, as the decimated remains of the Jameson and Skyy families can attest. Chesterton played a good deal into it, as did the various Church Fathers (by the time I made up my mind to seriously look into Orthodoxy I had read through the entirety of the Schaff Church Fathers series). Blog comments sections played a big part of it- Anglican blogs such as Rev. Kendall Harmon's t19- where many former Anglican Roman Catholic and Orthodox posters were able to get me thinking about my very branch theory version of ecclesiology.

Quote
 I have been meeting with a group of Orthodox Christians from an OCA parish and we discuss theology matters for a few weeks.  A priest that I know supervises the group and invited me to attend weeks ago.  I am impressed with the group because the people are relatively open-minded and there were many people that were intellectually gifted there and also took their faith very seriously.   At one of the groups, there were various questions raised about the subject of marriage and sexuality, and alot of disagreement on the subject.  And at another group, church mission and Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Church" were discussed.

  In my experience the average Episcopalian I've talked to isn't interested in that sort of thing- people just don't feel that those things are worth discussing and many don't have the intellectualism to approach these topics.  At best, they are very picky about liturgy, but theology is not so important.   Maybe this is an American phenomenon- I know in England there is more of an intellectual tradition attached to Anglicanism, and the former Archbishop of Canterburry, Rowan Williams, was an intellectual heavyweight.

This is almost an exclusively convert phenomenon. The ratio of intellectual cradle Orthodox is probably the same as intellectual cradle Episcopalians- which is not to knock the cradles of either denominations (more on this below).  Now, when it comes to converts.... this is not a jab, but it seems that converts to the Episcopalian Church seem to be of two stripes: You have intellectual Evangelicals who have read a lot of C.S. Lewis (guilty) and are probably only passing through to Lutheranism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy; and you have Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who, far from intellectually Christian, have joined the Episcopal Church to avoid having their spiritual conclusions questioned (the current PB is a prime example, if you will pardon the pun) or, for that matter to avoid having to make any spiritual conclusions at all.

Quote

  Of course, this is an OCA parish, and a theology group, where alot of the people come from a Reformed Presbyterian background and are intellectual to start out with.  In the future, I believe Christians will need to be more intellectually robust to be taken seriously- there will be alot of hostility to Christians in the future as the US secularizes, so it's something I'm thinking about.  I'm not an intellectual lightweight myself, but I am wondering what is the point to be in a church denomination where that sort of thing just is not appreciated.  
I don't think Christians need to be particularly intellectually robust- no more so than the rest of the world. To say otherwise would be truly gnostic- as if salvation or Christianity depended on knowledge! That said, for people who are already intellectually robust, it would indeed be a sin not to apply the intellect to Christianity- not for the sake of defending Christianity against the world, but to defend Christianity against oneself! The doctrines and dogmas need to be known and meditated upon (not understood- not even the most robust of intellects could ever hope to truly understand what happens at the Eucharist or in the Incarnation, or the Trinity). Were every Christian ever mere simple farmers who simply showed up at the parish, took Communion, and lived a Christian life, there would never have been need for councils. It is us intellectuals who created Arianism and the defense against Arianism, gnosticism and the defense, etc.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 16, 2013, 10:24:11 PM
   I've explored the idea  of the branch theory- frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of apostolicity being reduced to a bishop's magic hands on somebody, which is usually used to exclude Lutherans and so on.  But I'm also not all on board with the Orthodox ecclessiology either.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on May 16, 2013, 11:27:57 PM
  I've explored the idea  of the branch theory- frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of apostolicity being reduced to a bishop's magic hands on somebody, which is usually used to exclude Lutherans and so on.  But I'm also not all on board with the Orthodox ecclessiology either.
you seem to be on board the sinking ship of Protestant ecclesiology.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on May 17, 2013, 03:35:24 AM
  I've explored the idea  of the branch theory- frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of apostolicity being reduced to a bishop's magic hands on somebody, which is usually used to exclude Lutherans and so on.  But I'm also not all on board with the Orthodox ecclessiology either.

To build further upon my earlier post, what it really boiled down to was the idea that Christians need to be accountable, to Christ and to each other. A lot of the current problems within the Episcopal Church boil down to the fact that the current leadership do not see themselves as accountable- to the members of tEC, to the people they are supposedly in the Anglican Communion with, to their traditions and dogma, and not even to their own constitution and canons. The same problem exhibited itself in my own Evangelical upbringing- there was no Communion as such, just a bunch of different churches where anyone could go off and start a new church under the same denomination, just because they didn't like the current pastor, or because they didn't feel the church was mission focused enough, or because they felt the church was donating too much to missions, or because the local pet store owner happened to put money in the collection plate and that's a violation of Deuteronomy 23:18 (KJV- don't consider that too much of an outlier, such things actually happened in the South).

The members of the Church, as members of the Body of Christ, must be accountable. They must be willing to sacrifice their myriad private interpretations for their brothers' sake. They must be willing to submit to the presbyters of the Church, as St Paul says in many places. This goes for every member, from layman all the way up to the Archbishops, Patriarchs, etc- they are accountable to Holy Tradition, to the Faith Once Delivered.

The widespread denominationalism that has reigned since the Reformation is the furthest thing from the evidence of the New Testament as regards what the Church should be. We were called to all be one, as Our Lord and the Father are One. We are called to recognize that we cannot say to our brother "I do not need you" any more than a foot can say to the hand "get out of here!" Yet, that is exactly what the history of the Reformation is (though not to place undue blame upon Luther- he was perfectly willing to reconcile with Rome at first). Rome says to Luther "We don't need you," Calvin says to Luther and Rome, "I don't need you- Predestination is more important!" The Anabaptists didn't need the paedobaptists, Henry VIII didn't need Catherine, the Separatists didn't need the Church of England,and so on. It might be possible to recognize individual members of these groups as Christians (and I for one would be willing to engage in the weapon of choice at dawn anyone who would deny the Christianity of Lewis, Chesterton, Tolkien, or Billy Graham), it is absolutely impossible to recognize these groups as The Church.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 17, 2013, 04:37:24 AM
To build further upon my earlier post, what it really boiled down to was the idea that Christians need to be accountable, to Christ and to each other. A lot of the current problems within the Episcopal Church boil down to the fact that the current leadership do not see themselves as accountable- to the members of tEC, to the people they are supposedly in the Anglican Communion with, to their traditions and dogma, and not even to their own constitution and canons.  

  Do you know about the Diocese of Sydney?  tEC is not the only one that have been accused of not being accountable.

  How do you explain the multiple overlapping "jurisdictions" in Orthodoxy, some of which have significant barriers to unity and function in a quasi-denominational way?  Technically, Many Protestant bodies are in communion with each other in the same technical sense as the jurisdictions in Orthodoxy.

  I actually believe postmodernism will be beneficial for Christian unity because it will allow people to see the limitations of the overly precise theological distinctions that many churches make.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jmbejdl on May 17, 2013, 05:06:53 AM
  I've explored the idea  of the branch theory- frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of apostolicity being reduced to a bishop's magic hands on somebody, which is usually used to exclude Lutherans and so on.  But I'm also not all on board with the Orthodox ecclessiology either.

To build further upon my earlier post, what it really boiled down to was the idea that Christians need to be accountable, to Christ and to each other. A lot of the current problems within the Episcopal Church boil down to the fact that the current leadership do not see themselves as accountable- to the members of tEC, to the people they are supposedly in the Anglican Communion with, to their traditions and dogma, and not even to their own constitution and canons. The same problem exhibited itself in my own Evangelical upbringing- there was no Communion as such, just a bunch of different churches where anyone could go off and start a new church under the same denomination, just because they didn't like the current pastor, or because they didn't feel the church was mission focused enough, or because they felt the church was donating too much to missions, or because the local pet store owner happened to put money in the collection plate and that's a violation of Deuteronomy 23:18 (KJV- don't consider that too much of an outlier, such things actually happened in the South).

The members of the Church, as members of the Body of Christ, must be accountable. They must be willing to sacrifice their myriad private interpretations for their brothers' sake. They must be willing to submit to the presbyters of the Church, as St Paul says in many places. This goes for every member, from layman all the way up to the Archbishops, Patriarchs, etc- they are accountable to Holy Tradition, to the Faith Once Delivered.

The widespread denominationalism that has reigned since the Reformation is the furthest thing from the evidence of the New Testament as regards what the Church should be. We were called to all be one, as Our Lord and the Father are One. We are called to recognize that we cannot say to our brother "I do not need you" any more than a foot can say to the hand "get out of here!" Yet, that is exactly what the history of the Reformation is (though not to place undue blame upon Luther- he was perfectly willing to reconcile with Rome at first). Rome says to Luther "We don't need you," Calvin says to Luther and Rome, "I don't need you- Predestination is more important!" The Anabaptists didn't need the paedobaptists, Henry VIII didn't need Catherine, the Separatists didn't need the Church of England,and so on. It might be possible to recognize individual members of these groups as Christians (and I for one would be willing to engage in the weapon of choice at dawn anyone who would deny the Christianity of Lewis, Chesterton, Tolkien, or Billy Graham), it is absolutely impossible to recognize these groups as The Church.


+1
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 18, 2013, 08:29:40 AM
Great thread! The things I miss when I'm away from this board.

The original post (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,51101.0.html) seems to describe one faction in Anglicanism, the traditional Evangelicals/Low Churchmen, which is what the African conservatives are. Definitely Protestant. The jury's out in Anglicanism on whether the claim to apostolic bishops is necessary, as in the pre-'Reformation' churches, Catholicism and the East, or not (the Swedish Lutheran position; they claim the succession too, not recognized by Rome).

Growing up an Episcopalian (because my father left the Catholic Church before I was born), High Churchmen including good crypto-Catholics taught me the episcopate is necessary to be fully the church. (Ironically, because they're semi-congregational, meaning parishes have a lot of autonomy, they taught me good pre-Vatican II liturgics when the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it anymore; thanks.)

The original post describes classical 'Reformation' Anglicanism on Holy Communion and Holy Orders as the Anglican Articles of Religion teach.

Basically now in Anglicanism you have three factions; used to be four. The battle royale in the denomination is between the white First World (British and American) liberals and the conservative Evangelicals (such as their remaining Calvinists; most of the Africans and some of the Brits). The liberals won in the Episcopal Church; in England, a largely irreligious country, the liberals and Evangelicals are in a standoff in the Church of England. The liberals are a spectrum, high liturgically (they love our stuff) and often believing what we do about the sacraments BUT ranging in their beliefs from accepting the teachings of the creeds to agnosticism, etc.; they're all on board with women priests and gay marriage, which they believe are self-evident truths about justice, which is why they're not Catholic or Orthodox. The third faction is middle-of-the-road, sort of like ELCA Lutheran with whom the Episcopalians are now sort of merged, theologically and liturgically moderate. They're skewing more liberal now that the Episcopalians are voting out conservative beliefs. The fourth faction, crypto-Catholics, are mostly becoming Catholic now that it's clear they lost the battle for the denomination. They were called Anglo-Catholics; now, the high-church liberals are likely to use that moniker, confusing since the earlier A-Cs were doctrinally conservative, imitating Rome.

St Raphael of Brooklyn was right: you don't know who in a given moment you're dealing with.

Ecumenical talks:

Catholics and Orthodox: Do you believe X? (Meaning: Do you believe it's an essential part of the church that all the faithful must believe?)
Anglicans: Yes. (We allow it as an opinion but don't require it.)

The big difference from us Catholics and Orthodox is right in their Articles XIX and XXI: they believe the church is fallible therefore fungible, so they can and do change essentials by voting on them. Which is why they have women clergy and are about to have gay marriage. When you see that they believe in a fallible church, you realize their liberal moves in recent decades were inevitable. Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

By the way, it seems that most English Calvinists including the Anglicans lost their faith at the 'Enlightenment'. Lots of America's founding fathers, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were unbelieving nominal Anglicans. The Sixties only made it more obvious.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy have slightly different approaches to the same one-true-church claim. There is an allowable hardline Catholic opinion that all non-Catholics are going to hell. But Catholicism teaches that the Orthodox have grace: real bishops, real Mass. The Orthodox, on the other hand, allow the opinion that since the schism, Catholicism has been a fraud; you don't have to believe that but you may.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on May 18, 2013, 10:52:08 AM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.

Don't buy that triumphalist nonsense. They might be outside of the Church but they still love God and do good deeds. That is defininitely an act of Holy Spirit. Boundaries of the Church are not boundaries of Grace.

Loving God and doing good deeds isn't the point.  Have a look at these verses from Scripture:

1.  2 Corinthians 11:4  "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough."

2.  Mark 7:9  "And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"

3.  Galatians 1:6  "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--"

4.  1 Timothy 1:3  "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer."

  St. Theophan the Recluse wrote an excellent little book titled, "Preaching Another Christ." that I highly recommend.  Simply because a group can claim that they 'love God and do good deeds' doesn't mean anything.  If Eastern Orthodoxy isn't the only Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, then what's the point of fighting for it?   Protestants may invoke the Apostles' names, but the Apostles themselves have nothing to do with them.  Truth isn't triumphalist nonsense.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 18, 2013, 11:58:11 AM
Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

  I don't think that's necessarily true for Episcopalians, but only time will tell: a few years ago the tEC refused to ordain a priest named Thew Forrester to the Episcopate.  Rev. Forrester had experience as a Zen master in addition to being an Episcopal priest and it heavily influenced his theology to the point that he had a low view of human depravity, and  Forrester's views of sin seemed to merge too much with Buddhist concepts of illusion.  The reason they did so was because he seemed to deny the traditional doctrine of sin and our need for redemption.   I see this as a positive step, a denomination known for accomodation finally taking some kind of stand.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 01:49:27 AM
Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

  I don't think that's necessarily true for Episcopalians, but only time will tell: a few years ago the tEC refused to ordain a priest named Thew Forrester to the Episcopate.  Rev. Forrester had experience as a Zen master in addition to being an Episcopal priest and it heavily influenced his theology to the point that he had a low view of human depravity, and  Forrester's views of sin seemed to merge too much with Buddhist concepts of illusion.  The reason they did so was because he seemed to deny the traditional doctrine of sin and our need for redemption.   I see this as a positive step, a denomination known for accommodation finally taking some kind of stand.

My statement stands. That they chose not to consecrate him doesn't mean they won't consecrate someone like him someday. The fact that John Spong remains a retired bishop in good standing points to that.

I think mainline apostasy is just about inevitable and will be subtle, like how many people think their Unitarian offshoot is still Christian. Ever since the 1920s fundamentalist/Modernist wars in some mainline denominations and ever since the Sixties, the mainline's just about caught up with it. Denomination by denomination they will vote to make belief in the teachings of the creeds optional, but won't tell Grandma she can't believe in Jesus. Since locally they've been disregarded for so long, hardly anybody will notice the difference.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jewish voice on May 19, 2013, 04:10:51 AM
The short way to understand Anglicanism is anything goes and if not Anglican's will vote it in or vote it out. Question is can we even call Anglican's an "ism" anymore
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 09:06:59 AM
The short way to understand Anglicanism is anything goes and if not Anglican's will vote it in or vote it out. Question is can we even call Anglican's an "ism" anymore

Yup. William F. Buckley Jr., a Catholic, once quipped that, after Anglicanism more openly liberalized in the Sixties, no one from the Pope to Mao Tse-Tung could be sure he is not an Anglican.

