OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Protestant Discussion => Topic started by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:00:02 PM

Title: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:00:02 PM
So, I thought that I had wiped Protestantism off the realm of possibilities when I found that I could no longer believe in Sola Scriptura…until I learned more about Anglicanism. Anglicans do not believe in Sola Scriptura, but Prima Scriptura. As far as I know, Orthodoxy is not necessarily against the notion that Scripture is the first in honor among Sacred Traditions. Anglicans also have much respect for the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the practices of the Early Church. So…so much for the saying from Newman that “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant…”

In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

So now I’m confused. What compelling reason(s) do I have to reject Anglicanism?     
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on April 26, 2015, 04:05:03 PM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: homedad76 on April 26, 2015, 04:05:58 PM
(http://eriksholisticcornucopia.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori_2006_1st-female-presiding-bishop_episcopal-church_250px.jpg)

Here you go.  Anglicanism has fallen so far off the rails even the Latin church no longer recognizes its apostolic succession.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: sakura95 on April 26, 2015, 04:11:08 PM
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 26, 2015, 04:11:25 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"? 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:15:30 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:21:01 PM
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Does High Church Anglicanism claim to "infallibly" teach that homosexuality is not wrong?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:21:38 PM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.   
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: sakura95 on April 26, 2015, 04:25:53 PM
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Does High Church Anglicanism claim to "infallibly" teach that homosexuality is not wrong?

I don't think so, at least from what I know. But if Anglicanism wants to be Orthodox, it must shed its Via Media stance that accommodates Protestantism and it's tendency to be flexible in issues such as homosexuality and abortion.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on April 26, 2015, 04:26:27 PM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Even that doesn't say much. You have Anglo-Papalists, who are pretty much only the latter, people who are only in it for the aesthetics and Oxford Movement Anglicans. Since recently there even are "Anglo-Orthodox" who have doubts about the filioque and the penal atonement.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:30:11 PM
(http://eriksholisticcornucopia.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori_2006_1st-female-presiding-bishop_episcopal-church_250px.jpg)

Here you go.  Anglicanism has fallen so far off the rails even the Latin church no longer recognizes its apostolic succession.
Do all Anglican denominations allow ordination of women? Who was the first Early Church Father to explicitly teach that women should not be ordained? Answers to those questions may help me check off the Anglican Communion in the blink of an eye. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 26, 2015, 04:32:24 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:34:15 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   

I'm open to considering a different definition.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 04:43:07 PM
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Does High Church Anglicanism claim to "infallibly" teach that homosexuality is not wrong?

I don't think so, at least from what I know. But if Anglicanism wants to be Orthodox, it must shed its Via Media stance that accommodates Protestantism and it's tendency to be flexible in issues such as homosexuality and abortion.

Well, if Anglicanism does not claim to teach infallibly, then I guess I don't have to believe them. :)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on April 26, 2015, 04:48:18 PM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Most of the "high church" stuff was illegal in the Church of England for a long time. Iconoclasm and Calvinism were the norm in many parts.  A lot of things taken for granted in Anglican churches nowadays- vestments, crucifixes, processions, etc.- would have sent the early English reformers into a homicidal fit.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on April 26, 2015, 04:51:00 PM
Anglicanism is representative of the perennial Protestant problem... to be Catholic, or to be Reformed?

The reason why it's so screwed up internally is how different Anglican groups answer this question. Orthodoxy doesn't struggle with a needless contradiction such as the above.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: biro on April 26, 2015, 04:52:47 PM
Anglicanism is false because you shouldn't put orange in your tea.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 05:08:20 PM
Anglicanism is false because you shouldn't put orange in your tea.
Lol
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 05:21:37 PM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Most of the "high church" stuff was illegal in the Church of England for a long time. Iconoclasm and Calvinism were the norm in many parts.  A lot of things taken for granted in Anglican churches nowadays- vestments, crucifixes, processions, etc.- would have sent the early English reformers into a homicidal fit.
Interesting. So if I (hypothetically) become Anglican, I'll be faced with a dilemma to either have discontinuity from original Anglican teaching or reject the 7th Ecumenical Council.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 26, 2015, 05:33:02 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   
Okay. I just looked up Orthodox teaching on Apostolic Succession and learned that three bishops are required to ordain one bishop. My new questions are:

1. Why three?
2. Does the Anglican Church fail to meet this criteria?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 26, 2015, 05:42:17 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   
Okay. I just looked up Orthodox teaching on Apostolic Succession and learned that three bishops are required to ordain one bishop. My new questions are:

1. Why three?
2. Does the Anglican Church fail to meet this criteria?

We ordain with a minimum of two or three bishops (but usually, as many as can gather) to show that it is a synod which ordains a bishop, that the new bishop joins that synod and thus his Church communes with the other Churches, etc. 

I'm not sure how Anglicans ordain bishops, so I can't speak to that.  But "unbroken chain of imposition of hands" or "multiple consecrators" is only part of apostolic succession.  Not only does it involve these things, but also the succession of teaching authority and the maintenance of the true faith which is the subject of that teaching, communion with the Church as a whole and the local Churches which comprise it, etc.  The West seems to focus on a couple of aspects of apostolic succession, but that's not all there is to it.   
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on April 26, 2015, 07:42:37 PM
In addition, I thought that I could reject Protestantism just by supporting Apostolic Succession…until I learned that the Anglicanism also has an unbroken chain of Apostolic Succession. The Church of England was founded by bishops, and they ordained their ministers by the laying on of hands.

Since you brought it up, what is "apostolic succession"?

The Apostles appointed bishops as their successors by the laying on of hands. The bishops lay their hands on their successors. Etc. With an unbroken chain of bishops, the Church has valid Apostolic Succession.

Is this your own definition?  Or is it something you've been taught?  And is this enough for you, or are you open to considering a different definition?   

For the Orthodox, what you have described above is, at best, an incomplete definition of apostolic succession.   
Okay. I just looked up Orthodox teaching on Apostolic Succession and learned that three bishops are required to ordain one bishop. My new questions are:

1. Why three?
2. Does the Anglican Church fail to meet this criteria?

We ordain with a minimum of two or three bishops (but usually, as many as can gather) to show that it is a synod which ordains a bishop, that the new bishop joins that synod and thus his Church communes with the other Churches, etc. 

It is possible for bishops to be consecrated by one bishop in certain circumstances though (St. Augustine of Canterbury did this in England, for instance.)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: homedad76 on April 27, 2015, 01:05:21 AM
It is possible for bishops to be consecrated by one bishop in certain circumstances though (St. Augustine of Canterbury did this in England, for instance.)

I assume this is done when the normal number is not possible?  Once again Orthodoxy shows just how much it worships at the modernist and disdainful altar called "common sense"  :P
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on April 27, 2015, 01:53:49 AM
We ordain with a minimum of two or three bishops (but usually, as many as can gather) to show that it is a synod which ordains a bishop, that the new bishop joins that synod and thus his Church communes with the other Churches, etc. 

It is possible for bishops to be consecrated by one bishop in certain circumstances though (St. Augustine of Canterbury did this in England, for instance.)

I'm not familiar with the specific instance you mention, but yes, in exceptional circumstances which are in any case rare, a single bishop can ordain another bishop.  But even then, it's usually not done without some sort of participation by other bishops (e.g., letters from other bishops consenting to the ordination). 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: recent convert on April 27, 2015, 02:23:30 AM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Most of the "high church" stuff was illegal in the Church of England for a long time. Iconoclasm and Calvinism were the norm in many parts.  A lot of things taken for granted i n Anglican churches nowadays- vestments, crucifixes, processions, etc.- would have sent the early English reformers into a homicidal fit.

I think 17th c. Anglicanism was very high church until the English civil war when the Puritans executed King
Charles I. I believe the high church revival resumed in the 19th c. when relations between the Orthodox and Anglicans seemed very positive.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on April 27, 2015, 03:13:14 AM
As Mor said, maintaining correct doctrine is just as important to Apostolic Succession as a line of bishops. The Norman Conquest had direct Papal sanction and William the Conqueror replaced the Saxon bishops with loyal French ones thus making the Church of England officially Roman Catholic. For this reason there are some Orthodox who want to declare King Harold a martyr.

If Henry VIII had decided to somehow appeal to the Russians with his divorce dispute instead of just naming himself and Cranmer independent heads of the Church, things might have been different. But as it stands modern Anglicanism was born a Protestant sect.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on April 27, 2015, 06:22:02 AM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Most of the "high church" stuff was illegal in the Church of England for a long time. Iconoclasm and Calvinism were the norm in many parts.  A lot of things taken for granted i n Anglican churches nowadays- vestments, crucifixes, processions, etc.- would have sent the early English reformers into a homicidal fit.

I think 17th c. Anglicanism was very high church until the English civil war when the Puritans executed King
Charles I. I believe the high church revival resumed in the 19th c. when relations between the Orthodox and Anglicans seemed very positive.

You're referring to the phenomenon of Laudianism which created enormous controversy from its very beginning in the Church of England, introducing vestments, crucifixes, etc., and also reducing Calvinist influence. It was this which finally pushed the majority of the Puritans out of the Church of England, who previously had enormous sway, because the Puritans (correctly) saw Laudianism as a break from the church's foundational praxis. But it should be said that Laudian "high church" and Anglo-Catholic "high church" are not quite the same.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: scamandrius on April 27, 2015, 07:55:17 AM
s. Anglicans also have much respect for the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the practices of the Early Church. So…so much for the saying from Newman that “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant…”

Some Anglicans do, no doubt, but considering how many of them reject their own Book of Common Prayer which dates to the sixteenth century, their respect for practices or teachings of anyone further back is almost non-existent.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on April 27, 2015, 08:06:10 AM
As Mor said, maintaining correct doctrine is just as important to Apostolic Succession as a line of bishops. The Norman Conquest had direct Papal sanction and William the Conqueror replaced the Saxon bishops with loyal French ones thus making the Church of England officially Roman Catholic. For this reason there are some Orthodox who want to declare King Harold a martyr.

If Henry VIII had decided to somehow appeal to the Russians with his divorce dispute instead of just naming himself and Cranmer independent heads of the Church, things might have been different. But as it stands modern Anglicanism was born a Protestant sect.

Henry VIII was the first Anglo-Catholic. He agreed with all of the Roman Catholic faith but needed a schism to get his divorce.  Henry VIII never was anything other than a Roman Catholic in schism from Rome. Cranmer on the other hand...
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Dan-Romania on April 27, 2015, 09:13:37 AM
England  :)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 27, 2015, 09:27:57 AM
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Does High Church Anglicanism claim to "infallibly" teach that homosexuality is not wrong?

I don't think so, at least from what I know. But if Anglicanism wants to be Orthodox, it must shed its Via Media stance that accommodates Protestantism and it's tendency to be flexible in issues such as homosexuality and abortion.

Well, if Anglicanism does not claim to teach infallibly, then I guess I don't have to believe them. :)

Wow. I shouldn't have said that. That was quite patronizing. It is tempting for an inquirer or lay apologist to think this if looking for a shortcut reason to discredit something, but I'm sure that no Anglican (or Protestant, for that matter) would take me seriously for saying that. When I was Protestant, I too found the "fallible interpreter" argument to be rather condescending. After all, we all have to fallibly interpret what the true Church is.

In any case, you are right Mor. True Apostolic Succession is not just determined by an unbroken chain of bishops going back to the Apostle, but also by sound doctrine that is accepted by the whole Church. (Of course, this begs the question of what is true doctrine, but that's a whole other can of worms that I'll leave for the individual to discern.) All I'm trying to get at is that there is no real need to disprove or discredit anyone's claim of valid Apostolic lineage.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Eruvande on April 27, 2015, 09:51:14 AM

Anglicans also have much respect for the teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the practices of the Early Church. So…so much for the saying from Newman that “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant…”

With respect, my church wouldn't be able to distinguish between an Early Church Father, The Lord of the Rings and Max Lucado.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: homedad76 on April 27, 2015, 10:01:33 AM
With respect, my church wouldn't be able to distinguish between an Early Church Father, The Lord of the Rings and Max Lucado.