You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy. So, sort of like the British acting like Dunkirk was a victory, they claim the now non-religious liberals are still in some sense liberal Christians like them. Numbers, schnumbers; only bigoted conservative Christians keep count. And/or they blame their decline, their now being passé in society, on... not being liberal enough. So you get books and articles such as Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Episcopalianism took that and its Anglo-Catholic movement (really dating from the late 1800s) and has tried to reinvent/market itself as a 'cool' Catholicism for 'thinking people', different from old-school Anglo-Catholicism, which doctrinally imitated Catholicism. This has both conservative (they like our stuff, our liturgies, our classical music; they don't necessarily worship like Catholic liberals; in contrast, liberal high church is nearly unknown in Catholicism) and of course liberal aspects (now they have divorce and remarriage, have women clergy, and approve homosexuality). That's why many Episcopal priests go by 'Father' and say they're not Protestants. They're not fundamentalists and are liturgical and sacramental. Not wannabe Catholics like the old A-Cs but sort of Catholic on their own terms, which Catholicism thinks is contradictory. But ex-Protestant liberals don't buy it... and neither do one of the Episcopalians' target markets, American Catholics such as the many lapsed or who don't accept all the church's teachings. Even when they're told what they want to hear, such people know better and don't fall for this. They're more likely to stay lax/lapsed or just leave and not go somewhere else. (Easier now in America, where no one cares anymore if you go to church.)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 19, 2013, 01:53:49 PM
You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy.  

  There's more diversity in the Episcopal Church than your broad-brush appraisal allows.  

  There is a huge amount of individualism in tEC (like the rest of American mainline Protestantism) but to characterize it all as a capitulation to political correctness is silly.

  Look, the largest growth in US Christianity has been among people that think that Christianity is best practiced as voodoo- I'm speaking of the worst excesses of Pentecostalism and the Word of Faith movement.  In that respect, the fact the Episcopal Church is in decline doesn't say much against the Episcopal Church, it speaks rather to a culture that wants a religion of power and control but not responsibility or sacrifice.  The Episcopal Church is not so distant from the Orthodox Church in comparison.  Both present relatively thoughtful, deep spiritualities and expressions of the Christian faith in comparison to the faddishness of most churches.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 02:34:44 PM
You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy.  

  There's more diversity in the Episcopal Church than your broad-brush appraisal allows.  

  There is a huge amount of individualism in tEC (like the rest of American mainline Protestantism) but to characterize it all as a capitulation to political correctness is silly.

  Look, the largest growth in US Christianity has been among people that think that Christianity is best practiced as voodoo- I'm speaking of the worst excesses of Pentecostalism and the Word of Faith movement.  In that respect, the fact the Episcopal Church is in decline doesn't say much against the Episcopal Church, it speaks rather to a culture that wants a religion of power and control but not responsibility or sacrifice.  The Episcopal Church is not so distant from the Orthodox Church in comparison.  Both present relatively thoughtful, deep spiritualities and expressions of the Christian faith in comparison to the faddishness of most churches.

I know it's diverse. As I wrote earlier, that's thanks to its semi-congregationalism, which is why there were crypto-Catholics in it to teach me as a kid and why there are a very few such relative conservatives in it to this day, pretty much continuing the religion where I got my start. (I won't name names and places, in order to protect the holy.) But given the way the national denomination is going, for how much longer can they last? (That capitulation to political correctness is exactly what your national church is about; what's to stop it?) That's why those conservatives don't get too much sympathy from me. The Episcopal Church, just like the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, has the right to govern itself. If you choose to stay, liberalism's what you get.

Quote
In that respect, the fact the Episcopal Church is in decline doesn't say much against the Episcopal Church, it speaks rather to a culture that wants a religion of power and control but not responsibility or sacrifice.

Self-congratulatory liberal BS. Conservative churches have responsibility and sacrifice, and while they're losing people to secularism too (the Orthodox lose the third generation, who are less ethnic), they're not hemorrhaging members like you mainline denominations are.

Someone elsewhere observed that the mainline does relatively well where Christianity is still strong and conservative, living parasitically off conservative churches by taking in their liberal ex-members (ex-Catholics and ex-evangelicals), sort of a holding pen for them in places where churchgoing's still expected or people still habitually go to church for cultural reasons. Where the society's gone mostly secular, the mainline fails. It's passé. The liberals don't need it anymore. That's why your membership in blue-state America's cratered.

Quote
The Episcopal Church is not so distant from the Orthodox Church in comparison.  Both present relatively thoughtful, deep spiritualities and expressions of the Christian faith in comparison to the faddishness of most churches.

Sort of. Newman said to know history is to cease to be Protestant, so by reading the history and the church fathers with a really liberal open mind, and with old high-church Anglicanism's belief in the consensus of the pre-'Reformation' churches/Vincentian canon as a standard, you will come very close to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Your denomination's liberal high churchmen are like that, sharing with us belief in the teaching of the creeds, more or less the same views on the sacraments, and a love of our liturgies. But your belief in a fallible, fungible church ultimately make the Episcopal and other mainliners' way a dead end. You end up creating a God in your own image, by vote. Just like the Pentecostals and Word of Faithers you look down on (and criticize not without justification). 'Jesus of Narcissists.'

P.S. Interestingly the Episcopal Church's main rival for recruiting and retaining members isn't the Catholic Church but, competing for the rich white liberal spirituality demographic (baby-boomers), other English ex-Calvinist mainliners, the United Church of Christ (the Pilgrims gone granola) and their non-Christian offshoot, the Unitarian Universalists.


Veiled profanity replaced with permissible alternative  -PtA
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 04:11:19 PM
^But your belief in a fallible, fungible church ultimately makes the Episcopal and other mainliners' way a dead end.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 19, 2013, 09:06:28 PM
   Hold on, Fogey... I talked to a group of Orthodox last week that told me that bishops can err, churches can err...   There's even prayers for the Church (why do that if it is infallible?) I don't think that's different from what the Anglicans say about themselves.   Somebody even pointed out Maximos the Confessor as a good example of everybody getting it wrong.  I think something similar is happening in the Episcopal Church.  But I'm not convinced this suddenly makes the whole thing illegitimate, or hopeless.  I'm willing to continue to study the issue though and hear more sides of it.  My own hope is maybe like in the Church of England, evangelicals can take back the denomination somewhat.  Perhaps that's not realistic.  I do think the decisions that some of the diocese made around 2003-2005 to leave over Gene Robinson were very unfortunate, they have only weakened the conservative voice in the church further, and not really lead to those groups being accepted by the Anglican Communion as a whole.  Probably why more conservatives have not left, because there's nowhere for them to go.

  By the way, I'm accomodating of gay people in the Church and even ministry.  Not exactly a liberal like +Schori but I don't agree that this is an issue the Bible is absolutely clear about, i'm open to listening to theologians debate this.  Having said that, I'm not a fan of political correctness for its own sake, and I do wonder if the church can keep up a Christian identity if it keeps trying to be indiscriminately inclusive of every possible viewpoint.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 09:34:07 PM
  Hold on, Fogey... I talked to a group of Orthodox last week that told me that bishops can err, churches can err...   There's even prayers for the Church (why do that if it is infallible?) I don't think that's different from what the Anglicans say about themselves.   Somebody even pointed out Maximos the Confessor as a good example of everybody getting it wrong.  I think something similar is happening in the Episcopal Church.  But I'm not convinced this suddenly makes the whole thing illegitimate, or hopeless.  I'm willing to continue to study the issue though and hear more sides of it.  My own hope is maybe like in the Church of England, evangelicals can take back the denomination somewhat.  Perhaps that's not realistic.  I do think the decisions that some of the diocese made around 2003-2005 to leave over Gene Robinson were very unfortunate, they have only weakened the conservative voice in the church further, and not really lead to those groups being accepted by the Anglican Communion as a whole.  Probably why more conservatives have not left, because there's nowhere for them to go.

  By the way, I'm accommodating of gay people in the Church and even ministry.  Not exactly a liberal like +Schori but I don't agree that this is an issue the Bible is absolutely clear about, i'm open to listening to theologians debate this.  Having said that, I'm not a fan of political correctness for its own sake, and I do wonder if the church can keep up a Christian identity if it keeps trying to be indiscriminately inclusive of every possible viewpoint.

Very Anglican; well put (that famous English well-spokenness) but I'm not buying. Many/most here say the Catholic Church erred and left the Orthodox Church but that Orthodoxy is infallible. I can't imagine educated real Orthodox saying the church is fallible.

Literally, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and I imagine conservative Protestantism, are 'accommodating of gay people'. When I was a child, conservative Christians told me not to pick on homosexuals (vs. 'that's so gay' learned on the playground). I've known several people who were gay, and Catholic, but don't call them gay Catholics. Of course 'accommodating of gay people' really means 'changing teaching so homosexuality's not a sin but something good'. No sale.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 19, 2013, 09:42:47 PM
Fogey, it seems to me if you think the essential bit of being a Christian is making sure homosexuality is always regarded as a sin, and not just a sin but a sin that is so vile it prohibits a person from participating in holy orders, something is very, very wrong with your spiritual formation.

  This issue is blowing apart the Anglican world.  Its sad too ,because I don't think honestly alot of conservative Anglicans would measure up to Orthodox standards of ascesis, judging by their waistlines.  The whole debate exposes how much the church has become infested with cultural concerns, conservative or liberal - that issue, and that alone, is perhaps the most damning.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 09:46:12 PM
If this is how the mainline approaches a logical argument, no wonder your seminary in Chicago went out of business.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 19, 2013, 11:24:11 PM
Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on May 20, 2013, 12:13:01 AM
Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool 8)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 20, 2013, 12:20:11 AM
Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool 8)

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 20, 2013, 08:04:41 AM
Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool 8)

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Huh?  Most of the Catholics I know have a very strange mixture religious and secular beliefs.  I know very few Catholics that don't use contraception (obviously in contrast to what the church teaches).  Many of them are divorced and remarried and some of the don't even believe in transubstantiation.  While the church takes a more conservative stance, many adherents in the US are no different than Episcopalians, unfortunately.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 20, 2013, 08:43:20 AM
Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool 8)

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Huh?  Most of the Catholics I know have a very strange mixture religious and secular beliefs.  I know very few Catholics that don't use contraception (obviously in contrast to what the church teaches).  Many of them are divorced and remarried and some of the don't even believe in transubstantiation.  While the church takes a more conservative stance, many adherents in the US are no different than Episcopalians, unfortunately.

Of course. Most Catholics don't live up to the teachings. Many say they don't agree with the teachings. (Like lots of ethnic Orthodox aren't religious.) But I mean something a little different. High-culture lovers of classical music and great art who are high-church, preferring the Tridentine Mass, the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom/St Basil, and the King James Bible and old Book of Common Prayer to a modernized guitar Mass, and are liberal in principle, not just practice, about divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and women clergy are almost exclusively Anglican, particularly Episcopal (the official American Anglicans). They are almost unknown in American Catholicism.

American Catholics tend to run liturgically conservative/socially and politically conservative (religious Americans generally are more likely to be Republicans now) or liturgically/socially/politically liberal. (The number of American Catholic Obama supporters who love the Tridentine Mass must be microscopic.)

Because of all the land in Manhattan that the British king/queen deeded to Trinity Church, Wall Street, the Episcopal Church is still America's richest denomination and would remain so even if nobody goes there anymore.

Before upper-class WASPs went all granola after the Sixties, Episcopalians used to be good Masonic secular Republicans. People like America's founding fathers, many of whom were Episcopalians and Masons. Episcopalianism's long been a home to 'Enlightenment' skeptic gentlemen who want to promote mannerly WASP values and think religion is good for society even if it's not true. I don't agree with them on religion but politically they were great. Old-school, old-republic, small-government, laissez-faire capitalists. Barry Goldwater, a conservative but secular, was one of them (his father was Jewish as he sometimes pointed out) and was their man; I would have voted for him.

An exception: Anglo-Catholics, as part of their imitation of Rome, often were politically left-wing, imitating Catholic social teaching (really opinion), believing in a kind of holy socialism, a lot like the leftism fashionable among the Catholic and mainline Protestant churchy today, but economically left-wing, socially right-wing, like official Catholic opinion now. Welfare state but family-values and anti-abortion (until the middle of the last century, all Christians agreed with Catholicism on sexual issues).

Anglicanism, with its mix of conservative high culture and liberal values, has long appealed to male homosexuals, particularly Anglo-Catholicism despite its former conservatism imitating Rome. (Because of its colorful ceremonies.) There are downtown Episcopal churches that are now hangouts for them; no women (except maybe some of the paid singers in the choir, who might not be parishioners) and no kids. A reason Anglo-Catholicism's lasting effect was to turn Episcopalianism into liberal high churchmanship.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 20, 2013, 08:52:58 AM
If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

   I don't necessarily think Orthodox or Catholics that regard homosexuality as a sin are bigoted.  The problem is that these subtleties are often lost.

  Trisagion's insights are largely what I see too... one of the reasons I never "jump ship" to Rome, besides the dubious papal claims, is because American Catholicism is just as individualistic and nominalist, maybe even moreso, than Episcopalianism.  The priests in America can be extremely liberal, no matter what Rome says, and Catholic liturgy is not particularly impressive now days.


Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2013, 10:31:22 AM
Well, in your American denomination the liberals won. Worldwide in your denomination it's a battle between two kinds of Protestantism, dueling biblical interpretations, one of which happens to still agree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. If you really think Catholicism and Orthodoxy are bigoted for not changing on homosexuality, then stop baiting an Orthodox board.

I don't mind him so much. Kind of reminds me of a younger me, when a different day of the week would see me radically liberal or reactionarily conservative. Of course, I kept my antics limited to titus19, but it's all cool 8)

Again, that's Episcopalianism's charm for Episcopalians. Liberal high church: the creeds, the sacraments and the traditional liturgy, but going along with secular culture on everything else. You can be divorced and remarried, use contraception and even be pro-abortion. Conservative or liberal, depending, in a mix that's unknown among American Catholics.

Huh?  Most of the Catholics I know have a very strange mixture religious and secular beliefs.  I know very few Catholics that don't use contraception (obviously in contrast to what the church teaches).  Many of them are divorced and remarried and some of the don't even believe in transubstantiation.  While the church takes a more conservative stance, many adherents in the US are no different than Episcopalians, unfortunately.

Of course. Most Catholics don't live up to the teachings. Many say they don't agree with the teachings. (Like lots of ethnic Orthodox aren't religious.) But I mean something a little different. High-culture lovers of classical music and great art who are high-church, preferring the Tridentine Mass, the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom/St Basil, and the King James Bible and old Book of Common Prayer to a modernized guitar Mass, and are liberal in principle, not just practice, about divorce and remarriage, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and women clergy are almost exclusively Anglican, particularly Episcopal (the official American Anglicans). They are almost unknown in American Catholicism.

American Catholics tend to run liturgically conservative/socially and politically conservative (religious Americans generally are more likely to be Republicans now) or liturgically/socially/politically liberal. (The number of American Catholic Obama supporters who love the Tridentine Mass must be microscopic.)

Because of all the land in Manhattan that the British king/queen deeded to Trinity Church, Wall Street, the Episcopal Church is still America's richest denomination and would remain so even if nobody goes there anymore.

Before upper-class WASPs went all granola after the Sixties, Episcopalians used to be good Masonic secular Republicans. People like America's founding fathers, many of whom were Episcopalians and Masons. Episcopalianism's long been a home to 'Enlightenment' skeptic gentlemen who want to promote mannerly WASP values and think religion is good for society even if it's not true. I don't agree with them on religion but politically they were great. Old-school, old-republic, small-government, laissez-faire capitalists. Barry Goldwater, a conservative but secular, was one of them (his father was Jewish as he sometimes pointed out) and was their man; I would have voted for him.

An exception: Anglo-Catholics, as part of their imitation of Rome, often were politically left-wing, imitating Catholic social teaching (really opinion), believing in a kind of holy socialism, a lot like the leftism fashionable among the Catholic and mainline Protestant churchy today, but economically left-wing, socially right-wing, like official Catholic opinion now. Welfare state but family-values and anti-abortion (until the middle of the last century, all Christians agreed with Catholicism on sexual issues).

Anglicanism, with its mix of conservative high culture and liberal values, has long appealed to male homosexuals, particularly Anglo-Catholicism despite its former conservatism imitating Rome. (Because of its colorful ceremonies.) There are downtown Episcopal churches that are now hangouts for them; no women (except maybe some of the paid singers in the choir, who might not be parishioners) and no kids. A reason Anglo-Catholicism's lasting effect was to turn Episcopalianism into liberal high churchmanship.
Please refrain from discussing politics on this thread. Thank you.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on May 20, 2013, 10:57:16 AM
Excuse me/простите меня; I thought this board was for grownups who can talk politely about American political history as it relates to American cultural and religious history. I'll never plug my politics here again.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 20, 2013, 11:07:42 AM
Excuse me/простите меня; I thought this board was for grownups who can talk politely about American political history as it relates to American cultural and religious history. I'll never plug my politics here again.

Nope, politics go to the politics board in the private forum.  You can discuss it to your hearts content in there.  All you need to do is PM Fr. George for access.  I believe you would enjoy the heated debates that go on in there.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 20, 2013, 11:16:49 AM
Excuse me/простите меня; I thought this board was for grownups who can talk politely about American political history as it relates to American cultural and religious history. I'll never plug my politics here again.
What you posted was borderline. I understand your intent. At the same time, though, you made some statements that could be perceived as partisan and enough reference to U.S. politics that, even if it wasn't partisan, others could have taken it that way and taken discussion of your post in directions not permitted on this board. I therefore posted my directive more to them than to you.

I am disturbed, though, by your response to my directive. Public questioning of, arguing with, or sarcastic backtalk in response to moderatorial directives (as appears to be the case here) is not permitted on OC.net and will draw harsh discipline if it continues. If you wish to offer any more response to my no-politics directive, then I ask that you take that up with me in private message. I will not permit any more discussion of my directive here.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 07, 2013, 02:27:26 PM
Great thread! The things I miss when I'm away from this board.

Funny you should say that ... I haven't been away from the board, but for some reason I didn't notice this thread until today.

Some good conversations on this thread.

The original post (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,51101.0.html) seems to describe one faction in Anglicanism, the traditional Evangelicals/Low Churchmen, which is what the African conservatives are. Definitely Protestant. The jury's out in Anglicanism on whether the claim to apostolic bishops is necessary, as in the pre-'Reformation' churches, Catholicism and the East, or not (the Swedish Lutheran position; they claim the succession too, not recognized by Rome).

Growing up an Episcopalian (because my father left the Catholic Church before I was born), High Churchmen including good crypto-Catholics taught me the episcopate is necessary to be fully the church. (Ironically, because they're semi-congregational, meaning parishes have a lot of autonomy, they taught me good pre-Vatican II liturgics when the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it anymore; thanks.)

The original post describes classical 'Reformation' Anglicanism on Holy Communion and Holy Orders as the Anglican Articles of Religion teach.

Basically now in Anglicanism you have three factions; used to be four. The battle royale in the denomination is between the white First World (British and American) liberals and the conservative Evangelicals (such as their remaining Calvinists; most of the Africans and some of the Brits). The liberals won in the Episcopal Church; in England, a largely irreligious country, the liberals and Evangelicals are in a standoff in the Church of England. The liberals are a spectrum, high liturgically (they love our stuff) and often believing what we do about the sacraments BUT ranging in their beliefs from accepting the teachings of the creeds to agnosticism, etc.; they're all on board with women priests and gay marriage, which they believe are self-evident truths about justice, which is why they're not Catholic or Orthodox. The third faction is middle-of-the-road, sort of like ELCA Lutheran with whom the Episcopalians are now sort of merged, theologically and liturgically moderate. They're skewing more liberal now that the Episcopalians are voting out conservative beliefs. The fourth faction, crypto-Catholics, are mostly becoming Catholic now that it's clear they lost the battle for the denomination. They were called Anglo-Catholics; now, the high-church liberals are likely to use that moniker, confusing since the earlier A-Cs were doctrinally conservative, imitating Rome.

St Raphael of Brooklyn was right: you don't know who in a given moment you're dealing with.

Ecumenical talks:

Catholics and Orthodox: Do you believe X? (Meaning: Do you believe it's an essential part of the church that all the faithful must believe?)
Anglicans: Yes. (We allow it as an opinion but don't require it.)

The big difference from us Catholics and Orthodox is right in their Articles XIX and XXI: they believe the church is fallible therefore fungible, so they can and do change essentials by voting on them. Which is why they have women clergy and are about to have gay marriage. When you see that they believe in a fallible church, you realize their liberal moves in recent decades were inevitable. Throughout mainline Protestantism, including them, apostasy, formal rejection of the teaching of the creeds, is only a vote away.

By the way, it seems that most English Calvinists including the Anglicans lost their faith at the 'Enlightenment'. Lots of America's founding fathers, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were unbelieving nominal Anglicans. The Sixties only made it more obvious.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy have slightly different approaches to the same one-true-church claim. There is an allowable hardline Catholic opinion that all non-Catholics are going to hell. But Catholicism teaches that the Orthodox have grace: real bishops, real Mass. The Orthodox, on the other hand, allow the opinion that since the schism, Catholicism has been a fraud; you don't have to believe that but you may.

Good post. Concerning the last paragraph, I'd like to add that the underlying similarity between Catholic and Orthodox views of ecumenism becomes much more apparent if you consider Catholic-thought-on-Catholicism-and-Orthodoxy and Orthodox-thought-on-EOism-and-OOism.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 07, 2013, 02:29:27 PM
So you all know where I'm coming from, I wouldn't leave Orthodoxy if I were in it; but I don't think I would join it.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 07, 2013, 02:29:52 PM
2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

I agree, wow.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 07, 2013, 02:31:51 PM
The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
POTM nomination.

I guess, but you realize you are considered to among the first Protestants around here?

What the !?

 >:(

I thought we were considered the first Protestants!
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 07, 2013, 02:34:43 PM
2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.

I agree, wow.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

FWIW, I have never met an Orthodox Christian irl that spewed such venom towards other Christians.  I disagree strongly w/ protestantism, but the language here is rather strong.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nephi on June 07, 2013, 03:49:37 PM
I agree, wow.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

Like TheTrisagion said, most Orthodox that I've met IRL are quite friendly - or at the very least indifferent - to other Christians in general.

I think, perhaps, this strong "anti-" mentality often seen online is more restricted to the internet than the real world. Likewise, I've seen strong views among (Latin) internet-Catholics, but they're nothing like the Catholics I actually meet (with the odd exception of some older folks). Protestants too, for the most part (some of them, though...).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 07, 2013, 04:08:01 PM
I agree, wow.

Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.

Like TheTrisagion said, most Orthodox that I've met IRL are quite friendly - or at the very least indifferent - to other Christians in general.

I think, perhaps, this strong "anti-" mentality often seen online is more restricted to the internet than the real world. Likewise, I've seen strong views among (Latin) internet-Catholics, but they're nothing like the Catholics I actually meet (with the odd exception of some older folks). Protestants too, for the most part (some of them, though...).

There are crazies in any religion.  The prots have Jack Chick, Bob Jones University and company.  Islamists have jihadists, RCs have SSPX, Orthodoxy has their kooks too.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 12, 2013, 07:42:11 AM
Fogey, it seems to me if you think the essential bit of being a Christian is making sure homosexuality is always regarded as a sin, and not just a sin but a sin that is so vile it prohibits a person from participating in holy orders, something is very, very wrong with your spiritual formation.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes me wonder why we even bother trying to have a dialogue.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 12, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Fogey, it seems to me if you think the essential bit of being a Christian is making sure homosexuality is always regarded as a sin, and not just a sin but a sin that is so vile it prohibits a person from participating in holy orders, something is very, very wrong with your spiritual formation.

This is the kind of rhetoric that makes me wonder why we even bother trying to have a dialogue.

Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person. Pope Benedict's point at Regensburg regarding Islam. The Western God is rational, asking man to conform himself to the reality God made. The Muslim God is crazy. The best you can get from such interfaith dialogue, and it's a long shot, is the infidels won't try to kill or enslave you anymore.

Classical Protestantism kept from Catholicism the ancient Greek philosophers' (Aristotle) understanding of reason as conforming yourself to reality. The 'Enlightenment' thinkers did too, even though they moved farther from the church. But the Protestants are founded on bad principles, private judgement. The Sixties blew the mainline open. Out went the country-club cultural conservatism (the Episcopalians as the Republicans at prayer); in went the modern Christian super-heresy of political correctness. Hello, Crazytown. Just like the Muslims.

So a rational conversation with them is now impossible. They FEEL feminism and homosexualism are self-evident truths (again, they're Christian heretics; they're trying to stand up for the oppressed), and if the Catholics and evangelicals disagree, they're just dumb bigots.

Dialogue with the Anglicans would make sense now if Britain were still like in the 1800s, with Catholics an oppressed minority (like Christian dhimmi in Muslim countries) under a powerful Anglican Church. Today the Anglicans have no power: they're Episcopalians and evangelicals duking it out in a small denomination in an irreligious country (Britain). So, yes, Catholics and Orthodox shouldn't waste their time with the Anglicans.

Again, among the Episcopalians you have liberal high church: they believe our creeds, they believe what we do about the sacraments, and, unlike Catholic liberals, they love our stuff (trad liturgies). But it's all on their Protestant private-judgement terms, not the church's. Again, they hold feminism and homosexualism to be self-evident. So they're not Catholic and not interested in becoming Catholic. You're talking to the followers of Crazytown's God. A waste.

There's the irony that Anglican congregationalism made Anglo-Catholic parishes possible, which at best kept a charming form of pre-conciliar Catholic practice when the Catholic Church wanted nothing to do with it anymore. But again, they're in a mainline Protestant denomination, Crazytown, so that couldn't last.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: primuspilus on June 12, 2013, 11:28:13 AM
Quote
The Western God is rational, asking man to conform himself to the reality God mad
LOL @ "The Western God"

PP
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 12, 2013, 11:53:43 AM
Quote
The Western God is rational, asking man to conform himself to the reality God mad
LOL @ "The Western God"

PP

Eastern Orthodoxy is only relatively Eastern, even though a minority is Middle Eastern. Russians and other Eastern Europeans are part of Western civilization.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: primuspilus on June 12, 2013, 12:09:29 PM
Quote
The Western God is rational, asking man to conform himself to the reality God mad
LOL @ "The Western God"

PP

Eastern Orthodoxy is only relatively Eastern, even though a minority is Middle Eastern. Russians and other Eastern Europeans are part of Western civilization.
Whatever makes you sleep better at night bud.

PP
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 12, 2013, 12:44:32 PM
Eastern Orthodoxy is only relatively Eastern, even though a minority is Middle Eastern. Russians and other Eastern Europeans are part of Western civilization.

Yes, exactly. 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on June 12, 2013, 12:54:20 PM
Classical Protestantism kept from Catholicism the ancient Greek philosophers' (Aristotle) understanding of reason as conforming yourself to reality. The 'Enlightenment' thinkers did too, even though they moved farther from the church. But the Protestants are founded on bad principles, private judgement. The Sixties blew the mainline open. Out went the country-club cultural conservatism (the Episcopalians as the Republicans at prayer); in went the modern Christian super-heresy of political correctness. Hello, Crazytown. Just like the Muslims.

Aristotle is bad and so is scholasticism.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 12, 2013, 01:05:07 PM
Classical Protestantism kept from Catholicism the ancient Greek philosophers' (Aristotle) understanding of reason as conforming yourself to reality. The 'Enlightenment' thinkers did too, even though they moved farther from the church. But the Protestants are founded on bad principles, private judgement. The Sixties blew the mainline open. Out went the country-club cultural conservatism (the Episcopalians as the Republicans at prayer); in went the modern Christian super-heresy of political correctness. Hello, Crazytown. Just like the Muslims.

Aristotle is bad and so is scholasticism.


Right, right, right, 'Western captivity' so back to Plato and the theologian of the week on the church fathers, yadda.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: orthonorm on June 12, 2013, 02:54:57 PM
Quote
The Western God is rational, asking man to conform himself to the reality God mad
LOL @ "The Western God"

PP

Eastern Orthodoxy is only relatively Eastern, even though a minority is Middle Eastern. Russians and other Eastern Europeans are part of Western civilization.
Whatever makes you sleep better at night bud.

PP

Except he is correct. I find it hilarious that people think there is some incredible difference between the metaphysical prejudices of a Russian for example and an American.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 12, 2013, 04:48:25 PM
Fogey,

I can sympathize with a lot of what you're saying (and I've read your statements on these issues over the years on many different message boards), but you seem to leaving out: (1) the large numbers of conservatives in the world wide Anglican Communion, particularly in the Global South, who are against the innovations of tEC and CoE; and (2) the smaller number of Continuing Anglicans, who are socially conservative and tend to jive with 'seven councils, seven sacraments', as per the Affirmation of St Louis.  What are your thoughts regarding either of these?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on June 12, 2013, 07:08:39 PM
Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

Henry VIII wanted a change of jurisdiction, with himself as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope. He favoured Catholic practices himself, and the Reformation didn't go far during his lifetime. More Protestant forms were adopted under Edward VI, when Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury. The definite turning point was probably the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. Mary I tried to reestablish Catholicism, so Elizabeth I swung further the other way when her turn came.

As for the CoE not allowing remarriage to divorcees... I said generally. It is left to the discretion of each vicar whether they are willing to perform the rite, and a great majority aren't. It would have made things much easier for me and my husband if they were.

I am sorry that you had such a bad experience.  Here in the U.S. the rule is that when a couple wishes to be married in an Episcopal parish and one or the other (or both I suppose) has been divorced the local Bishop must be informed and marriage counseling is required as a way to "Let's make sure that this time it works".  That was the case with an in-law of mine, so this is family knowledge. 