Wait, you mean St. Polycarp didn't throw the One Ring into the fires of Mt. Doom while on his way to the National Prayer Breakfast?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on April 27, 2015, 10:12:14 AM
Well into the 1880s High Churchmen were actually prosecuted for their smells-and-bells services.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: katherineofdixie on April 27, 2015, 11:22:45 AM
With respect, my church wouldn't be able to distinguish between an Early Church Father, The Lord of the Rings and Max Lucado.

POM nominee! :laugh:
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: eddybear on April 27, 2015, 12:30:54 PM
Byhisgrace, have you read The 39 Articles yet? http://www.cofec.org/The%2039%20Articles%20of%20Religion.pdf It will show you what Anglicanism teaches, or at least what the official line is. There is plenty enough there that should give you cause for concern.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: eddybear on April 27, 2015, 02:05:30 PM
Having thought about this a bit more, an even bigger issue is not so much the contents of the 39 Articles (though there are plenty of issues there) but the fact that the English Church thought it had the ability, acting on its own, 15 centuries after Christ and His apostles, to decide what Christianity is. For example they thought they had the ability to decide which books are and aren't Scripture (and in doing so disagreed with Catholic and Orthodox teaching). This isn't a firm foundation on which to build a church!

I'm steadily moving further and further away from Anglicanism. It has been a useful stage in my growth, and God has blessed me much in Anglican churches over the years, but I can't see myself staying there now I have learnt more of the truth.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 27, 2015, 03:03:07 PM
Having thought about this a bit more, an even bigger issue is not so much the contents of the 39 Articles (though there are plenty of issues there) but the fact that the English Church thought it had the ability, acting on its own, 15 centuries after Christ and His apostles, to decide what Christianity is. For example they thought they had the ability to decide which books are and aren't Scripture (and in doing so disagreed with Catholic and Orthodox teaching). This isn't a firm foundation on which to build a church!

I'm steadily moving further and further away from Anglicanism. It has been a useful stage in my growth, and God has blessed me much in Anglican churches over the years, but I can't see myself staying there now I have learnt more of the truth.
Thanks for sharing, Eddy. A compelling testimony.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: NoahB on April 27, 2015, 05:16:35 PM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Most of the "high church" stuff was illegal in the Church of England for a long time. Iconoclasm and Calvinism were the norm in many parts.  A lot of things taken for granted i n Anglican churches nowadays- vestments, crucifixes, processions, etc.- would have sent the early English reformers into a homicidal fit.

I think 17th c. Anglicanism was very high church until the English civil war when the Puritans executed King
Charles I. I believe the high church revival resumed in the 19th c. when relations between the Orthodox and Anglicans seemed very positive.

You're referring to the phenomenon of Laudianism which created enormous controversy from its very beginning in the Church of England, introducing vestments, crucifixes, etc., and also reducing Calvinist influence. It was this which finally pushed the majority of the Puritans out of the Church of England, who previously had enormous sway, because the Puritans (correctly) saw Laudianism as a break from the church's foundational praxis. But it should be said that Laudian "high church" and Anglo-Catholic "high church" are not quite the same.

Could you please explain the difference? Don't want to derail, so PM if you want to.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on April 27, 2015, 08:01:24 PM
Okay. I just looked up Orthodox teaching on Apostolic Succession and learned that three bishops are required to ordain one bishop. My new questions are:

1. Why three?
2. Does the Anglican Church fail to meet this criteria?

The rubric in the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer reads as follows:

Quote from: Book of Common Prayer. Emphasis in boldface added.
When a bishop is to be ordained, the Presiding Bishop of the Church, or a bishop appointed by the Presiding Bishop, presides and serves as chief consecrator.  At least two other bishops serve as co-consecrators.

Before the consecration can go forward, it has to have the consent of the General Convention.  Or, if the General Convention is not soon to meet, the consent of a majority of the diocesan Standing Committees.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on April 27, 2015, 08:07:53 PM
But it should be said that Laudian "high church" and Anglo-Catholic "high church" are not quite the same.
This high churchman is neither a Laudian nor a Puseyite.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on April 29, 2015, 07:33:42 AM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.

Yup.  The impression he is getting of Anglicanism is only one flavor.  Some Anglicans are basically Presbyterians and they would reject icons and the Fathers, and they absolutely believe in a strong sense of the regulative principle and Sola Scriptura.

What the OP is describing is historically not how Anglicanism was practiced until the Tractarian movement in the 19th century, with a few exceptions such as Lancelot Andrews or Jeremy Taylor, who were always a minority.  It was more like a via media between Lutheranism and the Reformed Calvinist churches.  They did not even have candles on altars during most of the 17th and 18th centuries, nor did they even call them "altars", but merely "Tables".  The Puritan influence runs deep in Anglicanism and its hard to dismiss.  And its incompatible with Orthodoxy's self-understanding of the Faith and Eastern Christian experience.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on April 29, 2015, 09:03:25 AM
But it should be said that Laudian "high church" and Anglo-Catholic "high church" are not quite the same.
This high churchman is neither a Laudian nor a Puseyite.

So which tiny corner of this shrinking subculture do you identify with?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on April 30, 2015, 07:59:42 PM
What compelling reason(s) do I have to reject Anglicanism?   

Please examine our Prayer Book (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcp.htm) before writing us off.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on April 30, 2015, 11:33:05 PM
Please examine our Prayer Book (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcp.htm) before writing us off.
Will do :)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 01, 2015, 08:40:26 AM
Having thought about this a bit more, an even bigger issue is not so much the contents of the 39 Articles (though there are plenty of issues there) but the fact that the English Church thought it had the ability, acting on its own, 15 centuries after Christ and His apostles, to decide what Christianity is.

Look up what the Tsars did to the Moscow Patriarchate some time.  Not that different.

The more you study history the more you realize most Christian churches have fanciful self-understandings. 

The Anglican Articles aren't a statement of what the Faith is, just what was lawful to preach concerning doctrine.  And people regularly played loose with them anyways.  Look at Newman's or Pusey's interpretation, for instance.  From a sympathetic standpoint, the Church was held captive to the State.  It's not like it hasn't happened before elsewhere. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 01, 2015, 08:57:25 AM
Quote
Look up what the Tsars did to the Moscow Patriarchate some time.  Not that different.

At what point in time? If you mean "Third Rome" theology, that was a response to at first a misunderstanding of the Council of Florence and then to the Fall of Constantinople. That seems a rather different issue than what Henry XIII and Abp. Cranmer were doing.

1. The poorness of communication at the time definitely plays a part here.

2. It isn't like it was a permanent rupture. The subsequent development of Russian Orthodoxy is rather different than that of Anglicanism. We're not just talking history here, but historical continuity.

If you had in mind the Old Believers, that's a sad chapter in Church History to be sure, but the MP has repented of that.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: MalpanaGiwargis on May 01, 2015, 11:34:38 AM
Quote
Look up what the Tsars did to the Moscow Patriarchate some time.  Not that different.

At what point in time? If you mean "Third Rome" theology, that was a response to at first a misunderstanding of the Council of Florence and then to the Fall of Constantinople. That seems a rather different issue than what Henry XIII and Abp. Cranmer were doing.

1. The poorness of communication at the time definitely plays a part here.

2. It isn't like it was a permanent rupture. The subsequent development of Russian Orthodoxy is rather different than that of Anglicanism. We're not just talking history here, but historical continuity.

If you had in mind the Old Believers, that's a sad chapter in Church History to be sure, but the MP has repented of that.

He probably means Peter I's suppression of the patriarchate in favor of the Most Holy Governing Synod. In that case, there is an analogy between the Russian and English Churches, with the difference being that the Russian Church did not adopt a fundamentally different version of Christianity subsequently - it remained Orthodox, whereas the English Church moved in an increasingly Protestant direction from that point on.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 01, 2015, 11:47:56 AM
I'm not convinced that working to prove every other faith community is false is a profitable endeavor.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 01, 2015, 12:39:46 PM
I'm not convinced that working to prove every other faith community is false is a profitable endeavor.

Maybe you're right...

At best, it will leave any honest inquirer with a lot of confusion; and at worst, it will turn a convert into a polemical monster.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2015, 06:55:17 AM
I don't think high church Anglicanism is shrinking as a percentage of all Anglicans, at least in North America.  With denominationalism in the US, Episcopalians have tended to become a haven for Roman Catholics looking for a less dogmatic faith.  And the Episcopal Church has always tended towards a praxis and theology more receptive to Tractarianism / Anglo-Catholicism because it is not a state church that must accommodate everyone.  In fact the first post-Reformation monastic movement in Anglicanism occurred in the US.

A lot of the 19th century Ritualist movement is basically mainstream now here in the US, even among conservative Anglicans, especially those involved in the convergence movement, which is quite influential in groups such as the ACNA.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 02, 2015, 01:01:30 PM
[T]here is an analogy between the Russian [under Peter the Great] and English [under Henry VIII] Churches, with the difference being that the Russian Church did not adopt a fundamentally different version of Christianity subsequently - it remained Orthodox, whereas the English Church moved in an increasingly Protestant direction from that point on.

Your identification of a "Protestant direction" with "a fundamentally different version of Christianity" is spurious.  The foundation of the Anglican churches is, and always has been, Jesus Christ.  The reformation was an attempt to be truer to this foundation.  If some Protestants happen to agree with us on some things, good for them!  But it does not make our Christianity "fundamentally different" from what it was.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2015, 01:53:17 PM
Your identification of a "Protestant direction" with "a fundamentally different version of Christianity" is spurious.  The foundation of the Anglican churches is, and always has been, Jesus Christ.  The reformation was an attempt to be truer to this foundation.  If some Protestants happen to agree with us on some things, good for them!  But it does not make our Christianity "fundamentally different" from what it was.

I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith, viz a viz someone coming from an Orthodox or Roman Catholic standpoint.  Most apologetics I have encountered just focus on how crazy it is to be against birth control, homosexuality, or women's ordination, but some people are a bit more serious about their faith than to fall for shallow appeals to sentiment. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 02, 2015, 02:01:03 PM
Most apologetics I have encountered just focus on how crazy it is to be against birth control, homosexuality, or women's ordination, but some people are a bit more serious about their faith than to fall for shallow appeals to sentiment.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 02, 2015, 02:05:51 PM
  But it does not make our Christianity "fundamentally different" from what it was.

But the Anglican Church did become fundamentally different. The Church of England was Roman Catholic before the 1530s, and then it gradually become Puritan and Semi-Calvinist before changing again in the 19th century to a hybrid Christianity. That's what I would call fundamentally different.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 02, 2015, 02:16:47 PM
[T]here is an analogy between the Russian [under Peter the Great] and English [under Henry VIII] Churches, with the difference being that the Russian Church did not adopt a fundamentally different version of Christianity subsequently - it remained Orthodox, whereas the English Church moved in an increasingly Protestant direction from that point on.


Your identification of a "Protestant direction" with "a fundamentally different version of Christianity" is spurious.  The foundation of the Anglican churches is, and always has been, Jesus Christ.  The reformation was an attempt to be truer to this foundation.  If some Protestants happen to agree with us on some things, good for them!  But it does not make our Christianity "fundamentally different" from what it was.

What good does it do to say that your foundation is Christ? The Mormons say this too.

Catholics and Orthodox also say that their foundation is Christ and yet would also say that rejection of the Apostolic Church and innovations like sola fide and denial of the Real Presence amount to at best a serious distortion of Christ.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 02, 2015, 02:44:58 PM
[T]here is an analogy between the Russian [under Peter the Great] and English [under Henry VIII] Churches, with the difference being that the Russian Church did not adopt a fundamentally different version of Christianity subsequently - it remained Orthodox, whereas the English Church moved in an increasingly Protestant direction from that point on.