Ebor
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 01:05:35 AM
Fogey,

I can sympathize with a lot of what you're saying (and I've read your statements on these issues over the years on many different message boards), but you seem to leaving out: (1) the large numbers of conservatives in the world wide Anglican Communion, particularly in the Global South, who are against the innovations of tEC and CoE; and (2) the smaller number of Continuing Anglicans, who are socially conservative and tend to jive with 'seven councils, seven sacraments', as per the Affirmation of St Louis.  What are your thoughts regarding either of these?

1. As I mentioned, in England it's Episcopalians and evangelicals duking it out in the same denomination. The Global South: conservative but Protestant.

2. The Continuum: conservative but divided, a bunch of little sects. The conservative Presbyterians have their act together, forming the PCA. Ditto conservative Lutherans in the Missouri Synod. Not so with Continuing Anglicans.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Keble on June 13, 2013, 05:55:19 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening. The only reason why it hangs on more with ARCIC, I presume, is that there is a dissident Catholicism out there to be the other side of the argument.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 07:51:06 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told me, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening. The only reason why it hangs on more with ARCIC, I presume, is that there is a dissident Catholicism out there to be the other side of the argument.


Of course it broke down, because of the reality of Orthodoxy's, and Catholicism's, true-church claim and non-recognition of Anglican orders vs. the Anglican fantasy of church union like a denominational merger (such as yours with ELCA), with the Anglicans received in their orders, etc. Similarly, ARCIC is a Modernist Catholic fantasy from a distortion of the council, groundless in Catholic doctrine, fueled by the same Anglican fantasy that the Pope will stop being the Pope (undoing Apostolicæ Curæ, giving up church and papal infallibility) and the church will become a mainline denomination, voting for 'sensible' changes such as the ordination of women and homosexuality not being a sin.

The Global South and the Continuum don't realize that Anglicanism failed because of its features, not bugs. The same bad principle of a fallible, fungible church, the one that gave Henry VIII his annulment. The Global South ordains women. What's to stop it 100 years from now from approving homosexuality? So re-creating a classic Anglicanism, as the Continuers try to do, makes no sense to Catholics and Orthodox.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 13, 2013, 08:01:10 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told me, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening. The only reason why it hangs on more with ARCIC, I presume, is that there is a dissident Catholicism out there to be the other side of the argument.


Of course it broke down, because the reality of Orthodoxy's, and Catholicism's, true-church claim and non-recognition of Anglican orders vs. the Anglican fantasy of church union like a denominational merger (such as yours with ELCA) with the Anglicans remaining in their orders, etc. Similarly, ARCIC is a Modernist Catholic fantasy from a distortion of the council, groundless in Catholic doctrine, fueled by the same Anglican fantasy that the Pope will stop being the Pope (undoing Apostolicæ Curæ, giving up church and papal infallibility) and the church will become a mainline denomination, voting for 'sensible' changes such as the ordination of women and homosexuality not being a sin.

The Global South and the Continuum don't realize that Anglicanism failed because of its features, not bugs. The same bad principle of a fallible, fungible church, the one that gave Henry VIII his annulment. The Global South ordains women. What's to stop it 100 years from now from approving homosexuality? So re-creating a classic Anglicanism, as the Continuers try to do, makes no sense to Catholics and Orthodox.

There has been no denominational merger with the ELCA.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 08:15:43 AM
The Episcopal Church and ELCA still exist as such with separate minister rosters but mutual recognition of orders, thus interchangeability. An Episcopal priest can take a job as an ELCA pastor and remain an Episcopal priest, and vice versa.

The Anglican ecumenical fantasy about Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy would have intercommunion with them, giving up the true-church claim. The Anglicans would remain as they were, much as with ELCA now. When Catholicism and Orthodoxy do ecumenical talks with Protestants, it's with the understanding that the Protestants would eventually join Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Our ecumenism is you-come-in-ism. The true-church claim.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2013, 08:42:09 AM
The Anglican ecumenical fantasy about Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy would have intercommunion with them, giving up the true-church claim.

That's not pure fantasy: Rome already has intercommunion with the PNCC and the ACoE (and would be willing with the Orthodox).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2013, 08:49:13 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

My immediate reaction to this is "Tell me about it!" (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/ani/ouch.gif) But maybe that's a little unfair -- I know we Catholic can be pretty bad in our own way. (I'll leave it up to you, if you want to say that you Anglicans are better.  :angel:)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 08:56:29 AM
The Anglican ecumenical fantasy about Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy would have intercommunion with them, giving up the true-church claim.

That's not pure fantasy: Rome already has intercommunion with the PNCC and the ACoE (and would be willing with the Orthodox).

Not exactly. Not like mainline Protestants do with each other. Namely, the Catholic Church doesn't give Catholics blanket permission to receive from those churches. They may ONLY if there's no Catholic church or priest available. Which also applies to approaching the Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. As for Polish National Catholics (a century-old immigrant schism in America) and non-Catholic Eastern church members, Catholicism gives never-Catholic members such as born members the benefit of the doubt and does give them blanket permission to receive. The instruction on such for Catholic parishes is nice, though, and encourages such to obey their own churches. The PNCC gives its people the same emergency permission that Catholicism gives Catholics; I think the ACoE is unique among Eastern churches in having open Communion or something close to it.

Catholic/Orthodox ecumenism naturally stalemates too: the true-church claims collide. One side would have to give in to the other. Best you can realistically hope for is an acknowledgement of all you have in common, and joint work on social/culture-wars issues such as abortion and homosexualism. The Russian bishops' approach now.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 13, 2013, 09:02:00 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but it is kinda like a kid in school complaining that math class is not productive because all the teacher wants to do is talk and not listen.  It's kinda the teacher's job to teach just like its kinda the Orthodox Church's job to instruct on the correct path. 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 09:28:17 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but it is kinda like a kid in school complaining that math class is not productive because all the teacher wants to do is talk and not listen.  It's kinda the teacher's job to teach just like its kinda the Orthodox Church's job to instruct on the correct path. 

If you believe the church is fallible, as Anglicanism's Articles XIX and XXI teach, that sounds arrogant, but if you believe a true-church claim it makes sense and is well put. Thanks.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Keble on June 13, 2013, 10:48:01 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but it is kinda like a kid in school complaining that math class is not productive because all the teacher wants to do is talk and not listen.  It's kinda the teacher's job to teach just like its kinda the Orthodox Church's job to instruct on the correct path. 

I'm sure every Anglican theologian felt the same way.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 11:04:43 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but it is kinda like a kid in school complaining that math class is not productive because all the teacher wants to do is talk and not listen.  It's kinda the teacher's job to teach just like its kinda the Orthodox Church's job to instruct on the correct path. 

I'm sure every Anglican theologian felt the same way.


Right, whether it's strict like the hardline Orthodox and Fr Feeney, subsistit in, 'we do not know where the church is not' like most Catholics and nice ecumenical Orthodox, or branch-theory Anglican, we're dealing with rival true-church claims. You once nailed it: the popular imagination in the '60s about ecumenism, that church union will happen, was wrong. The best we call can come to is understanding the other sides' teachings and no longer trying to kill or literally hurt each other. Missionizing among the other sides is fair game. Catholicism has the ordinariates; you have your Hispanic outreach. Free country. Fair enough.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: augustin717 on June 13, 2013, 11:33:04 AM
Quote
Best you can realistically hope for is an acknowledgement of all you have in common, and joint work on social/culture-wars issues such as abortion and homosexualism. The Russian bishops' approach now.
The russian bishops need no pope to take care of those 'issues". they only need a putin.
I also believe that this christianity obsessing over these 2 issues is a psych-analyzable phenomenon.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 11:55:08 AM
Quote
Best you can realistically hope for is an acknowledgement of all you have in common, and joint work on social/culture-wars issues such as abortion and homosexualism. The Russian bishops' approach now.
The russian bishops need no pope to take care of those 'issues". they only need a putin.
I also believe that this christianity obsessing over these 2 issues is a psych-analyzable phenomenon.

Sounds like a slur from the anti-Christian mainstream and its mainline Protestant me-toos but there's a point. These are the church's last two fronts in the culture wars with a now anti-religious West, having lost or caved on everything else. You have a point, too, that these causes are often a substitute for a normal traditionalist liturgical church life that the Orthodox try to have and Catholics often don't anymore. Catholic trads tend not to be political fighters over these issues, though they agree with the conservative side. The Novus Ordo neocons are, alongside the Protestant right, such as it is (often it's just a boogeyman invented by the left).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Romaios on June 13, 2013, 11:57:23 AM
I also believe that this christianity obsessing over these 2 issues is a psych-analyzable phenomenon.

Insert Karl Kraus quote on psychoanalysis here.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 11:59:28 AM
I also believe that this christianity obsessing over these 2 issues is a psych-analyzable phenomenon.

Insert Karl Kraus quote on psychoanalysis here.

I don't know this reference.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on June 13, 2013, 12:03:09 PM
Keble, what would listening on the part of the Orthodox entail?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Romaios on June 13, 2013, 12:05:29 PM
I also believe that this christianity obsessing over these 2 issues is a psych-analyzable phenomenon.

Insert Karl Kraus quote on psychoanalysis here.

I don't know this reference.

"Psychoanalysis is the disease it purports to cure."
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 12:11:32 PM
Keble, what would listening on the part of the Orthodox entail?

I'm not Keble of course but it means the Orthodox taking Anglican instruction to become Anglicans.

Romaios, I like it! Thanks.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: augustin717 on June 13, 2013, 01:29:01 PM
On a related note YF you might be in tune with your church's teaching on abortion gays and even psychoanalysis . I really wonder what mental gymnastics are required to reconcile libertarianism with the same church's pronouncements on economic matters.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2013, 01:32:04 PM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but it is kinda like a kid in school complaining that math class is not productive because all the teacher wants to do is talk and not listen.  It's kinda the teacher's job to teach just like its kinda the Orthodox Church's job to instruct on the correct path. 

I'm sure every Anglican theologian felt the same way.


Right, whether it's strict like the hardline Orthodox and Fr Feeney, subsistit in, 'we do not know where the church is not' like most Catholics and nice ecumenical Orthodox, or branch-theory Anglican, we're dealing with rival true-church claims. You once nailed it: the popular imagination in the '60s about ecumenism, that church union will happen, was wrong. The best we call can come to is understanding the other sides' teachings and no longer trying to kill or literally hurt each other. Missionizing among the other sides is fair game. Catholicism has the ordinariates; you have your Hispanic outreach. Free country. Fair enough.

Missionizing is "fair game"? Once again you take a strangely negative view of things.

Naturally, we don't actually stop those who wish to leave Orthodoxy (or even Anglicanism) and come into communion with Rome, but we don't encourage them to do so, at least not officially. "We are not fishing in the Anglican pond." - Cardinal Kasper
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 13, 2013, 01:35:25 PM
augustin717: It's not doctrine and I'm just a layman. Nobody bothers me.

Peter J: Sure, one is polite about it but encouragement is fine.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 13, 2013, 03:01:03 PM
Peter J: Sure, one is polite about it but encouragement is fine.

I don't think the Balamand Statement was just politeness -- though of course many Catholics will quickly point out that it wasn't an official document from the Vatican (presumably meaning that they're free to ignore it).

Quote
"Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other"
- the Balamand Statement
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on June 13, 2013, 03:21:53 PM
On a related note YF you might be in tune with your church's teaching on abortion gays and even psychoanalysis . I really wonder what mental gymnastics are required to reconcile libertarianism with the same church's pronouncements on economic matters.

What pronouncements?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: augustin717 on June 13, 2013, 08:20:15 PM
On a related note YF you might be in tune with your church's teaching on abortion gays and even psychoanalysis . I really wonder what mental gymnastics are required to reconcile libertarianism with the same church's pronouncements on economic matters.

What pronouncements?
Rerum novarum, Quadragesimo anno, Centesimus Annus etc;  the so-called catholic social teaching ain't communism but it ain't libertarianism either.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on June 13, 2013, 08:38:18 PM
On a related note YF you might be in tune with your church's teaching on abortion gays and even psychoanalysis . I really wonder what mental gymnastics are required to reconcile libertarianism with the same church's pronouncements on economic matters.

What pronouncements?
Rerum novarum, Quadragesimo anno, Centesimus Annus etc;  the so-called catholic social teaching ain't communism but it ain't libertarianism either.

Oh. I thought he was Orthodox.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 12:44:36 AM
Right, Balamand's not doctrine. One reading of it I have no problem with: Catholicism's goal is corporate reunion, having ALL the Orthodox come in, so individual conversions aren't the main focus and Catholicism isn't trying to start more Uniate churches now either. Never-Catholic Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt so they're fine where they are.

Catholic social teaching: again not doctrine. A sort of sanctified welfare state, slightly socialist politically and economically, for peace (just-war teaching), but socially conservative (against abortion and homosexualism, for example). Doctrine's about the ends, the goals: peace, justice, charity, right to life. The church doesn't dogmatize on the political means to those ends. Monarchy, dictatorship, republic: it's all good. As long as it's trying to reach those goals and Catholics are free to worship.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 01:15:12 AM
The Episcopal Church and ELCA still exist as such with separate minister rosters but mutual recognition of orders, thus interchangeability. An Episcopal priest can take a job as an ELCA pastor and remain an Episcopal priest, and vice versa.

Precisely my point.  This is not a merger.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 01:16:14 AM
Right, it's like trying to have a discussion with a crazy person.

Well, a lot of mainstream Anglicans feel the same way in reverse, if for different reasons and less rudely (because, after all, we are Anglicans). Al Kimel told, ages ago, that Anglo-Orthodox "discussion" tended to break down because the Orthodox were only only interested in talking, not listening.

I'm sure I will get flamed for this, but it is kinda like a kid in school complaining that math class is not productive because all the teacher wants to do is talk and not listen.  It's kinda the teacher's job to teach just like its kinda the Orthodox Church's job to instruct on the correct path. 

That's his point.  There is no Anglo-Orthodox discussion, nor has there ever been.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 01:18:15 AM
Quote
Best you can realistically hope for is an acknowledgement of all you have in common, and joint work on social/culture-wars issues such as abortion and homosexualism. The Russian bishops' approach now.
The russian bishops need no pope to take care of those 'issues". they only need a putin.
I also believe that this christianity obsessing over these 2 issues is a psych-analyzable phenomenon.

Sounds like a slur from the anti-Christian mainstream and its mainline Protestant me-toos but there's a point. These are the church's last two fronts in the culture wars with a now anti-religious West, having lost or caved on everything else. You have a point, too, that these causes are often a substitute for a normal traditionalist liturgical church life that the Orthodox try to have and Catholics often don't anymore. Catholic trads tend not to be political fighters over these issues, though they agree with the conservative side. The Novus Ordo neocons are, alongside the Protestant right, such as it is (often it's just a boogeyman invented by the left).