Your identification of a "Protestant direction" with "a fundamentally different version of Christianity" is spurious.  The foundation of the Anglican churches is, and always has been, Jesus Christ.  The reformation was an attempt to be truer to this foundation.  If some Protestants happen to agree with us on some things, good for them!  But it does not make our Christianity "fundamentally different" from what it was.

What good does it do to say that your foundation is Christ? The Mormons say this too.

Catholics and Orthodox also say that their foundation is Christ and yet would also say that rejection of the Apostolic Church and innovations like sola fide and denial of the Real Presence amount to at best a serious distortion of Christ.

I think it says a lot that Mockingbird asks us to evaluate Anglicanism on the basis of a book first published in 1979:


Please examine our Prayer Book (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcp.htm) before writing us off.

To be fair, the 1979 BCP has a lot in continuity with previous BCP's, but also some serious divergences. For instance, prayers for the dead are included for the first time in any BCP since the 1549 edition, as far as I know. This would have raised an uproar in the Anglican church at any time from the Elizabethan settlement (or earlier) until the 20th century. The 39 articles, which Anglican priests were at one time required to affirm, are relegated to "historical documents." The Psalter is given the gender neutral makeover.

Maybe a chief problem with proving that Anglicanism is false is the many contradictory things that have been upheld as true within its ranks at different times and places.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: eddybear on May 02, 2015, 03:13:06 PM
Maybe a chief problem with proving that Anglicanism is false is the many contradictory things that have been upheld as true within its ranks at different times and places.
There is a very good post on the Continuing Anglican thread, reply no. 37, with details of how Anglican doctrine was in a state of flux in its early days. It's hard to believe that any church that kept changing its doctrine so much and so rapidly, was holding fast to the faith once delivered to the saints.

As far as trying to prove Anglicanism "false" goes, maybe it would be easier to answer whether Anglicanism has the fulness of the Apostolic Faith?

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 02, 2015, 03:35:38 PM
[P]rayers for the dead are included [in the 1979 BCP] for the first time in any BCP since the 1549 edition, as far as I know.
On the day President Kennedy died we knelt down in the living room, and my mother said this prayer from the Prayer Book (1928) that then was:
Quote from: 1928 Book of Common Prayer
Almighty God, we remember this day before thee thy faithful servant, and we pray that, having opened to him the gates of larger life, thou wilt receive him more and more into thy joyful service; that he may win, with thee and thy servants everywhere, the eternal victory; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
though she may have modified the wording somewhat to make it easier for us kids to understand.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2015, 03:35:43 PM
As far as trying to prove Anglicanism "false" goes, maybe it would be easier to answer whether Anglicanism has the fulness of the Apostolic Faith?

Are you going to get the fulless of the apostolic faith at a Church full of Greeks where the liturgy is in Greek and you only speak English?  I don't see how.  Maybe the fullness of the faith doesn't really exist anywhere.  There are many other alternatives.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 03:41:24 PM
[P]rayers for the dead are included [in the 1979 BCP] for the first time in any BCP since the 1549 edition, as far as I know.
On the day President Kennedy died we knelt down in the living room, and my mother said this prayer from the Prayer Book (1928) that then was:
Quote from: 1928 Book of Common Prayer
Almighty God, we remember this day before thee thy faithful servant, and we pray that, having opened to him the gates of larger life, thou wilt receive him more and more into thy joyful service; that he may win, with thee and thy servants everywhere, the eternal victory; through Jesus Christ our Lord.
though she may have modified the wording somewhat to make it easier for us kids to understand.

OK, so the absence of prayers for the dead lasted from 1549 to 1928, not 1979. I think his point still stands: your church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 02, 2015, 03:41:31 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 02, 2015, 03:46:16 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)

Having skimmed through the first few paragraphs....

Quote
that Christ hath left us as touching His human nature, but hath not left us as touching His Divine nature

Sounds Nestorian.

Quote
We believe that the Holy Ghost, who is the third person in the Holy Trinity, is very God: not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeding from both the Father and the Son

Ouch.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on May 02, 2015, 03:48:44 PM
As far as trying to prove Anglicanism "false" goes, maybe it would be easier to answer whether Anglicanism has the fulness of the Apostolic Faith?

Are you going to get the fulless of the apostolic faith at a Church full of Greeks where the liturgy is in Greek and you only speak English?  I don't see how.  Maybe the fullness of the faith doesn't really exist anywhere.  There are many other alternatives.

Well, then Christ is a liar.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 03:48:58 PM
I think it's been pointed out before by many that Protestantism is in many ways just several riffs on Nestorianism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 02, 2015, 03:50:18 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)

Neither have we any other mediator and intercessor, by whom we may have access to God the Father, than Jesus Christ, in whose only Name all things are obtained at His Father's hand. But it is a shameful part, and full of infidelity, that we see every whore used in the churches of our adversaries, not only in that they will have innumerable sorts of mediators, and that utterly without the authority of God's word (so that, as Jeremy saith, "The saints be now as many in number, or rather above the number of the cities;" and poor men cannot tell to which saint it were best to turn them first; and though there be so many as they cannot be told, yet every one of them hath his peculiar duty and office assigned unto him of these folks, what thing they ought to ask, what to give, and what to bring to pass): but besides this also, in that they do not only wickedly, but also shamefully, call upon the Blessed Virgin, Christ's mother, to have her remember that she is the mother, and to command her Son, and to use a mother's authority over Him.

This is not the apostolic faith. Try again.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 03:52:34 PM
Still, it's nice to read a defense of the Anglican faith that sets clear boundaries between truth and falsehood, even if what Bp Jewel considered the truth was in error. I can respect him in a way I can't respect contemporary purveyors of syncretism and relativism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 02, 2015, 03:54:33 PM
Still, it's nice to read a defense of the Anglican faith that sets clear boundaries between truth and falsehood, even if what Bp Jewel considered the truth was in error. I can respect him in a way I can't respect contemporary purveyors of syncretism and relativism.

A good point. It's rather strange to invoke Bishop Jewel as an authority here, as he would find the Episcopal Church unrecognizable. The fact that Bishop Spong could openly deny the most basic Christian beliefs without any discipline against him is a pretty good indicator that there are no real doctrinal standards in Anglicanism today.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2015, 04:11:11 PM
OK, so the absence of prayers for the dead lasted from 1549 to 1928, not 1979. I think his point still stands: your church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.

Can you say Iconclastic Controversy?  The Church hierarchy was held captive to a belief deemed heretical, for around two centuries.

A good point. It's rather strange to invoke Bishop Jewel as an authority here, as he would find the Episcopal Church unrecognizable. The fact that Bishop Spong could openly deny the most basic Christian beliefs without any discipline against him is a pretty good indicator that there are no real doctrinal standards in Anglicanism today.

Have you actually listened to, or read any of Spong?  I watched him in a debate with William Lane Craig.  It's true he seems to redefinie many things in a way that's uncomfortable for me but it's hard to pin him down as violating the canons of the Episcopal Church.

You'ld be shocked what sort of stuff gets taught in many Orthodox seminaries, BTW.  If you think its all biblical literalism, you are in for a surprise.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 02, 2015, 04:13:49 PM
[Y]our church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.
Our neophytes have always been baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and been signed with the sign of the cross.  (The Puritans hated that signation).

Our anaphoras have always given thanks to God the Father through Jesus Christ.  Here are the proper prefaces for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Whitsunday respectively, from the 1604 Prayer Book:

Quote from: proper preface for Christmas in 1604 Prayer Book
Because thou didst give Jesus Christ thine only Son to be born as this day for us; who, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, was made very man of the substance of the Virgin Mary his mother; and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin.

Quote from: proper preface for Easter in 1604 Prayer Book
But chiefly are we bound to praise thee for the glorious resurrection of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord: for he is the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world; who by his death hath destroyed death, and by his rising to life again hath restored to us everlasting life.

Quote from: proper preface for Ascension Day in 1604 Prayer Book
Through thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who after his most glorious resurrection manifestly appeared to all his Apostles, and in their sight ascended up into heaven to prepare a place for us; that where he is, thither might we also ascend, and reign with him in glory.

Quote from: proper preface for Whitsunday in 1604 Prayer Book
Through Jesus Christ our Lord; according to whose most true promise, the Holy Ghost came down this day from heaven with a sudden great sound, as it had been a mighty wind, in the likeness of fiery tongues, lighting upon the Apostles, to teach them, and to lead them to all truth; giving them both the gift of divers languages, and also boldness with fervent zeal constantly to preach the Gospel unto all nations; whereby we are brought out of darkness and error into the clear light and true knowledge of thee, and of thy Son Jesus Christ.

Do you have a problem with any of these statements?

We have always held the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.  It is true that some in the Episcopal church, when it was being organized in the late 1700's, wanted to scrap the Nicene creed on account of its unscriptural language, but they were voted down.

In all our rites we say the Lord's Prayer.  Do you have a problem with that?

We have always read the Scriptures in our worship.  Ideally, if one could get to church morning and evening every day, he would hear the entire Bible.  Does this impede a faithful confession?

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 04:35:46 PM
OK, so the absence of prayers for the dead lasted from 1549 to 1928, not 1979. I think his point still stands: your church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.

Can you say Iconclastic Controversy?  The Church hierarchy was held captive to a belief deemed heretical, for around two centuries.


Not the entire hierarchy. The Roman patriarchate remained untouched, and many groups, particularly monasteries, maintained the truth despite persecution. St John of Damascus famously wrote against it.

And what's different about today is that the Orthodox were not hesitant in breaking communion with heretics back then. Today's Anglicans all remain in communion despite not sharing a common faith, as if these differences don't really matter.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 04:39:39 PM
[Y]our church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.
Our neophytes have always been baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and been signed with the sign of the cross.  (The Puritans hated that signation).

Our anaphoras have always given thanks to God the Father through Jesus Christ.  Here are the proper prefaces for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Whitsunday respectively, from the 1604 Prayer Book:

Quote from: proper preface for Christmas in 1604 Prayer Book
Because thou didst give Jesus Christ thine only Son to be born as this day for us; who, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, was made very man of the substance of the Virgin Mary his mother; and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin.

Quote from: proper preface for Easter in 1604 Prayer Book
But chiefly are we bound to praise thee for the glorious resurrection of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord: for he is the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world; who by his death hath destroyed death, and by his rising to life again hath restored to us everlasting life.

Quote from: proper preface for Ascension Day in 1604 Prayer Book
Through thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who after his most glorious resurrection manifestly appeared to all his Apostles, and in their sight ascended up into heaven to prepare a place for us; that where he is, thither might we also ascend, and reign with him in glory.

Quote from: proper preface for Whitsunday in 1604 Prayer Book
Through Jesus Christ our Lord; according to whose most true promise, the Holy Ghost came down this day from heaven with a sudden great sound, as it had been a mighty wind, in the likeness of fiery tongues, lighting upon the Apostles, to teach them, and to lead them to all truth; giving them both the gift of divers languages, and also boldness with fervent zeal constantly to preach the Gospel unto all nations; whereby we are brought out of darkness and error into the clear light and true knowledge of thee, and of thy Son Jesus Christ.

Do you have a problem with any of these statements?

We have always held the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.  It is true that some in the Episcopal church, when it was being organized in the late 1700's, wanted to scrap the Nicene creed on account of its unscriptural language, but they were voted down.

In all our rites we say the Lord's Prayer.  Do you have a problem with that?

We have always read the Scriptures in our worship.  Ideally, if one could get to church morning and evening every day, he would hear the entire Bible.  Does this impede a faithful confession?

I have a problem with you evading my earlier point, which was that there's a discrepancy between your church's teaching on prayers for the dead in the 39 articles and in the original BCP, and the teaching implied in the prayers from the 1928 version. A church that taught the truth would not change doctrine like that.