Any Church that has "lost or caved on" homelessness, hunger, etc., is no Church at all.  You know, those things Christ said would separate the goats from the sheep...
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 01:23:24 AM
Right, Balamand's not doctrine. One reading of it I have no problem with: Catholicism's goal is corporate reunion, having ALL the Orthodox come in, so individual conversions aren't the main focus and Catholicism isn't trying to start more Uniate churches now either. Never-Catholic Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt so they're fine where they are.

Catholic social teaching: again not doctrine. A sort of sanctified welfare state, slightly socialist politically and economically, for peace (just-war teaching), but socially conservative (against abortion and homosexualism, for example). Doctrine's about the ends, the goals: peace, justice, charity, right to life. The church doesn't dogmatize on the political means to those ends. Monarchy, dictatorship, republic: it's all good. As long as it's trying to reach those goals and Catholics are free to worship.

Catholic social teaching isn't doctrine?  How about any of the Papal declarations listed here: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/foundational-documents.cfm

"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice." This is from Rerum Novarum, an encyclical issued by Pope Leo XIII.

Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: augustin717 on June 14, 2013, 01:26:02 AM
Traditionalists they have their own mechanisms of picking and choosing.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 01:29:25 AM
James Rottnek: Don't get your pedantic panties in a twist. Intercommunion and interchangeable ministers sure look like a merger to the few remaining in the pews.

Right, Anglo-Orthodox and Anglican-Catholic dialogue are impossible.

Spare me the mainline social-justice sermon. Your old enemy the Catholic Church shelters and feeds more people than your old liberal plutocrats at Trinity, Wall Street ever did.

augustin717: So do many Orthodox, what with economy. The church doesn't micromanage the laity.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 01:53:22 AM
James Rottnek: Don't get your pedantic panties in a twist. Intercommunion and interchangeable ministers sure look like a merger to the few remaining in the pews.

Right, Anglo-Orthodox and Anglican-Catholic dialogue are impossible.

Spare me the mainline social-justice sermon. Your old enemy the Catholic Church shelters and feeds more people than your old liberal plutocrats at Trinity, Wall Street ever did.

augustin717: So do many Orthodox, what with economy. The church doesn't micromanage the laity.

You aren't in the pews, so how would you know what those in the pews think about the agreement between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church?  I know many members of the ELCA, and attend an Episcopal Church with great regularity.  None of the people I know sees the situation as a "merger."  If it were a merger, there wouldn't be "intercommunion" any more than there is "intercommunion" between parishes of the Diocese of Arizona of the Episcopal Church. 

Also, in case you didn't notice, Pope Leo XIII was a Catholic, not mainline.  Also, sure, the Catholic Church feeds and shelters more people than the Episcopal Church....they also happen to be substantially larger.  What's your point?  The Catholic Church follows Catholic social teaching, that thing you don't believe in.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 02:02:58 AM
I wonder why it's so much bigger. Which one's the church and which one's the sect? Golly, you don't have to agree with me to be a good Catholic. I'm gonna go cry.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: FormerReformer on June 14, 2013, 02:06:00 AM
The Episcopal Church and ELCA still exist as such with separate minister rosters but mutual recognition of orders, thus interchangeability. An Episcopal priest can take a job as an ELCA pastor and remain an Episcopal priest, and vice versa.

Precisely my point.  This is not a merger.

Perhaps from a denominational understanding. From the point of view of ecclesiology as a sub-section of Christology and Theology, inter-communion and mutual recognition of orders makes these two churches basically autocephalous representations of one church. From an Orthodox or Roman Catholic POV the Episcopalians and Evangelical Lutherans would be analogous to the different Orthodox jurisdictions in America or to the Latin and Byzantine Rites of the Roman Catholic Church (although less so from the Roman Catholic perspective, communion with Rome being the focal point).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 02:14:40 AM
I wonder why it's so much bigger. Which one's the church and which one's the sect? Golly, you don't have to agree with me to be a good Catholic. I'm gonna go cry.

When did size become the determining factor in what a Church is? 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 02:20:18 AM
The Episcopal Church and ELCA still exist as such with separate minister rosters but mutual recognition of orders, thus interchangeability. An Episcopal priest can take a job as an ELCA pastor and remain an Episcopal priest, and vice versa.

Precisely my point.  This is not a merger.

Perhaps from a denominational understanding. From the point of view of ecclesiology as a sub-section of Christology and Theology, inter-communion and mutual recognition of orders makes these two churches basically autocephalous representations of one church. From an Orthodox or Roman Catholic POV the Episcopalians and Evangelical Lutherans would be analogous to the different Orthodox jurisdictions in America or to the Latin and Byzantine Rites of the Roman Catholic Church (although less so from the Roman Catholic perspective, communion with Rome being the focal point).

Exactly.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 14, 2013, 08:30:20 AM
James Rottnek: Don't get your pedantic panties in a twist. Intercommunion and interchangeable ministers sure look like a merger to the few remaining in the pews.

Right, Anglo-Orthodox and Anglican-Catholic dialogue are impossible.

Spare me the mainline social-justice sermon. Your old enemy the Catholic Church shelters and feeds more people than your old liberal plutocrats at Trinity, Wall Street ever did.

augustin717: So do many Orthodox, what with economy. The church doesn't micromanage the laity.

You aren't in the pews, so how would you know what those in the pews think about the agreement between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church?  I know many members of the ELCA, and attend an Episcopal Church with great regularity.  None of the people I know sees the situation as a "merger."  If it were a merger, there wouldn't be "intercommunion" any more than there is "intercommunion" between parishes of the Diocese of Arizona of the Episcopal Church.  

That's the thing though: it was (a union) and it wasn't. Seems kind of like two people getting married without any sense of commitment. (Lest you get the wrong idea, may I also point out that I'm also critical of those Catholics and Orthodox who have a no-fault-divorce attitude toward conversion.)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 08:38:14 AM
James Rottnek: Don't get your pedantic panties in a twist. Intercommunion and interchangeable ministers sure look like a merger to the few remaining in the pews.

Right, Anglo-Orthodox and Anglican-Catholic dialogue are impossible.

Spare me the mainline social-justice sermon. Your old enemy the Catholic Church shelters and feeds more people than your old liberal plutocrats at Trinity, Wall Street ever did.

augustin717: So do many Orthodox, what with economy. The church doesn't micromanage the laity.

You aren't in the pews, so how would you know what those in the pews think about the agreement between the ELCA and the Episcopal Church?  I know many members of the ELCA, and attend an Episcopal Church with great regularity.  None of the people I know sees the situation as a "merger."  If it were a merger, there wouldn't be "intercommunion" any more than there is "intercommunion" between parishes of the Diocese of Arizona of the Episcopal Church.  

That's the thing though: it was (a union) and it wasn't. Seems kind of like two people getting married without any sense of commitment. (Lest you get the wrong idea, may I also point out that I'm also critical of those Catholics and Orthodox who have a no-fault-divorce attitude toward conversion.)

Oh believe me, I wasn't trying to defend it.  I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.  They are still very, very much two distinct churches. 

I actually happen not to be a fan of the agreement, for the reasons you mentioned (and a few others that I don't feel it would be productive to get into in this thread).  Also, though I don't know about the wider Episcopal Church's view on the matter, my priest and quite a few of the parishioners at my parish are also less than enthusiastic about it, for a variety of reasons (the Lutherans that I know, on the other hand, generally seem very supportive).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 14, 2013, 08:52:25 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: James2 on June 14, 2013, 09:08:43 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on June 14, 2013, 09:11:34 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: James2 on June 14, 2013, 09:14:30 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.

But there is no requirement that Lutheran ministers be "re-ordained" by an Anglican bishop before they can minister to an Episcopal congregation.  They're all "grandfathered" in.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 09:17:00 AM
Fine, a union, though I agree with Former Reformer's Orthodox and Catholic view of it. Anyway, as James2 points out, of interest is it seems to settle what the Anglican view of the historic episcopate (their claim to apostolic succession) is. High churchmen including Anglo-Catholics usually believed it was essential to a true church; low churchmen believed it was optional. With the union, the Episcopal Church has moved Protestantwards. Like the Swedish Lutherans, it claims the episcopate but thinks it's optional. I know the new ELCA bishops and pastors now have the Episcopal claim. The point is the old non-episcopal ELCA pastors have been grandfathered in: Episcopal priests by fiat, without Episcopal ordination.

Had an interesting conversation with a history professor about this. He says the classical Anglicans and Carolines/Laudians were less Catholic about this than Anglo-Catholics thought. The old high churchmen really believed there is no mandated form of church government in the New Testament but if you have to choose a best one, it's bishops. Perfect political compromise: the king liked having bishops but needed Protestant Europe's support, so Anglicans diplomatically recognized its ministers.

Also, Anglican and Lutheran, including non-episcopal German and Danish Lutherans, and episcopal but no claim to succession Norwegian ones, have always been interchangeable, even before the 1930s intercommunion with the Church of Sweden and the recent Porvoo one with the others. That's why the colonial Swedes became Episcopalians after American independence and there are next to no Lutheran churches in Britain.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: primuspilus on June 14, 2013, 09:17:39 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 09:33:07 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

Correct.

Interesting and ironic because, except for the quirk of claiming the Catholic episcopate, Anglicanism was really in the Calvinist and Zwinglian camp of Protestantism, more radical than the relatively conservative, semi-Catholic classical and today's confessional Lutherans. About the Real Presence for example. European Lutherans kept more Catholic practices, such as Mass vestments, than Anglicans did: the conservative, non-mainline Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod officially defends using the crucifix and crossing yourself, because Luther kept them. The Anglicans didn't; 19th-century Anglo-Catholics started to bring them back with limited success. Today's Episcopalians are fine with those trappings. Liberal high church loves them; most Episcopalians put up with them but do not identify as Catholic. Nor do most Lutherans, left or right.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: primuspilus on June 14, 2013, 09:42:04 AM
Friggin confusing.

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

My church did have choice opinions about the ELCA, which should not be repeated, if there is to be a nice dialog here :)

PP
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 09:46:17 AM
Friggin confusing.

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

My church did have choice opinions about the ELCA, which should not be repeated, if there is to be a nice dialog here :)

PP

I was going to mention that about the sign of the cross. They defend it but hardly do it.

American Lutheran history: All the Scandinavian-American liberal churches eventually merged into ELCA. The Missouri Synod was founded by people who left Germany over the state watering down its Lutheran church, but it wasn't necessarily conservative until the Sixties (a reaction to that?), a result of which was the LCMS's liberals all leaving in the '70s for one of the Scandie mergers that became ELCA. ELCA: on average, slightly more conservative, less hoity-toity Episcopalians. LCMS: confessional Lutherans who want to keep distinctive, semi-Catholic classical Lutheranism vs. people who want to be American evangelicals.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nephi on June 14, 2013, 10:06:55 AM
Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: primuspilus on June 14, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.
Yeah, there is an "official" way, but I cant find a video on it. Ironically, a search on it only shows a bunch of ELCA's doing it.....

PP
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 10:28:17 AM
Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.

I have no idea if each Lutheran denomination has an official way to do it. Sounds like the pastor was trying to be high-church but didn't know how; you see Episcopal priests make mistakes like that. (And mainstream modern Catholic priests when they start to learn how to do the traditional Mass. They struggle with the Latin, and I saw one wear his hat while giving Communion.)

The older Orthodox crossing themselves is understandable. They saw what the pastor was trying to do and reacted out of habit. Theologically unschooled but their heart was in the right place. Many such are cultural Orthodox; it's part of being ethnic. They'd never leave but see Lutheranism as the same, just as good, but for Germans and Scandinavians, etc.

If I were visiting and in a good mood, I might give a never-Catholic Lutheran or Episcopal minister the benefit of the doubt and cross myself too, acknowledging that God can act through such. Not the same as going to Communion.

By the way, in bygone days the Episcopalians (wanting ancient apostolic cred and not getting it from the Catholics) invited the Orthodox bishops to their cathedral events and the Orthodox bishops or their priest representatives would happily sit in the clergy seats in the chancel, but not vested or participating. Except occasionally preaching: the first hierarch of ROCOR at the time, Metropolitan Anastassy, once gave the sermon at London's St Paul's Cathedral.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nephi on June 14, 2013, 10:35:17 AM
This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.

I have no idea if each Lutheran denomination has an official way to do it. Sounds like the pastor was trying to be high-church but didn't know how; you see Episcopal priests make mistakes like that. (And mainstream modern Catholic priests when they start to learn how to do the traditional Mass. They struggle with the Latin, and I saw one wear his hat while giving Communion.)

The older Orthodox crossing themselves is understandable. They saw what the pastor was trying to do and reacted out of habit. Theologically unschooled but their heart was in the right place. Many such are cultural Orthodox; it's part of being ethnic. They'd never leave but see Lutheranism as the same, just as good, but for Germans and Scandinavians, etc.

If I were visiting and in a good mood, I might give a never-Catholic Lutheran or Episcopal minister the benefit of the doubt and cross myself too, acknowledging that God can act through such. Not the same as going to Communion.

By the way, in bygone days the Episcopalians (wanting ancient apostolic cred and not getting it from the Catholics) invited the Orthodox bishops to their cathedral events and the Orthodox bishops or their priest representatives would happily sit in the clergy seats in the chancel, but not vested or participating.

I think I was unclear. I meant older Orthodox signing themselves in weird ways in general, not that there were older Orthodox present at the wedding (only myself).

But your comment about trying but not knowing how makes sense, and I suppose would fit. IIRC, I don't think he even wore any vestments, although this may be the Lutheran norm - I don't know.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 11:08:06 AM
This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.

I have no idea if each Lutheran denomination has an official way to do it. Sounds like the pastor was trying to be high-church but didn't know how; you see Episcopal priests make mistakes like that. (And mainstream modern Catholic priests when they start to learn how to do the traditional Mass. They struggle with the Latin, and I saw one wear his hat while giving Communion.)

The older Orthodox crossing themselves is understandable. They saw what the pastor was trying to do and reacted out of habit. Theologically unschooled but their heart was in the right place. Many such are cultural Orthodox; it's part of being ethnic. They'd never leave but see Lutheranism as the same, just as good, but for Germans and Scandinavians, etc.

If I were visiting and in a good mood, I might give a never-Catholic Lutheran or Episcopal minister the benefit of the doubt and cross myself too, acknowledging that God can act through such. Not the same as going to Communion.

By the way, in bygone days the Episcopalians (wanting ancient apostolic cred and not getting it from the Catholics) invited the Orthodox bishops to their cathedral events and the Orthodox bishops or their priest representatives would happily sit in the clergy seats in the chancel, but not vested or participating.

I think I was unclear. I meant older Orthodox signing themselves in weird ways in general, not that there were older Orthodox present at the wedding (only myself).

But your comment about trying but not knowing how makes sense, and I suppose would fit. IIRC, I don't think he even wore any vestments, although this may be the Lutheran norm - I don't know.

Sure, lots of born Catholics and Orthodox cross themselves funny.