I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox, whether the explicitly Protestant faith of Bp Jewel or the syncretistic hodge-podge taught by today's Anglican bishops. As several others have pointed out, even in that "orthodox" confession of faith by Bp Jewel, we can identify several areas of disagreement.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 02, 2015, 04:43:45 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)

Neither have we any other mediator and intercessor, by whom we may have access to God the Father, than Jesus Christ, in whose only Name all things are obtained at His Father's hand. But it is a shameful part, and full of infidelity, that we see every whore used in the churches of our adversaries, not only in that they will have innumerable sorts of mediators, and that utterly without the authority of God's word (so that, as Jeremy saith, "The saints be now as many in number, or rather above the number of the cities;" and poor men cannot tell to which saint it were best to turn them first; and though there be so many as they cannot be told, yet every one of them hath his peculiar duty and office assigned unto him of these folks, what thing they ought to ask, what to give, and what to bring to pass): but besides this also, in that they do not only wickedly, but also shamefully, call upon the Blessed Virgin, Christ's mother, to have her remember that she is the mother, and to command her Son, and to use a mother's authority over Him.

This is not the apostolic faith. Try again.

It was stated in the Ten Articles, (1536),  that invocation of saints should "be done without any vain superstition, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ; or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same".   Which apostle taught that some saint "is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ"? 

By Bishop Jewel's time the invocation of saints in the public liturgy had been pared down to a single reference, in the canticle Benedicite:

Quote from: Benedicite
O ye Spirits and Souls of the Righteous, bless ye the Lord: Praise him, and magnify him for ever.

How do you know that we did not need to go almost cold-turkey to wean ourselves from supersition?  Are you our spiritual advisor?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 02, 2015, 04:52:19 PM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.

I notice that you were not able to point to anything unorthodox in the post to which you were responding.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 04:53:56 PM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.

I notice that you were not able to point to anything unorthodox in the post to which you were responding.

LOL. How exactly did that break the rules? Never mind, I imagine the moderator will let me know.

There was nothing unorthodox that I could find. We did find unorthodox statements in the passages by Bp Jewel, unless your position now is that Bp Jewel doesn't accurately reflect your faith, in which case you're just confirming my accusation of Anglican inconstancy.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 02, 2015, 04:54:48 PM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.

You'll need to grow a thicker skin to be able to survive around here.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 02, 2015, 04:56:00 PM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.

You'll need to grow a thicker skin to be able to survive around here.

So many crybabies around here.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 02, 2015, 04:56:17 PM
Please also examine our liturgical texts, and compare our liturgy with the Episcopal liturgy. 

Here is good starting point:
http://www.saintjonah.org/services/

Your local library may be able to obtain some of the expensive liturgical books like the Lenten Triodion, the Pentecostarion, et cetera, or you could get the Nasser Five Pounder (I forget the proper title but I have one, the author is Fr. Seraphim Nasser) used on the cheap and that will give you most of the variable parts of the liturgy.  That's for Eastern Orthodox services as you indicated on the OO forum you would like to go there, and they have a fantastic liturgy.  However, PM me or look at the Sticky threads in the OO forum if you want to see our texts, because comparative liturgics is so fun.

Also here's a site with nearly every version of the Book of Common Prayer:
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/england.htm
I think the 1928 English and American books and the 1962 Canadian book win.

And here's the Roman Breviary and Missal, with propers for every day of the year, in several Tridentine versions, including most importantly the pre-Pius XIi versions.  Compare the 1910 Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday with the Orthodox Liturgy of the Presanctified, to see the commonalities, and why we ascribe it to Pope St. Gregory the Great (although many believe the Oriental St. Severus pioneered the Presanctified concept; the signing of the Chalice is very different from this liturgy however, which at a minimum was documented and introduced to Rome by Gregory the Great; it may have been pre existant in Constantinople. 

http://divinumofficium.com

Edit: I thought I was on page 2.  Anyway, Mockingbird encouraged byhisgrace to check out the 1979 BCP, so here are all versions of it, with the Eastern Orthodox liturgical resources compiled by Fr. John Whiteford and the Roman Catholic preconciliar liturgy for comparison.  I omitted the Novus Ordo mass as I'm still recovering from the stomach flu, not wanting to sound too uncharitable or anything.   :P
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 02, 2015, 05:04:21 PM
I think it's been pointed out before by many that Protestantism is in many ways just several riffs on Nestorianism.

By me among others.  The Black Rubric in the 1552 and 1662 editions of the Book of Common Prayer is more Nestorian than anything that's come out of the Assyrian Church of the East since Mar Narsai.  The real Nestorians are the Calvinists.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xOrthodox4Christx on May 02, 2015, 05:16:39 PM
OK, so the absence of prayers for the dead lasted from 1549 to 1928, not 1979. I think his point still stands: your church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.

Can you say Iconclastic Controversy?  The Church hierarchy was held captive to a belief deemed heretical, for around two centuries.

A good point. It's rather strange to invoke Bishop Jewel as an authority here, as he would find the Episcopal Church unrecognizable. The fact that Bishop Spong could openly deny the most basic Christian beliefs without any discipline against him is a pretty good indicator that there are no real doctrinal standards in Anglicanism today.

Have you actually listened to, or read any of Spong?  I watched him in a debate with William Lane Craig.  It's true he seems to redefinie many things in a way that's uncomfortable for me but it's hard to pin him down as violating the canons of the Episcopal Church.

You'ld be shocked what sort of stuff gets taught in many Orthodox seminaries, BTW.  If you think its all biblical literalism, you are in for a surprise.

So, the Anglican Church has been held captive to heresy since they were founded? I see, even more a reason to reject them for their perfidy.

Also, nobody here believes that Orthodox seminaries all teach "biblical literalism" Orthodox are well aware of the problems of Scripture. We don't need Sola Scriptura to understand Scripture... which is an oxymoron in any case.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 02, 2015, 05:35:52 PM
[Y]our church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.
Our neophytes have always been baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and been signed with the sign of the cross.  (The Puritans hated that signation).

Our anaphoras have always given thanks to God the Father through Jesus Christ.  Here are the proper prefaces for Christmas, Easter, Ascension, and Whitsunday respectively, from the 1604 Prayer Book:

Quote from: proper preface for Christmas in 1604 Prayer Book
Because thou didst give Jesus Christ thine only Son to be born as this day for us; who, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, was made very man of the substance of the Virgin Mary his mother; and that without spot of sin, to make us clean from all sin.

Quote from: proper preface for Easter in 1604 Prayer Book
But chiefly are we bound to praise thee for the glorious resurrection of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord: for he is the very Paschal Lamb, which was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world; who by his death hath destroyed death, and by his rising to life again hath restored to us everlasting life.

Quote from: proper preface for Ascension Day in 1604 Prayer Book
Through thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who after his most glorious resurrection manifestly appeared to all his Apostles, and in their sight ascended up into heaven to prepare a place for us; that where he is, thither might we also ascend, and reign with him in glory.

Quote from: proper preface for Whitsunday in 1604 Prayer Book
Through Jesus Christ our Lord; according to whose most true promise, the Holy Ghost came down this day from heaven with a sudden great sound, as it had been a mighty wind, in the likeness of fiery tongues, lighting upon the Apostles, to teach them, and to lead them to all truth; giving them both the gift of divers languages, and also boldness with fervent zeal constantly to preach the Gospel unto all nations; whereby we are brought out of darkness and error into the clear light and true knowledge of thee, and of thy Son Jesus Christ.

Do you have a problem with any of these statements?

We have always held the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.  It is true that some in the Episcopal church, when it was being organized in the late 1700's, wanted to scrap the Nicene creed on account of its unscriptural language, but they were voted down.

In all our rites we say the Lord's Prayer.  Do you have a problem with that?

We have always read the Scriptures in our worship.  Ideally, if one could get to church morning and evening every day, he would hear the entire Bible.  Does this impede a faithful confession?

Why are you quoting the obscure 1604 Prayerbook?  It wouldn't matter how Orthodox it was since to my knowledge no one actually uses that edition any longer.  The Eastern Orthodox also read the entire New Testament except Revelations during the Divine Liturgy and a huge chunk of the Old Testament.  The Copts read a bit less of the Old Testament, reading it primarily in Holy Week, but read the Apocalypse.  The Syriacs have different lectionaries which can include two Old Testament lections and two New Teatament ones.  So we can't be accused of the slightly stylized and minimalistic lessons of the Tridentine missal, which just convey the essence; our lessons are more substantial, like the Anglican ones.  But consider this: how many Anglican churches celebrate Mattins and Evensong according to the older BCP editions rather than the newer service books with the  Revised Common Lectionary, which fails to read more than about 60% of the Bible in three years, every day?  If you can name one in the UK using the 1662 or 1928 editions, or one in the US using the 1928 edition, or one in Canada using the 1962 edition, I would be delighted.  In Southern California there is an Order of the Holy Cross monastery but they're on the 79 BCP and the RCL and thus are not doing the whole Old and New Testaments.   An Anglican parish with daily choral Mattins , Communion and Evensong is something like Xanadu these days; a fabulous lost city that once did exist (St. Pauls at the turn of the 20th cenrury perhaps, or Christ Church at Oxford, or Canterbury Cathedral), at least according to archaeological evidence, but which has since descended into the realm of myth.

And consider this dismaying observation: the suggestion that the Nicene Creed, which you confess not. having interpolated the Filioque and rha creating a new creed, excepting the Non Juring Scottish Episcopalians loyal to Bonnie Primce Charlie, who sought Union with the Greeks and omitted the Filioque, from what I've read (though like the Loch Ness Monster they may be creatures of myth summoned to foster improved Anglican-Orthodox relations), contains unscriptural language, is to our ears almost blasphemous.  Just because the word meaning "of one essence" does not appear in the Bible does not make it unscriptural, for it accurately reflects the teachings of the Bible concerning the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said Himself "I and the Father are one."  To say it's unscriptural because it uses a word or two not found in the New Testamemt is also literal to the point of being asinine, and fails to take into account the changes in Koine Greek that occurred between the first century, when we believe the Gospels were composed, and the fourth.  It would be like finding the phrase "self-expression" or perhaps "human dignity" in Shakespeare.

So you asked for something unorthodox in your post.  There it is.  You could have avoided it by saying "which they thought was unscriptural" but you worded it in such a way as to signify agreement with the basic idea.

That being said, it should also be noted the liturgical quotes you selected are similiar to our liturgy and we could hardly fault them; Cranmer lifted the Prayer of St. John Chrysostom from our Liturgy, where it is the Prayer of the Third Antiphon (or the second; I get them backwards sometimes). 

But in selecting a small sample of material you know to be inoffensive and omitting material that is offensive, like the Thirty Nine Articles, the Homily on Idolatry from the Book of Homilies, or the Black Rubric, you do appear to be trying to pass off historic Anglicanism as Orthodox.

In my view some high church Anglicans and Anglo Catholics are functionally Orthodox and should hasten to join the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate.  But Anglicanism as a whole, although closer to Orthodoxy than any other Protestants with the possible exception of the Moravians or Hussites or Utraquists, a related grouping of formerly Orthodox Czechs forcibly Latinized, who sought to regain communion in both species and vernacular services, but who in the case of the Moravians were led astray by their protector Count Zinzendorf, whose fascination with the wounds of Christ was disturbing and led to a phallic cult being formed by his son, which had to be suppressed causing great scandal, is not Orthodox.  It's not deeply heretical, but it is heterodox.  But we do love it; a huge chunk of our convert base consists of former Anglicans.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 02, 2015, 05:37:52 PM
OK, so the absence of prayers for the dead lasted from 1549 to 1928, not 1979. I think his point still stands: your church has not been constant or consistent in their confession of faith.

Can you say Iconclastic Controversy?  The Church hierarchy was held captive to a belief deemed heretical, for around two centuries.

A good point. It's rather strange to invoke Bishop Jewel as an authority here, as he would find the Episcopal Church unrecognizable. The fact that Bishop Spong could openly deny the most basic Christian beliefs without any discipline against him is a pretty good indicator that there are no real doctrinal standards in Anglicanism today.