Lutheran pastors sometimes wear vestments. Like sometimes they wear black suits and Roman collars just like Catholic priests; sometimes regular suits and ties like evangelical ministers. They're understandably confused. Sacramentally high but with a low theology of the pastorate, reacting against clerical corruption in Renaissance Germany. They don't believe ordination has an indelible character on the soul and they believe that it's functional: strictly, a pastor without a call is not a pastor, but in practice they recognize retired pastors. The pastorate is for good order but not essential to the sacraments; it's rare and frowned upon but they allow lay celebration of Communion for example. The conservative Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has had groups of laywomen do it.

By the way, Evangelische means Lutheran in German.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: primuspilus on June 14, 2013, 11:15:43 AM
Vestments...I know my old church used to, and I think they still do for some things, but not everything....kind of like everything else in some Lutheran circles.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 11:27:29 AM
Vestments...I know my old church used to, and I think they still do for some things, but not everything....kind of like everything else in some Lutheran circles.

Right, there's a high-church/low-church spectrum of ceremonial and theology in Lutheranism.

Anglican Evangelicals weren't quite the same as American evangelicals either. The big E helps mark that. The low Church of Englanders were Congregational in their theology (bishops are nice but not necessary) but unlike American evos they were liturgical: cassock, surplice, black scarf, academic hood, and Morning Prayer and quarterly Communion according to the Prayer Book. Today they're mixed like the Lutherans, with copycat American evangelicalism winning.

Anglican liberals logically used to show their anti-Catholicism by caring little for ceremonial, minimalist like Evangelicals. But that started to change in the late 1800s, an effect of Anglo-Catholicism; by the '20s you have Modernists who were ceremonially high. Liberal high church. I'd say that took over Episcopalianism in the Sixties for a number of reasons: hippie shamanism, fashionable ecumenism with Catholics, in the war on the old America/diversityfest, ethnic Catholics were cool for five minutes before Roe v. Wade turned the Prots against us again. (You still sort of see it with Hispanic outreach: some Episcopalians celebrating Our Lady of Guadalupe and 'la Santa Misa en Español'.) Today, most lay Episcopalians say they're Protestants (including the few remaining old country-club WASPs like George H.W. Bush) but most Episcopal priests don't; to them, 'Protestant' means the evangelical and fundamentalist whites they look down on, so being high-church is a marker to distinguish themselves from that.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Ebor on June 14, 2013, 07:07:22 PM
Keble, what would listening on the part of the Orthodox entail?

Well, if some sweeping generalization or error of history was being aimed at the Anglicans, it might be actually listening to some real factual information. 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 14, 2013, 07:16:42 PM
I've never heard any whoppers from the Orthodox, in person, about the Anglicans. Not like the story, I think from Overbeck, from 150 years ago about the Armenian priest who told his congregation that once a year an Anglican vicar throws the bread of Communion from the pulpit to his congregation.

I think ecumenical talks have gone on long enough that Orthodox bishops have no such misconceptions.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shlomlokh on June 14, 2013, 10:31:49 PM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 15, 2013, 12:16:54 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Intercommunion but not interchangeable ministers. Probably very old news, since Protestants often don't care about denominational rules. My mother's family jumped between Methodist and Episcopal a few times over the generations.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shlomlokh on June 15, 2013, 12:56:30 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Intercommunion but not interchangeable ministers. Probably very old news, since Protestants often don't care about denominational rules. My mother's family jumped between Methodist and Episcopal a few times over the generations.

Is there honestly any difference? The Methodists don't accept the homophilia theology and pageantry (yet) but share communion with those who do. A distinction without a difference from my perspective.  :-\

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 15, 2013, 08:31:33 AM
I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Intercommunion but not interchangeable ministers. Probably very old news, since Protestants often don't care about denominational rules. My mother's family jumped between Methodist and Episcopal a few times over the generations.

Is there honestly any difference? The Methodists don't accept the homophilia theology and pageantry (yet) but share communion with those who do. A distinction without a difference from my perspective.  :-\

In Christ,
Andrew

Right. If you share Communion, you might as well have interchangeable ministers.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: William on June 18, 2013, 03:26:19 PM
On a related note YF you might be in tune with your church's teaching on abortion gays and even psychoanalysis . I really wonder what mental gymnastics are required to reconcile libertarianism with the same church's pronouncements on economic matters.

What pronouncements?
Rerum novarum, Quadragesimo anno, Centesimus Annus etc;  the so-called catholic social teaching ain't communism but it ain't libertarianism either.

So what do you think of Salazar's Estado Novo? It was based on Rerum Novarum.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jnorm888 on June 18, 2013, 09:08:02 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

 


Sounds about right! Your friend told you the truth
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jnorm888 on June 18, 2013, 09:12:15 PM
There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy. ;D

Anglo-Catholics are a super minority within Anglicanism. They are also a late comer (the mid to late 19th century). They go against the view of what Anglicans are officially suppose to believe. I was anglo-catholic for 4 years before becoming Orthodox, and so I'm talking with some personal experience about the issue.

Yes I love Anglo-catholics, but they are not the norm, nor no where near the majority. They are a super super minority. The bigger groups are the broad wing and the evangelical wing.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jnorm888 on June 18, 2013, 09:19:43 PM
I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.

What your friend showed you was correct. Even Nashota house (a high church episcopal seminary) has a hard time calling it a sacrifice.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 18, 2013, 09:35:56 PM
Anglo-Catholics are a super minority within Anglicanism.

I don't know about super. They're alright, I guess.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: jnorm888 on June 18, 2013, 09:50:52 PM
The short way to understand Anglicanism is anything goes and if not Anglican's will vote it in or vote it out. Question is can we even call Anglican's an "ism" anymore

Yup. William F. Buckley Jr., a Catholic, once quipped that, after Anglicanism more openly liberalized in the Sixties, no one from the Pope to Mao Tse-Tung could be sure he is not an Anglican.

You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy. So, sort of like the British acting like Dunkirk was a victory, they claim the now non-religious liberals are still in some sense liberal Christians like them. Numbers, schnumbers; only bigoted conservative Christians keep count. And/or they blame their decline, their now being passé in society, on... not being liberal enough. So you get books and articles such as Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Episcopalianism took that and its Anglo-Catholic movement (really dating from the late 1800s) and has tried to reinvent/market itself as a 'cool' Catholicism for 'thinking people', different from old-school Anglo-Catholicism, which doctrinally imitated Catholicism. This has both conservative (they like our stuff, our liturgies, our classical music; they don't necessarily worship like Catholic liberals; in contrast, liberal high church is nearly unknown in Catholicism) and of course liberal aspects (now they have divorce and remarriage, have women clergy, and approve homosexuality). That's why many Episcopal priests go by 'Father' and say they're not Protestants. They're not fundamentalists and are liturgical and sacramental. Not wannabe Catholics like the old A-Cs but sort of Catholic on their own terms, which Catholicism thinks is contradictory. But ex-Protestant liberals don't buy it... and neither do one of the Episcopalians' target markets, American Catholics such as the many lapsed or who don't accept all the church's teachings. Even when they're told what they want to hear, such people know better and don't fall for this. They're more likely to stay lax/lapsed or just leave and not go somewhere else. (Easier now in America, where no one cares anymore if you go to church.)

You raise a number of good points!
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nephi on June 24, 2013, 01:35:18 PM
This Episcopalian priest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzjDdjUjwk) (I assume that's what he is), from a year ago, seems fairly optimistic about the future of TEC.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 24, 2013, 01:53:11 PM
This Episcopalian priest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzjDdjUjwk) (I assume that's what he is), from a year ago, seems fairly optimistic about the future of TEC.

I don't have time right now to watch the whole thing. Except for the part praising 'the Anglican reformers' (heretics, state lackeys, and murderers of Catholics), there's of course much to like. I wonder if he's an Episcopalian, though. Since he seems conservative from what I've watched, my guess is he's in one of the small conservative denominations formed by people who left the Episcopalians.

Classical Anglicanism, the Prayer Book, is liturgical, but it got rid of most Catholic ceremonial. Towards the beginning, they got rid of the altars, set the Communion table lengthwise in the old chancel and had church in the round for Communion, with no cross, let alone a crucifix, no candles, no incense, no wafer bread (insisting on plain bread), and no water in the cup (which was made not to look like a Catholic chalice). The priest (Anglicans claim apostolic succession) wore his old Catholic choir habit of cassock, surplice and black scarf, not the Catholic Mass vestments. And eventually they had Communion only four times a year; the main service, even in many Episcopal churches when I was a kid, was Morning Prayer.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 24, 2013, 10:56:31 PM
This Episcopalian priest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrzjDdjUjwk) (I assume that's what he is), from a year ago, seems fairly optimistic about the future of TEC.

  Fr. Jonathan is Episcopalian, and relative conservative.   I notice he seems to be trending towards being more conservative and less "Protestant" in his thinking as time goes on, though he seems to be strongly in favor of penal substitution.  I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nephi on June 24, 2013, 11:21:55 PM
I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 25, 2013, 08:22:43 AM
Thanks for the video and info. The Episcopal Church is semi-congregational: every rector, every parish can almost be its own church. (Which is how Anglo-Catholicism existed to introduce me, originally Episcopal, to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, after the council.) So there are still a few relative conservatives. Still, I'm surprised to see a young one. Old liberals call the shots in that denomination, eclipsing even that semi-congregationalism. (I'm not angry; they have the right to govern themselves.) My guess is Fr Jonathan will end up not being an Episcopalian anymore: ending up with the breakaway 'classical Anglicans' who share his beliefs, or converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Anglicanism and Lutheranism ended up being equivalent (why there are next to no Lutherans in England; Germans and Scandinavians who moved there just went Anglican, and after American independence, Lutherans in the old Swedish settlements in the colonies became Episcopalians) but Anglicanism's roots are closer to Calvin and Zwingli, more radical than the Lutherans (reformist Catholics at heart but with a funny view of church order, reacting to circumstances at the time of their founding). But Anglicanism has the quirk of claiming apostolic succession because the king liked having bishops. Whether the historic episcopate is necessary is up in the air for Anglicans; the real classical Anglicans didn't really think so (they just thought keeping bishops was better), and English Evangelicals (and I'm guessing the conservative Africans) don't, but Episcopalians historically have thought so, but don't anymore (they waived it for the union with ELCA). (Lutherans don't: the Swedes and Finns claim apostolic succession but don't think it's necessary.)

I'm guessing 'quasi-Lutheran' means the high-ish view of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, that self-styled classical Anglicans uphold, much like Martin Luther, unlike Cranmer's Zwinglianism. Also, like Lutherans, today's classical Anglicans don't believe in double predestination.

The Anglo-Catholics I knew would have been offended by being called the equivalent of Lutherans; they thought they were the Anglo-Saxon version of Catholics and Orthodox.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 26, 2013, 11:45:19 AM
I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 12:24:53 PM
I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.


I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 26, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
   Thought Cranmer created much of the wording for the Book of Common Prayer, Anglicanism's theological trajectory was shaped more by Elizabeth, and she favored Eucharistic realism without wanting to completely alienate moderate Puritans.  Richard Hooker was basically the theological apologist for her settlement.

  Cranmer's views are closer to what you might understand as Receptionism or a Parallelism.  He was not a Zwinglian Memorialist though Zwingli did influence him.     Some of the things that Pope Benedict XVI said about Eucharistic theology are not entirely unlike Cranmer's, so I'd be careful to dismiss his ideas as un-Catholic altogether. 

  I do agree that Cranmer was very radical for his time, Nicholas Ridley even moreso.  But the kind of anti-Catholic polemicism fortunately did not last too long, though it made an impression on the Church of England, Elizabeth changed the trajectory away from polemical theologizing.  Charles I was the heir of this tradition but he tried to basically make the Church of England enforce what it believed and it lead to a horrible civil war and a tension within Anglicanism that has never been fully resolved and that lies at the heart of debates around womens ordination and homosexuality in the Communion today (ironically with most Catholic leaning Anglicans supporting womens ordination and inclusion of gays, with opponents mostly coming from a Biblicist, rather than Catholic perspective on those matters- Tradition doesn't matter a whit to them, it's all about the Bible).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 01:40:18 PM
  Thought Cranmer created much of the wording for the Book of Common Prayer, Anglicanism's theological trajectory was shaped more by Elizabeth, and she favored Eucharistic realism without wanting to completely alienate moderate Puritans.  Richard Hooker was basically the theological apologist for her settlement.

  Cranmer's views are closer to what you might understand as Receptionism or a Parallelism.  He was not a Zwinglian Memorialist though Zwingli did influence him.     Some of the things that Pope Benedict XVI said about Eucharistic theology are not entirely unlike Cranmer's, so I'd be careful to dismiss his ideas as un-Catholic altogether.  

  I do agree that Cranmer was very radical for his time, Nicholas Ridley even moreso.  But the kind of anti-Catholic polemicism fortunately did not last too long, though it made an impression on the Church of England, Elizabeth changed the trajectory away from polemical theologizing.  Charles I was the heir of this tradition but he tried to basically make the Church of England enforce what it believed and it lead to a horrible civil war and a tension within Anglicanism that has never been fully resolved and that lies at the heart of debates around womens ordination and homosexuality in the Communion today (ironically with most Catholic leaning Anglicans supporting womens ordination and inclusion of gays, with opponents mostly coming from a Biblicist, rather than Catholic perspective on those matters- Tradition doesn't matter a whit to them, it's all about the Bible).


Right, Anglo-Catholicism's unintended effect was to create liberal high church, the Episcopal house style now. There is a kind of conservative Anglican, including Fr Jonathan, who points out that A-Cs' disobedience to their bishops, to the Prayer Book, and to Hooker's 'reformed Catholic' doctrine paved the way for Modernist revisionism, deconstructing the meaning of texts including eventually scripture, which the Tractarians never intended.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 26, 2013, 01:49:58 PM
Right, Anglo-Catholicism's unintended effect was to create liberal high church, the Episcopal house style now. There is a kind of conservative Anglican, including Fr Jonathan, who points out that A-Cs' disobedience to their bishops, to the Prayer Book, and to Hooker's 'reformed Catholic' doctrine paved the way for Modernist revisionism, deconstructing the meaning of texts including eventually scripture, which the Tractarians never intended.

  Disobedience is one area I see as seriously problematic in Anglicanism.  Anglicans have little concept of disobedience, and this has serious consequences for spiritual formation or lack thereof.  I've even confronted conservative Episcopalian clergy about this and they don't seem to grasp the gravity of the issue- they think being a anti-gay is ok in a denomination that has spoken on this issue and even come up with canon law in some cases.   It's a bit too much of a free-for-all, hence Father Jonathan  being an oddity but not really being an oddity- the Episcopal Church is full of mavericks and freelancers compared to the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholicism (or Lutheranism, for that matter).  Many are converts from other churches- one I know is formerly Pentecostal.  They want to bask in Apostolicity but not actually in the discipline that was for centuries entailed in that.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 26, 2013, 01:53:43 PM
They have the right to govern themselves. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Same answer for both Catholic liberals and Episcopal conservatives.

Right, Anglo-Catholicism's unintended effect was to create liberal high church, the Episcopal house style now. There is a kind of conservative Anglican, including Fr Jonathan, who points out that A-Cs' disobedience to their bishops, to the Prayer Book, and to Hooker's 'reformed Catholic' doctrine paved the way for Modernist revisionism, deconstructing the meaning of texts including eventually scripture, which the Tractarians never intended.