Have you actually listened to, or read any of Spong?  I watched him in a debate with William Lane Craig.  It's true he seems to redefinie many things in a way that's uncomfortable for me but it's hard to pin him down as violating the canons of the Episcopal Church.

You'ld be shocked what sort of stuff gets taught in many Orthodox seminaries, BTW.  If you think its all biblical literalism, you are in for a surprise.

So, the Anglican Church has been held captive to heresy since they were founded? I see, even more a reason to reject them for their perfidy.

Also, nobody here believes that Orthodox seminaries all teach "biblical literalism" Orthodox are well aware of the problems of Scripture. We don't need Sola Scriptura to understand Scripture... which is an oxymoron in any case.

Indeed; since when did we become Biblical literalists?  We're Orthodox, not fundamentalist baptists.  This is the church of typology and allegorical I terpretation following the Alexandrian school, which we favor over Antiochene literalism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 02, 2015, 06:08:08 PM
You'ld be shocked what sort of stuff gets taught in many Orthodox seminaries, BTW.  If you think its all biblical literalism, you are in for a surprise.

Do tell.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 02, 2015, 06:17:55 PM
It was stated in the Ten Articles, (1536),  that invocation of saints should "be done without any vain superstition, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ; or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same".   Which apostle taught that some saint "is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ"? 

Indeed, who taught that?  This idea that we put up saints almost as rival gods pops up among those who reject the veneration of saints, but they can't show where anyone authoritatively teaches it.  They might point to pious people who don't know better, and admittedly they exist and need to be taught better, but if they are now a source of theology, why not modern Anglican/Episcopalian bishops?

Quote
How do you know that we did not need to go almost cold-turkey to wean ourselves from supersition?  Are you our spiritual advisor?

If the only way to wean yourselves from superstition is to reject something that ultimately involves an implicit rejection of the resurrection, what are we to make of that? 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 02, 2015, 08:37:51 PM
Mockingbird, I have been reading Jewell's apology.  Besides his minimalist Trinitarian theology, I came across this quote:

"For although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold Him fast, and eat Him by faith, by understanding, and by the Spirit"

If we don't touch the body of Christ in our mouths... then how do we receive him?  What is the point of eating in the sacrament if the body of Christ does not touch our mouths?

I don't see this attitude at all compatible with the same Chrysostom who said that we smear the blood of the Lamb upon the doorpost of our mouths.  Note the contrast of body and spirit as well.  This doesn't sound right.  Calvinists have been accused of Gnosticism and Christological heresy before, and this sort of thing doesn't help in refuting that.

On the other hand, the Orthodox call the Eucharist an "unbloodly sacrifice".  I would like to hear Orthodox clarify what is meant by this, if it has any definable meaning at all.

Lastly, I find it a sad irony that the one sacrament that is suppossed to unite us as Christians seems to be the main cause of division that we cannot agree on.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 02, 2015, 09:45:55 PM
As far as trying to prove Anglicanism "false" goes, maybe it would be easier to answer whether Anglicanism has the fulness of the Apostolic Faith?

Are you going to get the fulless of the apostolic faith at a Church full of Greeks where the liturgy is in Greek and you only speak English?  I don't see how.  Maybe the fullness of the faith doesn't really exist anywhere.  There are many other alternatives.

Greek Orthodox parishes in English-speaking countries have English translations in the liturgy book. I don't see what the problem is.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: scamandrius on May 02, 2015, 09:47:32 PM
I cant remember if this has already been brought up to the op, but, how about ordaining women bishops?  Priests are one thing but bishops is an entirely different can of worms.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 02, 2015, 09:58:34 PM
I cant remember if this has already been brought up to the op, but, how about ordaining women bishops?  Priests are one thing but bishops is an entirely different can of worms.

How so?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 02, 2015, 10:01:16 PM

Have you actually listened to, or read any of Spong?  I watched him in a debate with William Lane Craig.  It's true he seems to redefinie many things in a way that's uncomfortable for me but it's hard to pin him down as violating the canons of the Episcopal Church.

As a matter of fact, I have. It's not hard to pin him down. He's a straight up heretic.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 02, 2015, 10:10:20 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)

Neither have we any other mediator and intercessor, by whom we may have access to God the Father, than Jesus Christ, in whose only Name all things are obtained at His Father's hand. But it is a shameful part, and full of infidelity, that we see every whore used in the churches of our adversaries, not only in that they will have innumerable sorts of mediators, and that utterly without the authority of God's word (so that, as Jeremy saith, "The saints be now as many in number, or rather above the number of the cities;" and poor men cannot tell to which saint it were best to turn them first; and though there be so many as they cannot be told, yet every one of them hath his peculiar duty and office assigned unto him of these folks, what thing they ought to ask, what to give, and what to bring to pass): but besides this also, in that they do not only wickedly, but also shamefully, call upon the Blessed Virgin, Christ's mother, to have her remember that she is the mother, and to command her Son, and to use a mother's authority over Him.

This is not the apostolic faith. Try again.

It was stated in the Ten Articles, (1536),  that invocation of saints should "be done without any vain superstition, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ; or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same".   Which apostle taught that some saint "is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ"? 

Now you're just pulling random arguments from the Magic Hat O' Anglican History. The 10 articles were rendered obsolete by 1552. Show me a single BCP that contains the 10 articles, or a single Anglican divine from the reign of Edward VI to the 20th century who upholds the 10 articles as authoritative Anglican doctrine. On the contrary, on numerous points (invocation of saints, eucharist, icons, etc) they are completely overturned in subsequent formularies such as the 39 articles. Not even the Anglo-Catholics tried to dig up the 10 articles as authoritative Anglican doctrine. The 10 articles prove nothing except what a craven, unprincipled bootlicker Thomas Cranmer was.

Quote
How do you know that we did not need to go almost cold-turkey to wean ourselves from supersition?  Are you our spiritual advisor?

Heresy does not wean you from superstition, but only deepens you in it. Your Calvinist sacramentology and your iconoclasm are not remedies for superstition, but are just a deeper leading into error.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 02, 2015, 11:45:44 PM
Mockingbird, I have been reading Jewell's apology.  Besides his minimalist Trinitarian theology, I came across this quote:

"For although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold Him fast, and eat Him by faith, by understanding, and by the Spirit"

If we don't touch the body of Christ in our mouths... then how do we receive him?  What is the point of eating in the sacrament if the body of Christ does not touch our mouths?

I don't see this attitude at all compatible with the same Chrysostom who said that we smear the blood of the Lamb upon the doorpost of our mouths.  Note the contrast of body and spirit as well.  This doesn't sound right.  Calvinists have been accused of Gnosticism and Christological heresy before, and this sort of thing doesn't help in refuting that.

On the other hand, the Orthodox call the Eucharist an "unbloodly sacrifice".  I would like to hear Orthodox clarify what is meant by this, if it has any definable meaning at all.

Lastly, I find it a sad irony that the one sacrament that is suppossed to unite us as Christians seems to be the main cause of division that we cannot agree on.

Interesting you should mention Chrysostom. The Protestants cited various texts allegedly written by him that denied the Real Presence. However, those texts are now regarded as forgeries.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 03, 2015, 01:38:11 PM
Mockingbird, I have been reading Jewell's apology.  Besides his minimalist Trinitarian theology,
There is nothing wrong with theology being "minimalist".  Only with it being heretical. 

I came across this quote:

"For although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold Him fast, and eat Him by faith, by understanding, and by the Spirit"

If we don't touch the body of Christ in our mouths... then how do we receive him?  What is the point of eating in the sacrament if the body of Christ does not touch our mouths?

I don't see this attitude at all compatible with the same Chrysostom who said that we smear the blood of the Lamb upon the doorpost of our mouths.  Note the contrast of body and spirit as well.  This doesn't sound right.

The body/soul distinction was taken for granted in the 16th century.  The Anglican teaching of those time was directed against the crude, mechanical, materialist interpretation of the Real Presence that seemed to be presupposed by the doctrine of transubstantiation as it was taught at that time.  It seemed to be a denial of Christ's humanity that his human body, even if glorified, could be in more than one place at once, since no human body can do this.  Since Scripture plainly states that the sharing of the bread is a participation in Christ's body, they had to find some other way to understand this besides what we would now call teleportation.

Are you yourself advocating a mechanical, materialist interpretation?  If so, show me the muscle tissue and the blood-tissue.  Show me the energy-balance and the material balance for the chemical or nuclear reactions that must occur. 

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 03, 2015, 01:44:38 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)

Neither have we any other mediator and intercessor, by whom we may have access to God the Father, than Jesus Christ, in whose only Name all things are obtained at His Father's hand. But it is a shameful part, and full of infidelity, that we see every whore used in the churches of our adversaries, not only in that they will have innumerable sorts of mediators, and that utterly without the authority of God's word (so that, as Jeremy saith, "The saints be now as many in number, or rather above the number of the cities;" and poor men cannot tell to which saint it were best to turn them first; and though there be so many as they cannot be told, yet every one of them hath his peculiar duty and office assigned unto him of these folks, what thing they ought to ask, what to give, and what to bring to pass): but besides this also, in that they do not only wickedly, but also shamefully, call upon the Blessed Virgin, Christ's mother, to have her remember that she is the mother, and to command her Son, and to use a mother's authority over Him.

This is not the apostolic faith. Try again.

It was stated in the Ten Articles, (1536),  that invocation of saints should "be done without any vain superstition, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ; or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same".   Which apostle taught that some saint "is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ"? 

Now you're just pulling random arguments from the Magic Hat O' Anglican History. The 10 articles were rendered obsolete by 1552. Show me a single BCP that contains the 10 articles, or a single Anglican divine from the reign of Edward VI to the 20th century who upholds the 10 articles as authoritative Anglican doctrine. On the contrary, on numerous points (invocation of saints, eucharist, icons, etc) they are completely overturned in subsequent formularies such as the 39 articles. Not even the Anglo-Catholics tried to dig up the 10 articles as authoritative Anglican doctrine. The 10 articles prove nothing except what a craven, unprincipled bootlicker Thomas Cranmer was.

The Ten Articles themselves, and some of the manners and ceremonies they referred to, went out of use fairly soon afterward, just as you say.  But the theological issues remained.  The Article I quoted provides some of the background to the quotation from Bishop Jewel.

People were taught that the saints were "more merciful than Christ".  This problem did not vanish when the Six Articles were passed. 
Bishop Jewel is complaining against this sort of teaching, against a model of the saints in which they form a wall between us and God, behind which we hide from God.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 03, 2015, 01:47:31 PM
It seemed to be a denial of Christ's humanity that his human body, even if glorified, could be in more than one place at once, since no human body can do this.

No human body can walk on water either.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 03, 2015, 03:03:53 PM
Are you yourself advocating a mechanical, materialist interpretation?  If so, show me the muscle tissue and the blood-tissue.  Show me the energy-balance and the material balance for the chemical or nuclear reactions that must occur.

You sound like you are the one trying to rationalize the things of God and explain them scientifically, not me. 

I don't believe the appearance of the bread and wine change so it would not be possible to produce scientific evidence, that doesn't mean there is no change happening.

The Protestants didn't need to explain the Eucharist at all, which is precisely my point.  They erred and created divisive doctrines about the Eucharist, all of or most of which are problematic.  Jesus didn't tell his disciples to take apart the sacrament and figure out how he was doing it, he said "do this in remembrance of me".



Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 03, 2015, 04:00:20 PM
Are you yourself advocating a mechanical, materialist interpretation?  If so, show me the muscle tissue and the blood-tissue.  Show me the energy-balance and the material balance for the chemical or nuclear reactions that must occur.
I don't believe the appearance of the bread and wine change so it would not be possible to produce scientific evidence, that doesn't mean there is no change happening.
What is the nature of this change?  Does the bread cease to exist?

The Protestants didn't need to explain the Eucharist at all, which is precisely my point.  They erred and created divisive doctrines about the Eucharist, all of or most of which are problematic.  Jesus didn't tell his disciples to take apart the sacrament and figure out how he was doing it, he said "do this in remembrance of me".
The Roman church created the doctrine of transubstantiation, which, our Article rightly states, "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."  This was the error and the divisive doctrine.  It is we who try not to explain too much.  The Roman church deems this a fault in us.  We are too imprecise for them.  But we have faith that Christ is feeding us, as he said he would.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 03, 2015, 05:21:52 PM
Are you yourself advocating a mechanical, materialist interpretation?  If so, show me the muscle tissue and the blood-tissue.  Show me the energy-balance and the material balance for the chemical or nuclear reactions that must occur.
I don't believe the appearance of the bread and wine change so it would not be possible to produce scientific evidence, that doesn't mean there is no change happening.
What is the nature of this change?  Does the bread cease to exist?

The Protestants didn't need to explain the Eucharist at all, which is precisely my point.  They erred and created divisive doctrines about the Eucharist, all of or most of which are problematic.  Jesus didn't tell his disciples to take apart the sacrament and figure out how he was doing it, he said "do this in remembrance of me".
The Roman church created the doctrine of transubstantiation, which, our Article rightly states, "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."  This was the error and the divisive doctrine.  It is we who try not to explain too much.  The Roman church deems this a fault in us.  We are too imprecise for them.  But we have faith that Christ is feeding us, as he said he would.

The Orthodox, including the Oriental Orthodox who separated from the Imperial Church hundreds of years before the Great Schism and the imposition of Papal universl jurisdiction in the West, and Thomas Aquinas writing the Summa Theologica, believes absolutely in the reality of the bread and wine being changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of our Lord.  So do the Eastern Orthodox.  So too does the Assyrian Church of the East, which is far less Nestorian than you.

Speaking of Nestorians, more proof that Rome did not invent this doctrine, but merely coined a word and offered an explanation for it, is found in the writings of your greatest liturgical theologian, Dom Gregory Dix.  He recounts the belief of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that the priest transformed the bread and wine into the dead physical body of our Lord in the liturgy of preparation.  This was then resurrected into the living immortal body and blood of our Lord by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.  Alas the 39 Articles are as historically wrong as they are representative of an inane and vacuous theology contrived by a hypocritical politician who burned a fellow reformer at the stake for doubting Transsubstantiation before rejecting it himself at the politically convenient time, before himself falling risk to the occupational hazard of his profession and meeting the same fate as his erstwhile colleague.  16th century Anglicanism is an obscenity and Bishop Jewell offers nothing that can save it.  Only with the emergence of high church Anglicans opposed to more extreme forms of Protestantism in the 17th century and the emerge ce, in quick progression, of the Scortish non jurors, who propagated their theology to the Protestant Episcopal Church of the US, John Wesley with his high Trinitarian and Eucharistic theology, and the Oxford movement and Anglo Catholicism, did Anglicanism become interesting.  But the writings of Jewell, Hooker, et al, are of little use. 

Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.

Transubstantiation is merely a name for this doctrine, and the use of Aristotle to explain how the bread and wine are changed "in substance" while retaining their perceptual qualities, or "accidents."  If anything this might not go far enough for the Orthodox, because the retention of the accidents seems guaranteed under Transubstantiation whereas we might say the perceptual jalopies of bread and wine are perhaps more illusory and fleeting; they exist for the comfort of the vast majority of the faithful, but when someone like the Arab Sheikh needs to see the flesh and blood, they disappear; they also disappear when someone pure of heart communes on occasion according to the beatitude, typically an advanced monastic.  I read of a Roman Catholic nun warning children before First Communion that if they bit down on the host they would have the blood of our Lord in their mouth; they all tried it and nothing happened.  I asked myself why she would tell such a foolish lie, which the children being children would surely test?  I now realize she in her personal holiness had likely experienced this by accident, and being pure of heart, it did not dawn on her the innocent looking children entrusted to her for catechesis before their first communion would disobey her instructions.

I myself have not seen beyond the perceptual attributes which I am grateful for, being squeamish.  Our Lord is merciful in what he hides from view.  Consider our digestive tract as a case in point.  But I have experienced enough, to believe unfailingly in the Real Change that occurs in the Epiclesis.  I have been cured of diseases spiritual and physical through this mystery, and through other mysteries rejected by the Anglicans like Unction.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 03, 2015, 05:41:11 PM
Whoops, double post.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 03, 2015, 05:45:40 PM
I'd like to hear more apologetics for Episcopalianism/Anglicanism, especially how it retains continuity with the apostolic faith.
A good place to start is the second part of John Jewel's Apology. (http://anglicanhistory.org/jewel/apology/02.html)

Neither have we any other mediator and intercessor, by whom we may have access to God the Father, than Jesus Christ, in whose only Name all things are obtained at His Father's hand. But it is a shameful part, and full of infidelity, that we see every whore used in the churches of our adversaries, not only in that they will have innumerable sorts of mediators, and that utterly without the authority of God's word (so that, as Jeremy saith, "The saints be now as many in number, or rather above the number of the cities;" and poor men cannot tell to which saint it were best to turn them first; and though there be so many as they cannot be told, yet every one of them hath his peculiar duty and office assigned unto him of these folks, what thing they ought to ask, what to give, and what to bring to pass): but besides this also, in that they do not only wickedly, but also shamefully, call upon the Blessed Virgin, Christ's mother, to have her remember that she is the mother, and to command her Son, and to use a mother's authority over Him.

This is not the apostolic faith. Try again.

It was stated in the Ten Articles, (1536),  that invocation of saints should "be done without any vain superstition, as to think that any saint is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ; or that any saint doth serve for one thing more than another, or is patron of the same".   Which apostle taught that some saint "is more merciful, or will hear us any sooner than Christ"? 

Now you're just pulling random arguments from the Magic Hat O' Anglican History. The 10 articles were rendered obsolete by 1552. Show me a single BCP that contains the 10 articles, or a single Anglican divine from the reign of Edward VI to the 20th century who upholds the 10 articles as authoritative Anglican doctrine. On the contrary, on numerous points (invocation of saints, eucharist, icons, etc) they are completely overturned in subsequent formularies such as the 39 articles. Not even the Anglo-Catholics tried to dig up the 10 articles as authoritative Anglican doctrine. The 10 articles prove nothing except what a craven, unprincipled bootlicker Thomas Cranmer was.

The Ten Articles themselves, and some of the manners and ceremonies they referred to, went out of use fairly soon afterward, just as you say.  But the theological issues remained.  The Article I quoted provides some of the background to the quotation from Bishop Jewel.

People were taught that the saints were "more merciful than Christ".  This problem did not vanish when the Six Articles were passed. 
Bishop Jewel is complaining against this sort of teaching, against a model of the saints in which they form a wall between us and God, behind which we hide from God.

I agree that it's wrong to teach that the saints are "more merciful than Christ" or that we need to use them to hide behind God. I think those ideas might be ultimately traceable back to Anselm and the satisfaction model, since it leads to a good-cop/bad-cop view of the Atonement where the "gentle" Son (as well as the saints) save us from the "angry and wrathful" Father from whom we need to hide.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 03, 2015, 07:27:08 PM
As a model it may also be traceable to emanationism where God cannot be approached directly but through a series of progressively more accessible emanations; consider also the believes of the Roma, I.e. Gypsies, originally Smarti Hindus, who believe in worshipping God only through a female consort.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 07:33:42 PM
Mockingbird, I have been reading Jewell's apology.  Besides his minimalist Trinitarian theology,
There is nothing wrong with theology being "minimalist".  Only with it being heretical. 

I came across this quote:

"For although we do not touch the body of Christ with teeth and mouth, yet we hold Him fast, and eat Him by faith, by understanding, and by the Spirit"

If we don't touch the body of Christ in our mouths... then how do we receive him?  What is the point of eating in the sacrament if the body of Christ does not touch our mouths?

I don't see this attitude at all compatible with the same Chrysostom who said that we smear the blood of the Lamb upon the doorpost of our mouths.  Note the contrast of body and spirit as well.  This doesn't sound right.

The body/soul distinction was taken for granted in the 16th century.  The Anglican teaching of those time was directed against the crude, mechanical, materialist interpretation of the Real Presence that seemed to be presupposed by the doctrine of transubstantiation as it was taught at that time.  It seemed to be a denial of Christ's humanity that his human body, even if glorified, could be in more than one place at once, since no human body can do this.  Since Scripture plainly states that the sharing of the bread is a participation in Christ's body, they had to find some other way to understand this besides what we would now call teleportation.

Are you yourself advocating a mechanical, materialist interpretation?  If so, show me the muscle tissue and the blood-tissue.  Show me the energy-balance and the material balance for the chemical or nuclear reactions that must occur.

Well if you apply some Platonic Form theory, you could say that the physical substance of the bread and wine is ancillary to the idea of the bread and wine as it participates in the Form.

The idea of the Body and Blood thus replaces the ideas of bread and wine but need not replace the physical externals.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 07:37:49 PM
Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.

Transubstantiation is merely a name for this doctrine, and the use of Aristotle to explain how the bread and wine are changed "in substance" while retaining their perceptual qualities, or "accidents."  If anything this might not go far enough for the Orthodox, because the retention of the accidents seems guaranteed under Transubstantiation whereas we might say the perceptual jalopies of bread and wine are perhaps more illusory and fleeting; they exist for the comfort of the vast majority of the faithful,

I respect your erudition, but this seems a tad radical (not the Eucharistic miracles, but the idea that the accidents of the bread and wine are just illusions). I'd need to see an official Orthodox source on that.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 03, 2015, 07:40:00 PM
Just playing devil's advocate: If the bread and wine actually change to the body and blood of Christ, but does not change the physical appearance in any of the five senses, then how is it really a change? How is it any different from spiritual presence, as believed by Calvin, and the sacramental union, as believed by Luther? 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 03, 2015, 07:52:23 PM
Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.

Transubstantiation is merely a name for this doctrine, and the use of Aristotle to explain how the bread and wine are changed "in substance" while retaining their perceptual qualities, or "accidents."  If anything this might not go far enough for the Orthodox, because the retention of the accidents seems guaranteed under Transubstantiation whereas we might say the perceptual jalopies of bread and wine are perhaps more illusory and fleeting; they exist for the comfort of the vast majority of the faithful,

I respect your erudition, but this seems a tad radical (not the Eucharistic miracles, but the idea that the accidents of the bread and wine are just illusions). I'd need to see an official Orthodox source on that.

It also seems a bit different from Alexander Schmemann's view of the Eucharist, too, if I remember correctly. Didn't he believe that consecration didn't so much change the bread and wine into something totally different, but rather bring it to the fulfillment of what it already was? (This would imply that all bread, and all wine, were to some extent holy because of what they could potentially become).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 08:23:34 PM
Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.

Transubstantiation is merely a name for this doctrine, and the use of Aristotle to explain how the bread and wine are changed "in substance" while retaining their perceptual qualities, or "accidents."  If anything this might not go far enough for the Orthodox, because the retention of the accidents seems guaranteed under Transubstantiation whereas we might say the perceptual jalopies of bread and wine are perhaps more illusory and fleeting; they exist for the comfort of the vast majority of the faithful,

I respect your erudition, but this seems a tad radical (not the Eucharistic miracles, but the idea that the accidents of the bread and wine are just illusions). I'd need to see an official Orthodox source on that.

It also seems a bit different from Alexander Schmemann's view of the Eucharist, too, if I remember correctly. Didn't he believe that consecration didn't so much change the bread and wine into something totally different, but rather bring it to the fulfillment of what it already was? (This would imply that all bread, and all wine, were to some extent holy because of what they could potentially become).

Well, I guess that would fit with the idea that Christ has sanctified all matter by the Incarnation.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 08:28:43 PM
Just playing devil's advocate: If the bread and wine actually change to the body and blood of Christ, but does not change the physical appearance in any of the five senses, then how is it really a change? How is it any different from spiritual presence, as believed by Calvin, and the sacramental union, as believed by Luther?