  Disobedience is one area I see as seriously problematic in Anglicanism.  Anglicans have little concept of disobedience, and this has serious consequences for spiritual formation or lack thereof.  I've even confronted conservative Episcopalian clergy about this and they don't seem to grasp the gravity of the issue- they think being a anti-gay is ok in a denomination that has spoken on this issue and even come up with canon law in some cases.   It's a bit too much of a free-for-all, hence Father Jonathan  being an oddity but not really being an oddity- the Episcopal Church is full of mavericks and freelancers compared to the Orthodox Church.  Many are converts from other churches- one I know is formerly Pentecostal.  They want to bask in Apostolicity but not actually in the discipline that was for centuries entailed in that.

Yep.

Our holy mother, the church is a feeling foreign to Protestants including them.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2013, 02:00:52 PM
I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.


I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
There was talk of union during the Reformation, including during HRH Elizabeth I and Eric XIV's tenure (the latter courting the former, as well as Mary Queen of Scots and Christine of Hesse, daughter of the polygamous Lutheran Landgrave Philip I) between the Anglicans and the Lutheran State Church of Sweden, which also claimed (and claims) Apostolic succession.  Talks were resumed when as a common front against "Apostolicae Curae"
http://anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/conference1909.html
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 28, 2013, 09:18:08 AM
I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.


I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
There was talk of union during the Reformation, including during HRH Elizabeth I and Eric XIV's tenure (the latter courting the former, as well as Mary Queen of Scots and Christine of Hesse, daughter of the polygamous Lutheran Landgrave Philip I) between the Anglicans and the Lutheran State Church of Sweden, which also claimed (and claims) Apostolic succession.  Talks were resumed when as a common front against "Apostolicae Curae"
http://anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/conference1909.html

Thanks. I didn't know that background but again it's not surprising. As I wrote earlier, the Swedes (and Finns and other churches claiming the episcopate from them) claim succession but, being Lutherans, don't think it's necessary. Turns out neither did classical Anglicanism. So despite Anglicanism's more radical roots with Cranmer, the claim to the episcopate made it the equivalent of Swedish Lutheranism. As I wrote, long before the 1930s official intercommunion between the Church of England and the Church of Sweden, Anglican and Lutheran have long been interchangeable. I'm sitting in what used to be the Swedish colony in America, sold to the British, where they founded a few parishes; when they changed languages they adopted the Book of Common Prayer, Gloria Dei here in Philadelphia was built in British colonial times by English designers and craftsmen so it looks just like an Anglican church of the time, and after independence, after the last Swedish priests died (yes, the Swedish church calls them priests), the congregations voted to join the Episcopal Church.

Norwegian, Danish and I think Icelandic Lutherans don't claim succession; again, Lutherans don't think it's necessary. Norway's interesting: they got rid of bishops and had district superintendents (like American Lutherans historically have), then they brought back the old system with its titles (bishop) but without trying to bring back the succession. I think the Danes and Icelanders are like the Germans: no bishops.

In America the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Germans who came here after the government interfered with and watered down the local Lutheranism) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ditto) don't have bishops. The mainline (liberal) ELCA, a merger of the Scandinavian-American churches (19th-century immigration to the Midwest: why Minnesota has its accent), was like the Norwegians, with bishops but not as a lifetime office (they'd serve a term then go back to being just pastors) and without the claim to succession; the Episcopalians grandfathered them in, in their union, but the new ELCA bishops and pastors have Episcopal succession.

Then there's the Episcopal claim to valid orders through Old Catholic including Polish National Catholic bishops participating in Episcopal bishops' consecrations and priestly ordinations, 'the Dutch touch' as an English now-Catholic priest called it. Rome and the East have never bought the argument; such clergy are always received as laymen and reordained. Anyway, I thought of that because now ELCA has that claim, through the Episcopalians. ELCA's presiding bishop has it.

That Old Catholic 'line of succession', based on St Augustine's Western Catholic theology of holy orders (which is how Catholicism includes the Orthodox among real bishops), is the stock and trade of vagantes, the little wacko 'independent Catholic' churches and wannabe priests as Fr Nathan Monk was for about 10 years before his eight months as an Orthodox.

(The Old Catholics have broken up. The main body, a tiny European denomination, has gone in a little over 100 years from not recognizing Anglican orders, just like Catholics, to essentially becoming Episcopalians. They ordain women. The Episcopal Church is their official representation/stand-in in America. The Polish National Catholic Church, founded in America a little over 100 years ago by a liberal, went the other way, more conservative, breaking with the Episcopalians and eventually with the main Old Catholics over women's ordination. There are similar relatively conservative splinter Old Catholics, a splinter of a splinter, in Eastern Europe, priests who switched to get married and that's about it.)

The vagante circus and now the respectable ELCA bring up the good question: how far can that 'line of succession' argument go? Moot to Catholics and Orthodox, who don't play that game; real churches, socially speaking (including the Anglicans and Lutherans), have the 'lines' but don't need to brag about them. The Orthodox have a point about being in the church trumping lines of succession. A good rule of thumb is if a priest in person or online mentions his 'lines', run. He's a dangerous wannabe.

The Nordic Lutherans have been ordaining women since about the '50s. Interesting how it happened. The bishops or leaders and parishioners didn't want it at the time but because they're state churches (or were until recently: the Church of Sweden was disestablished around 2000), the government voted in the change and imposed it on them. Norden (Scandinavia plus Finland; maybe Estonia too, as they're the Finns' cousins, and are Lutherans too) is famously irreligious, even more than Britain and the rest of Europe. Next to nobody goes to church, and the few religious often don't go to the official Lutheran churches.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 28, 2013, 10:18:56 AM
   I actually agree.. a purely mechanical understanding of apostolicity is bogus and its sad when high church Anglicans resort to it, especially because this is not the classical Anglican belief at all.    Anglicans have always had a generosity about who was and was not in the Church until the Tractarian movement tried to make it more Scholastic.

  The modern Anglican Communion's belief is that baptism is the rite of initiation into the Church and it's not restricted to any particular line of bishops, priests, or ministers.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on June 28, 2013, 11:01:14 AM
Right; Catholicism's understanding of orders is Augustinian but not the purely mechanical one of some Anglicans historically and of the vagantes.

By the way, the relatively conservative Old Catholics have regrouped arguably as a denomination or communion led more or less by the PNCC, the Union of Scranton, named after the PNCC's main see, in Pennsylvania, its 'Vatican', home of its Prime Bishop. A group that people promoting Western Rite Orthodoxy probably want to court. They include a church of Norwegian high-church ex-Lutherans whom the liberal Norwegian Catholic Church cold-shouldered: the Nordic Catholic Church, tiny but it exists. Liturgically most are Novus Ordo clones now. (Of course the PNCC used to be Tridentine in Polish.)

(I think St Mark's ex-Episcopal Church in Denver passed through the PNCC before leaving, amicably as far as I know, and joining the Antiochian Orthodox, where it has remained.)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 28, 2013, 07:57:08 PM
   What I find interesting about Fr. Jonathan is how he tries to bracket his "Sola Scriptura" beliefs between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism.  I'm not sure that is possible.  I think he just wants to say the Bible is the most important document in the Church (who disagrees with that, anyways?), but he also is afraid of private interpretation.  And yet if you try to take Scripture outside of Tradition, private interpretation is what you are often left with.   Everybody is going to have an opinion now days but the problem is in the Anglican Communion opinions are the norm, orthodoxy is another option among many.   And the liberal, scientific approach to the Scriptures tends to predominate.

  I wish the High Church did win out in Anglicanism, there are some brilliant theologians in that tradition, there always have been.  Rowan Williams is one of the most brilliant theologians I've read in my life, right along with Alexander Schmemann.  But the real global power is in the hands of the witchdoctors in mitres in the Global South and people in the north that think religion makes a nice decoration for weddings and funerals.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2013, 09:12:15 PM
But the real global power is in the hands of the witchdoctors in mitres in the Global South

Um
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 28, 2013, 11:59:50 PM
But the real global power is in the hands of the witchdoctors in mitres in the Global South

Um

 Sorry, I don't have much respect for Nigeria's clergy, or their interference in the Church in North America.  Much of the Anglicanism in Africa is just as atavistic as its pagan counterpart.  The same is true in the civilized world in places like Sydney- the  Anglican South is full of crazed evangelical religion where simplistic biblicism rules the day  For every Desmond Tutu there's a half-dozen Akinolas.  I always find it strange when an EO praises these conservative Anglicans as being "faithful", they clearly do not understand the party system in Anglicanism, because that kind of Anglicanism is about as far from Eastern Orthodoxy as Islam.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Deep Roots on June 29, 2013, 06:58:14 PM
The same is true in the civilized world
is that you, Joseph Conrad? 
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Nephi on July 03, 2013, 09:36:01 PM
Since it was being talked about earlier in this thread, it looks like Episcopalians and Lutherans are moving closer (http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=5317):

Quote
In their letter, the four leaders also recognized that “our full and mutual recognition of each other’s ministries and sacraments ‘marks but one step toward the eventual visible unity of the whole Church catholic.’”

Some possibilities before the churches, the leaders said, can include theological education -- the calling forth and forming lay and ordained leadership; sharing “episcopal oversight” -- clergy exchange and, in some regions, diocesan and synodical leaders; and speaking with a single voice on issues affecting Canadians and Americans.

As the journey of full communion continues, the leaders concluded their letter expressing that “… we have the courage and determination to follow where the Holy Spirit is leading our churches, and the strength and steadfastness to be faithful in serving God’s mission in the world -- together.”
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Iconodule on July 03, 2013, 09:57:54 PM
I've been meaning to ask the Episcopal Church members on this board about something, and I guess this thread is as good as any, so here goes:

My understanding is that, while allowing a broad range of interpretations of the doctrines, the Episcopal Church accepts as normative the creeds and the general theological stances contained in the Book of Common Prayer.

How/ why are certain Episcopal clergy- I am thinking especially of Bishop Spong- allowed to deny basic Christian dogma, and still remain clergy in the Episcopal Church? How do you, as members of the Episcopal Church, justify this, or at least reconcile it with your understanding of your communion as being part of the Christian church?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on July 04, 2013, 05:08:33 AM
I've been meaning to ask the Episcopal Church members on this board about something, and I guess this thread is as good as any, so here goes:

My understanding is that, while allowing a broad range of interpretations of the doctrines, the Episcopal Church accepts as normative the creeds and the general theological stances contained in the Book of Common Prayer.

How/ why are certain Episcopal clergy- I am thinking especially of Bishop Spong- allowed to deny basic Christian dogma, and still remain clergy in the Episcopal Church? How do you, as members of the Episcopal Church, justify this, or at least reconcile it with your understanding of your communion as being part of the Christian church?

Well, ten people can assent to one creed and believe 10 radically different things.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on July 04, 2013, 05:19:29 AM
The Nicene Creed rules out atheism in its first few words.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Orthodox11 on July 04, 2013, 07:34:05 AM
I have a friend training to become an Anglican priest at the moment. He does not believe God is Trinity, He does not believe Christ is God in any concrete way, he does not believe in the Virgin birth, he does not believe in His physical resurrection from the dead, nor ours on the last day. And this is all known to the bishops and other clergy he is in contact with.

Essentially, from what he told me, he believes the rites and liturgical texts of the church provide people with a common expression that facilitates joint worship. How much of it you buy into, or how you interpret it, is irrelevant.

That is an attitude I've come across quite often.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Iconodule on July 04, 2013, 09:19:47 AM
I've been meaning to ask the Episcopal Church members on this board about something, and I guess this thread is as good as any, so here goes:

My understanding is that, while allowing a broad range of interpretations of the doctrines, the Episcopal Church accepts as normative the creeds and the general theological stances contained in the Book of Common Prayer.

How/ why are certain Episcopal clergy- I am thinking especially of Bishop Spong- allowed to deny basic Christian dogma, and still remain clergy in the Episcopal Church? How do you, as members of the Episcopal Church, justify this, or at least reconcile it with your understanding of your communion as being part of the Christian church?

Well, ten people can assent to one creed and believe 10 radically different things.

Okay, but could you answer my questions? They were not asked rhetorically.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on July 04, 2013, 09:38:07 AM
  On the positive side, in the homosexuality debates, the Episcopal Church is starting to put its foot down on something which is an improvement over the free-for-all that envelopes much of the Anglican Communion.   A broad religion sounds like a nice sentiment in theory, but in practice it is spiritually damaging.  You can't ask people to join that sort of thing, which is why Anglicanism in Europe and North America has hemorraged memebers.  In the postmodern age people want commitment, fidelity, and authenticity, none of which are possible if the Gospel means anything and everything and the Christian faith is seen as completely non-doctrinal.  The church was right to discipline Bishop Mark Lawrence, but it's too little, too late.  The Episcopal church has allowed latitudinarian nonsense for decades in the name of being well-mannered in a bourgeoise, upper-middle class WASP sense.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on July 04, 2013, 10:08:33 AM
The church was right to discipline Bishop Mark Lawrence, but it's too little, too late. 

Indeed, expelling conservative-to-moderate dioceses is something TEC should have done a couple decades ago, when there many such dioceses. (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on July 04, 2013, 02:10:50 PM
The Nicene Creed rules out atheism in its first few words.

And Spong isn't an atheist.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on July 04, 2013, 02:13:35 PM
 On the positive side, in the homosexuality debates, the Episcopal Church is starting to put its foot down on something which is an improvement over the free-for-all that envelopes much of the Anglican Communion.   A broad religion sounds like a nice sentiment in theory, but in practice it is spiritually damaging.  You can't ask people to join that sort of thing, which is why Anglicanism in Europe and North America has hemorraged memebers.  In the postmodern age people want commitment, fidelity, and authenticity, none of which are possible if the Gospel means anything and everything and the Christian faith is seen as completely non-doctrinal.  The church was right to discipline Bishop Mark Lawrence, but it's too little, too late.  The Episcopal church has allowed latitudinarian nonsense for decades in the name of being well-mannered in a bourgeoise, upper-middle class WASP sense.

I don't see it as spiritually damaging to have "a broad religion."  At my parish, people have extremely divergent views on most issues, yet I feel far closer to God now than I ever did at the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Cyrillic on July 04, 2013, 02:20:05 PM
The Nicene Creed rules out atheism in its first few words.

And Spong isn't an atheist.

Perhaps he denies being an atheist but his twelve theses tell me otherwise.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Severian on July 04, 2013, 03:17:58 PM

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.


FWIW, I have never met an Orthodox Christian irl that spewed such venom towards other Christians.  I disagree strongly w/ protestantism, but the language here is rather strong.
I am not "spewing venom" towards Protestants, but rather their belief system (as I have already explained). That, on top of the fact that Protestants are not true Christians.

I agree, wow.
Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.
There are plenty of historical examples of Church Fathers and even Roman Popes condemning schismatics and heretics using very explicit and strong language. Our Lord Himself used very harsh language at times when dealing with the Pharisees. Therefore, I do not think your gripe with Orthodoxy is justified. In fact, traditional Latin ecclesiology and soteriology is much more exclusivist than Orthodoxy's.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on July 04, 2013, 07:07:02 PM
I don't see it as spiritually damaging to have "a broad religion."  At my parish, people have extremely divergent views on most issues, yet I feel far closer to God now than I ever did at the Orthodox Church.

   Especially since 1979, even the concept of common prayer is being eroded.

   I find the latitudinarian treatment of the Christian faith leads to a more superficial approach.  Life is serious business, religion should be the same way.    The Episcopal churches near me present a fluffy, relatively conservative brand of religion, with aging parishoners and few young people, that doesn't engage me intellectually or spiritually, but isn't particularly inclusive.  Yes, its a routine and comforting in some ways, but they could do better.  It's stuck in the 1970's and it's ugly.  The happy-clappy evangelical message strikes me as sentimental too.  I want more austere religion, even if I am socially liberal.

  It's interesting you are formerly Orthodox, I'd like to hear more about it.  You can send me a private message.

  I know a few people that are trending liberal since they joined the Orthodox church and also have some issues with things- they are discovering the church isn't the bastion of truth they thought it would be.  I'm just not sure Anglicanism is the answer, esp. where I live.  
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on July 04, 2013, 10:03:12 PM

2) Yes, I realize that, but I also don't really care. I also consider Chalcedonians to be "protestants" (in some sense) in that they have abandoned the pure, untainted Christian faith by accepting Chalcedon and the Tome. That being said, I still would not compare them (or RCs for that matter) to the malicious and heretical movement known as reformed protestantism. There simply is no other religious movement on the planet which has misled and misguided so many under the guise of Christianity. I cannot even begin to describe how much I despise this evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects. I pray for the adherents of protestantism to leave their heresy and come home.

Wow.


FWIW, I have never met an Orthodox Christian irl that spewed such venom towards other Christians.  I disagree strongly w/ protestantism, but the language here is rather strong.
I am not "spewing venom" towards Protestants, but rather their belief system (as I have already explained). That, on top of the fact that Protestants are not true Christians.

I agree, wow.
Actually, this touches on one of my reasons for not becoming Orthodox (not the only one, or even the main one): It's too "anti-" for my taste.
There are plenty of historical examples of Church Fathers and even Roman Popes condemning schismatics and heretics using very explicit and strong language. Our Lord Himself used very harsh language at times when dealing with the Pharisees. Therefore, I do not think your gripe with Orthodoxy is justified. In fact, traditional Latin ecclesiology and soteriology is much more exclusivist than Orthodoxy's.

Pass.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Romaios on July 05, 2013, 05:36:17 AM
The Nicene Creed rules out atheism in its first few words.

And Spong isn't an atheist.

Perhaps he denies being an atheist but his twelve theses tell me otherwise.

Bishop Spong might be an augustinian (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,52139.msg948297.html#msg948297).
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: augustin717 on July 05, 2013, 12:22:34 PM
Your faith is also rarely matched . What exactly is your point?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Romaios on July 05, 2013, 01:33:19 PM
Your faith is also rarely matched . What exactly is your point?

It was a gratuitous observation.  :)

Your musings about the probability of the Creed yesterday probably triggered the synapse.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: augustin717 on July 05, 2013, 01:36:09 PM
Your diligence in following me is unusual to say the least. It's not just me that thinks that.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Romaios on July 05, 2013, 01:39:56 PM
Your diligence in following me is unusual to say the least. It's not just me that thinks that.

I "follow" lots of other people on this forum. But if it makes you feel special, you're still on my "buddy list"...

You don't think much of other people's opinions. Why should I?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: JamesRottnek on July 05, 2013, 04:20:55 PM
I don't see it as spiritually damaging to have "a broad religion."  At my parish, people have extremely divergent views on most issues, yet I feel far closer to God now than I ever did at the Orthodox Church.

   Especially since 1979, even the concept of common prayer is being eroded.

   I find the latitudinarian treatment of the Christian faith leads to a more superficial approach.  Life is serious business, religion should be the same way.    The Episcopal churches near me present a fluffy, relatively conservative brand of religion, with aging parishoners and few young people, that doesn't engage me intellectually or spiritually, but isn't particularly inclusive.  Yes, its a routine and comforting in some ways, but they could do better.  It's stuck in the 1970's and it's ugly.  The happy-clappy evangelical message strikes me as sentimental too.  I want more austere religion, even if I am socially liberal.

  It's interesting you are formerly Orthodox, I'd like to hear more about it.  You can send me a private message.

  I know a few people that are trending liberal since they joined the Orthodox church and also have some issues with things- they are discovering the church isn't the bastion of truth they thought it would be.  I'm just not sure Anglicanism is the answer, esp. where I live.  

I'll try to remember to message you more privately, after the weekend (I'll be out of town).  But I just wanted to say that this doesn't represent many of the Episcopal parishes in my area, that I'm familiar with.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Iconodule on July 06, 2013, 10:24:50 AM
But I just wanted to say that this doesn't represent many of the Episcopal parishes in my area, that I'm familiar with.

But isn't that the problem though- there is no uniformity of practice or belief in the Episcopal church. Your local parishes may be very small-o orthodox but someone in the next diocese over could be denying the divinity of Christ or the Resurrection without any repercussions.

I would genuinely like an answer to my questions about Spong et al... if you'd rather do it via PM, that's fine.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Stepan on July 11, 2013, 12:36:32 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

 

Definitely a low churchman sounds like.

I was, at one time, a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church and during this time also had contact with Anglicans from other jurisdictions and with varying churchmanship. IMHO, even the most high church, anglo-catholics are, at their core, quite Protestant in their thinking.

Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Shlomlokh on July 11, 2013, 03:26:02 PM
The Nicene Creed rules out atheism in its first few words.
Baaaam!
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Peter J on July 11, 2013, 03:30:27 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

Definitely a low churchman sounds like.

I was, at one time, a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church and during this time also had contact with Anglicans from other jurisdictions and with varying churchmanship. IMHO, even the most high church, anglo-catholics are, at their core, quite Protestant in their thinking.

Interesting. Can you elaborate a bit?
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: James2 on July 11, 2013, 05:00:44 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

Definitely a low churchman sounds like.

I was, at one time, a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church and during this time also had contact with Anglicans from other jurisdictions and with varying churchmanship. IMHO, even the most high church, anglo-catholics are, at their core, quite Protestant in their thinking.

Interesting. Can you elaborate a bit?

As a former Anglo-Catholic, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth.  Many A-C parishes tend to have a very congregationalist outlook, as they have often been at odds with the rest of their diocese over theology and liturgy.  The A-C paradox is that, while they affirm the necessity of bishops, they have often felt compelled to ignore or defy episcopal authority when said authority conflicts with their catholic aspirations.  A-C's tend to appeal to an idealized "historic church" or to the contemporary authority of another "branch" of the church (usually Rome) in order to justify their deviations from the Anglican norm (if such a thing can be said to exist anymore).  Anglo-Catholicism has always been a ghetto, and it developed the mentality to go with that.

The radical changes that have taken place in the Anglican Communion in the last 50 years have had a severe impact on A-C's.  Those who resist the changes have either hunkered down (increasingly hard to do) or left for other pastures (the Anglican Continuum, Rome, Orthodoxy).  Others have basically thrown in the towel and call themselves "affirming catholics", meaning they hang on to some forms of ritual while accepting female clergy, homosexual marriage, and many other innovations that have come along.

The "branch theory" of the church to which A-C's subscribe is itself a Protestant notion, albeit a rather exclusive one that unchurches non-episcopal Protestants.  None of the other so-called "branches" (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism) accepts it as valid ecclesiology.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Stepan on July 11, 2013, 05:32:16 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

Definitely a low churchman sounds like.

I was, at one time, a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church and during this time also had contact with Anglicans from other jurisdictions and with varying churchmanship. IMHO, even the most high church, anglo-catholics are, at their core, quite Protestant in their thinking.

Interesting. Can you elaborate a bit?

As a former Anglo-Catholic, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth.  Many A-C parishes tend to have a very congregationalist outlook, as they have often been at odds with the rest of their diocese over theology and liturgy.  The A-C paradox is that, while they affirm the necessity of bishops, they have often felt compelled to ignore or defy episcopal authority when said authority conflicts with their catholic aspirations.  A-C's tend to appeal to an idealized "historic church" or to the contemporary authority of another "branch" of the church (usually Rome) in order to justify their deviations from the Anglican norm (if such a thing can be said to exist anymore).  Anglo-Catholicism has always been a ghetto, and it developed the mentality to go with that.

The radical changes that have taken place in the Anglican Communion in the last 50 years have had a severe impact on A-C's.  Those who resist the changes have either hunkered down (increasingly hard to do) or left for other pastures (the Anglican Continuum, Rome, Orthodoxy).  Others have basically thrown in the towel and call themselves "affirming catholics", meaning they hang on to some forms of ritual while accepting female clergy, homosexual marriage, and many other innovations that have come along.

The "branch theory" of the church to which A-C's subscribe is itself a Protestant notion, albeit a rather exclusive one that unchurches non-episcopal Protestants.  None of the other so-called "branches" (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism) accepts it as valid ecclesiology.


James2 pretty well elaborated some of this in a very able manner. My experience was largely with the Continuum churches. In addition to the points made by James2, there is the tendency to split off and run to other jurisdictions if not form completely new jurisdictions (sometimes consisting of one tiny congregation) at the drop of a hat. I've also had to wonder at the lip service given to Orthodoxy yet insisting upon remaining separate from the Church. Some even claim validity based on the presence of clergy in their ranks who had, at one time, been Roman Catholic clergy.


Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Keble on July 12, 2013, 01:19:15 PM
As a former Anglo-Catholic, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth.  Many A-C parishes tend to have a very congregationalist outlook, as they have often been at odds with the rest of their diocese over theology and liturgy.  The A-C paradox is that, while they affirm the necessity of bishops, they have often felt compelled to ignore or defy episcopal authority when said authority conflicts with their catholic aspirations.  A-C's tend to appeal to an idealized "historic church" or to the contemporary authority of another "branch" of the church (usually Rome) in order to justify their deviations from the Anglican norm (if such a thing can be said to exist anymore).  Anglo-Catholicism has always been a ghetto, and it developed the mentality to go with that.

It's specifically a rejection of the notion that sacramental legitimacy automatically produces political authority, which is pretty much the theory that both Rome and the current ECUSA hierarchy have been pushing.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on July 15, 2013, 08:32:01 PM
I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

Definitely a low churchman sounds like.

I was, at one time, a member of the Reformed Episcopal Church and during this time also had contact with Anglicans from other jurisdictions and with varying churchmanship. IMHO, even the most high church, anglo-catholics are, at their core, quite Protestant in their thinking.

Interesting. Can you elaborate a bit?

As a former Anglo-Catholic, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth.  Many A-C parishes tend to have a very congregationalist outlook, as they have often been at odds with the rest of their diocese over theology and liturgy.  The A-C paradox is that, while they affirm the necessity of bishops, they have often felt compelled to ignore or defy episcopal authority when said authority conflicts with their catholic aspirations.  A-C's tend to appeal to an idealized "historic church" or to the contemporary authority of another "branch" of the church (usually Rome) in order to justify their deviations from the Anglican norm (if such a thing can be said to exist anymore).  Anglo-Catholicism has always been a ghetto, and it developed the mentality to go with that.

The radical changes that have taken place in the Anglican Communion in the last 50 years have had a severe impact on A-C's.  Those who resist the changes have either hunkered down (increasingly hard to do) or left for other pastures (the Anglican Continuum, Rome, Orthodoxy).  Others have basically thrown in the towel and call themselves "affirming catholics", meaning they hang on to some forms of ritual while accepting female clergy, homosexual marriage, and many other innovations that have come along.

The "branch theory" of the church to which A-C's subscribe is itself a Protestant notion, albeit a rather exclusive one that unchurches non-episcopal Protestants.  None of the other so-called "branches" (Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Catholicism) accepts it as valid ecclesiology.

Yep.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on July 24, 2013, 12:49:13 PM
It's specifically a rejection of the notion that sacramental legitimacy automatically produces political authority, which is pretty much the theory that both Rome and the current ECUSA hierarchy have been pushing.


  Could you explain more on this point? I'm curious to hear.

  I've come to this point in my spiritual life I realize that maybe the only honestly Christian, Catholic expression in Anglicanism is the Anglo-Catholic party.  The Liberal party doesn't believe in anything except the spirit of the age and the Evangelical party- well, Evangelical Protestantism is a disfigurement of the Christian faith.   Some Rerformers had erroneously believed they could reconstruct the ancient Church and its practices using scientific methods.  This produces a Frankenstein religion, or as has been said, an android.  

  I do like the Affirming Catholic side of things, like Rowan Williams. But he's a minority. the Current Archbishop of Canterburry is a happy clappy evangelical who doesn't seem very thorough in his thinking, unlike Rowan Williams, who is an excellent theologian in the Eastern sense of the term and even has been read and appreciated by the Eastern Orthodox.
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: The young fogey on July 24, 2013, 01:06:05 PM
It's specifically a rejection of the notion that sacramental legitimacy automatically produces political authority, which is pretty much the theory that both Rome and the current ECUSA hierarchy have been pushing.


  Could you explain more on this point? I'm curious to hear.

  I've come to this point in my spiritual life I realize that maybe the only honestly Christian, Catholic expression in Anglicanism is the Anglo-Catholic party.  The Liberal party doesn't believe in anything except the spirit of the age and the Evangelical party- well, Evangelical Protestantism is a disfigurement of the Christian faith.   Some Reformers had erroneously believed they could reconstruct the ancient Church and its practices using scientific methods.  This produces a Frankenstein religion, or as has been said, an android.  

  I do like the Affirming Catholic side of things, like Rowan Williams. But he's a minority. the Current Archbishop of Canterburry is a happy clappy evangelical who doesn't seem very thorough in his thinking, unlike Rowan Williams, who is an excellent theologian in the Eastern sense of the term and even has been read and appreciated by the Eastern Orthodox.

Right, liberal high church. Archbishop Williams is far more orthodox and sensible than the Episcopalians. Liberal high church believes the creeds, has pretty much the same beliefs that we do about the sacraments, and unlike Catholic liberals they love our stuff (my trad Mass for example). I don't agree with it because its ecclesiology's really the same as the liberals (fallible, fungible church) so it doesn't make sense, and I don't think it has a future (the white liberals are dying out; Anglicanism's becoming black conservative Protestant), but I acknowledge what we have in common. (Early on, in the '70s, Williams was an old-school Anglo-Catholic opposed to women's ordination, but changed his mind.)
Title: Re: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...
Post by: Daedelus1138 on July 24, 2013, 02:15:58 PM
   I think Williams The Body's Grace, his controversial paper he delivered in 1989 that illumined a more liberal sexual ethic, is excellent stuff, but because it's not sufficiently "Biblicist", conservative Anglicans never go for that sort of thing.  Anglicans in North America, conservative and liberal, are just engaging in lazy theology, and that is what I really object to (at this point, liberals in TEC mostly are engaged in politics with their opponents, not persuasion).