Well, if you take Plato's view (I'm not so sure about Aristotle's view or Aquinas' interpretation of it, but I think that they're similar) what makes a thing a thing is not so much the matter it's made of but the thing's conformity to the unchanging idea of the thing in the mind of God.

So from that perspective it can still be a real change without changing appearance. It would seem to be a conundrum from a modern Nominalist approach, though.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 03, 2015, 08:35:48 PM
Just playing devil's advocate: If the bread and wine actually change to the body and blood of Christ, but does not change the physical appearance in any of the five senses, then how is it really a change? How is it any different from spiritual presence, as believed by Calvin, and the sacramental union, as believed by Luther?

Well, if you take Plato's view (I'm not so sure about Aristotle's view or Aquinas' interpretation of it, but I think that they're similar) what makes a thing a thing is not so much the matter it's made of but the thing's conformity to the unchanging idea of the thing in the mind of God.

So from that perspective it can still be a real change without changing appearance. It would seem to be a conundrum from a modern Nominalist approach, though.

Interesting. I don't recall Christians believing that we can cherry-pick Platonic philosophy (or any other secular philosophy) and make it a matter of non-negotiable Christian dogma.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on May 03, 2015, 08:45:30 PM
I recommend that you do some reading of the Russian-French theologian Vladimir Lossky.  I recommend starting with "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church."

Then you should read some of the writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, or at least those which were later attributed to him, which are important writings in Church history.  As an introduction to the corpus of his thought, I might recommend to you the book, Theophany, by Perl.

You might be surprised at how much Platonism, and more specifically, Neoplatonism, influenced early Orthodox Christian thought.  I wouldn't say that the Fathers "cherry-picked" from Platonism, however; it is more like they presented the fullness of truth which the early philosophers had dimly grasped, as pointed out by St. Paul in his speech to the Athenians, recorded in the Book of Acts.

I am not as well-versed on Aristotle or his philosophy, but I understand that the Western Church took it and ran with it but sometimes took it and ran with it to an extent greater than its harmonization with the fullness of truth really permitted.  I am open to correction or clarification on this point.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 09:01:40 PM
Just playing devil's advocate: If the bread and wine actually change to the body and blood of Christ, but does not change the physical appearance in any of the five senses, then how is it really a change? How is it any different from spiritual presence, as believed by Calvin, and the sacramental union, as believed by Luther?

Well, if you take Plato's view (I'm not so sure about Aristotle's view or Aquinas' interpretation of it, but I think that they're similar) what makes a thing a thing is not so much the matter it's made of but the thing's conformity to the unchanging idea of the thing in the mind of God.

So from that perspective it can still be a real change without changing appearance. It would seem to be a conundrum from a modern Nominalist approach, though.

Interesting. I don't recall Christians believing that we can cherry-pick Platonic philosophy (or any other secular philosophy) and make it a matter of non-negotiable Christian dogma.

I was not trying to make it dogmatic (nor did I intend to cherry-pick) only to offer one possible way in which Transubstantiation might be still be true without leading to empirical absurdities.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Czar Lazar on May 03, 2015, 09:14:59 PM
What compelling reason(s) do I have to reject Anglicanism?   

What, how, and why was the birth of Anglicanism?

(https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.gRJk0xtqTUsHRWmE7gOyRw&pid=15.1&P=0)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xariskai on May 03, 2015, 09:24:43 PM
Anglicans vary doctrinally from full Synod of Dort Calvinists to almost Roman Catholic, to Unitarians who wear vestments to everything in between and beyond. Bishop Spong rejects the Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Christ's miracles, the physical Resurrection , the Ascension of Christ, and theism as such; this sort of extreme wing within Anglicanism is nothing new, as anyone apprised with the mid-twentieth century Honest to God and similar debates will easily recognize. Even if an individual Anglican Bishop's theology was perfectly sound, he is in communion with other Bishops whose theology is anything but sound. For this reason it seems difficult to accept Anglicanism as such as "the Apostolic Faith" (faith singular) but multifariously variegated in ways here converging and there utterly repudiating the faith of the first millennium Councils. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, a former Anglican, has admitted Anglican-Orthodox dialogue has long since become purely academic. Note that praxis is as critical as doctrine for this question as Christianity (in our view at least) is not a philosophy or system of doctrines but a way of life (see Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way for an introductory description).

That said, it is not for anyone here to convince you Anglcanism is false or true or something else (e.g. along the lines of St. Justin we would not be surprised to find a "spermatikos Logos" in all, with all, and through all trajectories as a witness even if all such trajectories do not represent the fullness of faith we find in the Orthodox Church); you must prayerfully make your own journey of repentant faith, which with God's guidance is a surer way to a fuller faith than the intellect as such (though of course such is congruent). May Christ bless your journey.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on May 03, 2015, 09:35:25 PM
As to the original topic:

It is worth pointing out that throughout Church history, whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement on any matter deemed remotely important to the transmission of the Apostolic Faith, a council (whether local, regional, or ecumenical) met to consider the issue.  A clear resolution was reached and that teaching was either received or rejected by the people and became a statement of Church teaching with authority.  After the passage of a period of time, that teaching was accepted as orthodox (small "o") and dissenters either left to form parallel religious communities or were excommunicated.

Sometimes, as with iconoclasm, the resolution took centuries.  In other cases, the break was more immediate.  But the rejection of the unorthodox party occurred, sooner or later, in every instance.

Anglicanism is unique in history because, since the 16th century, it has made any number of equally acceptable pronouncements about any number of important theological issues which traverse the spectrum from Calvinism to near-Roman Catholicism, as was stated above.  But most importantly, I think, dissenters from any one of these pronouncements have not been excluded from the Anglican Communion on the basis of these views, but rather embraced.  The Anglican "Via Media," therefore, which has existed since at least the time of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Caroline Divines, is an entirely innovative practice which is utterly at odds with Church history.

Thus, while there may be much that is good in Anglican Christianity -- and should any part of it ever return to communion with Orthodoxy I have no doubt that there is much which would continue on -- by its very nature and practices, it can't really compete with the Orthodox Church for the status of the Apostolic Church in the sense that we intend that phrase to have.  While it may contain within it theology, churches, and persons who embrace positions which are more or less in alignment with the historic Orthodox Christian faith, as a whole, Anglican Christianity simply does not function theologically in the way that the historic Orthodox Church has functioned for 2000 years.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xariskai on May 03, 2015, 09:39:41 PM
But most importantly, I think, dissenters from any one of these pronouncements have not been excluded from the Anglican Communion on the basis of these views, but rather embraced...  Anglican Christianity simply does not function theologically in the way that the historic Orthodox Church has functioned for 2000 years.
+1
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 03, 2015, 10:10:39 PM
Just playing devil's advocate: If the bread and wine actually change to the body and blood of Christ, but does not change the physical appearance in any of the five senses, then how is it really a change? How is it any different from spiritual presence, as believed by Calvin, and the sacramental union, as believed by Luther?

Well, if you take Plato's view (I'm not so sure about Aristotle's view or Aquinas' interpretation of it, but I think that they're similar) what makes a thing a thing is not so much the matter it's made of but the thing's conformity to the unchanging idea of the thing in the mind of God.

So from that perspective it can still be a real change without changing appearance. It would seem to be a conundrum from a modern Nominalist approach, though.

Interesting. I don't recall Christians believing that we can cherry-pick Platonic philosophy (or any other secular philosophy) and make it a matter of non-negotiable Christian dogma.

I was not trying to make it dogmatic (nor did I intend to cherry-pick) only to offer one possible way in which Transubstantiation might be still be true without leading to empirical absurdities.

I'm so sorry for being so snarky in my reply. Please forgive me.  :-[
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 03, 2015, 10:17:57 PM
As to the original topic:

It is worth pointing out that throughout Church history, whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement on any matter deemed remotely important to the transmission of the Apostolic Faith, a council (whether local, regional, or ecumenical) met to consider the issue.  A clear resolution was reached and that teaching was either received or rejected by the people and became a statement of Church teaching with authority.  After the passage of a period of time, that teaching was accepted as orthodox (small "o") and dissenters either left to form parallel religious communities or were excommunicated.

Sometimes, as with iconoclasm, the resolution took centuries.  In other cases, the break was more immediate.  But the rejection of the unorthodox party occurred, sooner or later, in every instance.

Anglicanism is unique in history because, since the 16th century, it has made any number of equally acceptable pronouncements about any number of important theological issues which traverse the spectrum from Calvinism to near-Roman Catholicism, as was stated above.  But most importantly, I think, dissenters from any one of these pronouncements have not been excluded from the Anglican Communion on the basis of these views, but rather embraced.  The Anglican "Via Media," therefore, which has existed since at least the time of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Caroline Divines, is an entirely innovative practice which is utterly at odds with Church history.

Thus, while there may be much that is good in Anglican Christianity -- and should any part of it ever return to communion with Orthodoxy I have no doubt that there is much which would continue on -- by its very nature and practices, it can't really compete with the Orthodox Church for the status of the Apostolic Church in the sense that we intend that phrase to have.  While it may contain within it theology, churches, and persons who embrace positions which are more or less in alignment with the historic Orthodox Christian faith, as a whole, Anglican Christianity simply does not function theologically in the way that the historic Orthodox Church has functioned for 2000 years.

Good answer, Yurysprudentsiya!
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 03, 2015, 10:27:43 PM
As to the original topic:

It is worth pointing out that throughout Church history, whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement on any matter deemed remotely important to the transmission of the Apostolic Faith, a council (whether local, regional, or ecumenical) met to consider the issue.  A clear resolution was reached and that teaching was either received or rejected by the people and became a statement of Church teaching with authority.  After the passage of a period of time, that teaching was accepted as orthodox (small "o") and dissenters either left to form parallel religious communities or were excommunicated.

Sometimes, as with iconoclasm, the resolution took centuries.  In other cases, the break was more immediate.  But the rejection of the unorthodox party occurred, sooner or later, in every instance.

Anglicanism is unique in history because, since the 16th century, it has made any number of equally acceptable pronouncements about any number of important theological issues which traverse the spectrum from Calvinism to near-Roman Catholicism, as was stated above.  But most importantly, I think, dissenters from any one of these pronouncements have not been excluded from the Anglican Communion on the basis of these views, but rather embraced.  The Anglican "Via Media," therefore, which has existed since at least the time of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Caroline Divines, is an entirely innovative practice which is utterly at odds with Church history.

Thus, while there may be much that is good in Anglican Christianity -- and should any part of it ever return to communion with Orthodoxy I have no doubt that there is much which would continue on -- by its very nature and practices, it can't really compete with the Orthodox Church for the status of the Apostolic Church in the sense that we intend that phrase to have.  While it may contain within it theology, churches, and persons who embrace positions which are more or less in alignment with the historic Orthodox Christian faith, as a whole, Anglican Christianity simply does not function theologically in the way that the historic Orthodox Church has functioned for 2000 years.

Portions have returned to Orthodoxy.  The Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate started life as a confraternity of Anglo Catholic priests disillusioned with the Protestant Episcopal Church.  Hence St. Andrews Prayerbook has two Divine Liturgies, a BCP derivative and a Tridentine mass derivative.  The two favorites for Anglo Catholics, but with a healthy dose of Byzantinisms thrown in (the epiclesis, et cetera).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 03, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.

Transubstantiation is merely a name for this doctrine, and the use of Aristotle to explain how the bread and wine are changed "in substance" while retaining their perceptual qualities, or "accidents."  If anything this might not go far enough for the Orthodox, because the retention of the accidents seems guaranteed under Transubstantiation whereas we might say the perceptual jalopies of bread and wine are perhaps more illusory and fleeting; they exist for the comfort of the vast majority of the faithful,

I respect your erudition, but this seems a tad radical (not the Eucharistic miracles, but the idea that the accidents of the bread and wine are just illusions). I'd need to see an official Orthodox source on that.

My conjecture that the physical properties of the bread and wine being illusory is derived from the mystical experiences people have seeing flesh and blood.   I don't know a simpler way to explain it.  The official view of the Orthodox Church however is that it's a "Mystery" and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware IIRC criticizes Transubstantiation for being overly technical, as it were.  And the only reason I speculate it's an illusion (maybe call this view docetopanism?) concealing the actual Fleah and blood vs. the accidents theory is that if transubstantiation occurs the accidents should be there intact every time.  Which would mean the mystical experiences were an illusion.  So it's an illusion that is more real than reality since it displays the actual substance concealed by perceptual accidents.  I've watched too much SF to be an enthusiast for any philosophical approach that requires nested levels of reality; it's like the Star Trek TNG episode Ship in a Bottle.  But do I actually believe ithe taste, smell and appearance of bread are an illusion?  I cant be sure.  The idea that it's a mystery seems appealing.  But if we evaluate the subject deeply I think we are forced to go with either a Platonic model of ideals, which also neatly fits Zoroastrian cosmology where Ahura Mazda first created an ideal model of creation and then set about advancing this one towards the ideal by waging war with the evil anti-God or devil Angra Mainyu, as Volnutt suggests, Aquinas's Transubatantiation with a further belief in illusions that reveal the underlying substance hidden by the accidents of bread and wine to the select few, or the idea that the perceptual attributes of bread and wine are illusory and can be seen through by those deemed worthy for the honor.

By the way, either way we go, here's an alternate question that might really freak you out: what happens to the bread and wine?  Jokingly I might propose those in the World to Come have a fondness for wine, and the bread is converted into manna to feed the Israelites.  Perhaps a few thousand times over.  Or we might say the atoms of the bread and wine are converted into a perceptual cloud of sorts that normally envelopes the bread and wine, but that, like a curtain, can be pulled back by the Angels to reveal what is really there; also as the bread and wine are digested these atoms reconverges to a normal state to form the biological residue.  Thus concealing the Mysteries from impious probing by scientists.

But given all these possible scenarios, the official view that the change happens but that it's a Mystery, which is official doctrine, as far as I'm aware, at least in the titular Metropolis of Diokleia, if not everywhere, seems wise.  Because I'm not sure our human minds can fully comprehend the reality of this sacrament given that to explain what happens were given a choice between shaky Platonic idealism, nested levels of reality with Aristotleian accidents and substances and an illusion of the substance visible over the accident, an illusion, or a perceptual ethereal cloud that reconverges to matter when the Eucharist is fully consumed.  Or I'm sure we could think of 20 more bizarre theories.  Frankly I regret proposing the perceptual attributes were an illusion.

However, it is my view that after the Epiclesis, nothing of the bread and wine remains aside from perceptual attributes, and I can't explain the mystical ability to see through these without saying its an illusion.  But I don't know that it's an illusion and I also to some extent don't want to know, or care.  But there you go.

I do believe in most Anglican churches this change does not occur,  hence the relative lack of Anglican mystical experiences in connection with the Eucharist.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 11:19:55 PM
Just playing devil's advocate: If the bread and wine actually change to the body and blood of Christ, but does not change the physical appearance in any of the five senses, then how is it really a change? How is it any different from spiritual presence, as believed by Calvin, and the sacramental union, as believed by Luther?

Well, if you take Plato's view (I'm not so sure about Aristotle's view or Aquinas' interpretation of it, but I think that they're similar) what makes a thing a thing is not so much the matter it's made of but the thing's conformity to the unchanging idea of the thing in the mind of God.

So from that perspective it can still be a real change without changing appearance. It would seem to be a conundrum from a modern Nominalist approach, though.

Interesting. I don't recall Christians believing that we can cherry-pick Platonic philosophy (or any other secular philosophy) and make it a matter of non-negotiable Christian dogma.

I was not trying to make it dogmatic (nor did I intend to cherry-pick) only to offer one possible way in which Transubstantiation might be still be true without leading to empirical absurdities.

I'm so sorry for being so snarky in my reply. Please forgive me.  :-[

It's ok. My tongue has been too sharp many times as well.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 03, 2015, 11:22:27 PM
Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.

Transubstantiation is merely a name for this doctrine, and the use of Aristotle to explain how the bread and wine are changed "in substance" while retaining their perceptual qualities, or "accidents."  If anything this might not go far enough for the Orthodox, because the retention of the accidents seems guaranteed under Transubstantiation whereas we might say the perceptual jalopies of bread and wine are perhaps more illusory and fleeting; they exist for the comfort of the vast majority of the faithful,

I respect your erudition, but this seems a tad radical (not the Eucharistic miracles, but the idea that the accidents of the bread and wine are just illusions). I'd need to see an official Orthodox source on that.

My conjecture that the physical properties of the bread and wine being illusory is derived from the mystical experiences people have seeing flesh and blood.   I don't know a simpler way to explain it.  The official view of the Orthodox Church however is that it's a "Mystery" and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware IIRC criticizes Transubstantiation for being overly technical, as it were.  And the only reason I speculate it's an illusion (maybe call this view docetopanism?) concealing the actual Fleah and blood vs. the accidents theory is that if transubstantiation occurs the accidents should be there intact every time.  Which would mean the mystical experiences were an illusion.  So it's an illusion that is more real than reality since it displays the actual substance concealed by perceptual accidents.  I've watched too much SF to be an enthusiast for any philosophical approach that requires nested levels of reality; it's like the Star Trek TNG episode Ship in a Bottle.  But do I actually believe ithe taste, smell and appearance of bread are an illusion?  I cant be sure.  The idea that it's a mystery seems appealing.  But if we evaluate the subject deeply I think we are forced to go with either a Platonic model of ideals, which also neatly fits Zoroastrian cosmology where Ahura Mazda first created an ideal model of creation and then set about advancing this one towards the ideal by waging war with the evil anti-God or devil Angra Mainyu, as Volnutt suggests, Aquinas's Transubatantiation with a further belief in illusions that reveal the underlying substance hidden by the accidents of bread and wine to the select few, or the idea that the perceptual attributes of bread and wine are illusory and can be seen through by those deemed worthy for the honor.

By the way, either way we go, here's an alternate question that might really freak you out: what happens to the bread and wine?  Jokingly I might propose those in the World to Come have a fondness for wine, and the bread is converted into manna to feed the Israelites.  Perhaps a few thousand times over.  Or we might say the atoms of the bread and wine are converted into a perceptual cloud of sorts that normally envelopes the bread and wine, but that, like a curtain, can be pulled back by the Angels to reveal what is really there; also as the bread and wine are digested these atoms reconverges to a normal state to form the biological residue.  Thus concealing the Mysteries from impious probing by scientists.

But given all these possible scenarios, the official view that the change happens but that it's a Mystery, which is official doctrine, as far as I'm aware, at least in the titular Metropolis of Diokleia, if not everywhere, seems wise.  Because I'm not sure our human minds can fully comprehend the reality of this sacrament given that to explain what happens were given a choice between shaky Platonic idealism, nested levels of reality with Aristotleian accidents and substances and an illusion of the substance visible over the accident, an illusion, or a perceptual ethereal cloud that reconverges to matter when the Eucharist is fully consumed.  Or I'm sure we could think of 20 more bizarre theories.  Frankly I regret proposing the perceptual attributes were an illusion.

However, it is my view that after the Epiclesis, nothing of the bread and wine remains aside from perceptual attributes, and I can't explain the mystical ability to see through these without saying its an illusion.  But I don't know that it's an illusion and I also to some extent don't want to know, or care.  But there you go.

I do believe in most Anglican churches this change does not occur,  hence the relative lack of Anglican mystical experiences in connection with the Eucharist.

Yeah, but it would seem that this position leads to the opposite problem of saying that those who have genuinely been harmed by the Eucharist could therefore only have been struck by a bolt from God because of unworthiness. I wouldn't want to affirm that.

You're probably right that it's best not to probe it too deeply, though.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 04, 2015, 03:47:48 AM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.
And the moderator has read your report and seen no merit in it. Any questions? If so, please PM me.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 04, 2015, 05:02:25 AM
The Roman church created the doctrine of transubstantiation, which, our Article rightly states, "overthroweth the nature of a sacrament."  This was the error and the divisive doctrine.  It is we who try not to explain too much.  The Roman church deems this a fault in us.  We are too imprecise for them.  But we have faith that Christ is feeding us, as he said he would.

How does that poem go?

"Twas God the Word that spake it,
 He took the bread and brake it;
 And what the word did make it;
 That I believe, and take it"

Nevertheless, I believe the Anglican article about the Eucharist is just as problematic as transubstantiation, if not moreso, especially in this day and age.  Hence why it's a good thing the Episcopal Church moved the articles to the historical footnotes.

Anglicans vary doctrinally from full Synod of Dort Calvinists to almost Roman Catholic, to Unitarians who wear vestments to everything in between and beyond. Bishop Spong rejects the Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Christ's miracles, the physical Resurrection , the Ascension of Christ, and theism as such; 

One thing positive I will say about Spong, he seems to be a man of real faith, even if I disagree with him, and in fairness, it is not always clear what he really believes on all points (for instance his denial of theism could simply be an appeal to mysticism).  I do think his false teachings should be corrected, not just because it causes scandal but because it is wrong, but I won't for a minute deny him as a Christian.

Sometimes Spong has profound things to say, for instance about love.  Other times its just rubbish.  I think taking the good in what a person says and correcting the bad is far more helpful.

Quote
  Even if an individual Anglican Bishop's theology was perfectly sound, he is in communion with other Bishops whose theology is anything but sound.

It seems to me the majority are tolerating his error out of charity rather than condoning it.  Only a superficial reading of the situation would lead one to conclude that the majority of Episcopalians and Anglicans actually agree with him.

And there are cases where Episcopalians seem to actually enforce the canons and norms.  In the last decade or so Episcopalians have disrobed clergy for belonging to a Druid religion and also for claiming to be a Muslim.  It is not true that "anything goes" in the Episcopal Church.

I'm not convinced a heavy-handed praxis of exclusion with those who are in error is a good thing.  If we went around excommunicating everybody with wrong ideas about God, I believe a great many Christians throughout history would be condemned.

By the way, the Anglican tradition does have stories of Eucharistic miracles and mysticism.  It's simply not as widely known as in Orthodoxy.  You can look up a woman named Dorothy Kerin if you want to know more, she is the most obvious example.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 04, 2015, 07:14:18 AM
As to the original topic:

It is worth pointing out that throughout Church history, whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement on any matter deemed remotely important to the transmission of the Apostolic Faith, a council (whether local, regional, or ecumenical) met to consider the issue.  A clear resolution was reached and that teaching was either received or rejected by the people and became a statement of Church teaching with authority.  After the passage of a period of time, that teaching was accepted as orthodox (small "o") and dissenters either left to form parallel religious communities or were excommunicated.

Sometimes, as with iconoclasm, the resolution took centuries.  In other cases, the break was more immediate.  But the rejection of the unorthodox party occurred, sooner or later, in every instance.

Anglicanism is unique in history because, since the 16th century, it has made any number of equally acceptable pronouncements about any number of important theological issues which traverse the spectrum from Calvinism to near-Roman Catholicism, as was stated above.  But most importantly, I think, dissenters from any one of these pronouncements have not been excluded from the Anglican Communion on the basis of these views, but rather embraced.  The Anglican "Via Media," therefore, which has existed since at least the time of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Caroline Divines, is an entirely innovative practice which is utterly at odds with Church history.

Thus, while there may be much that is good in Anglican Christianity -- and should any part of it ever return to communion with Orthodoxy I have no doubt that there is much which would continue on -- by its very nature and practices, it can't really compete with the Orthodox Church for the status of the Apostolic Church in the sense that we intend that phrase to have.  While it may contain within it theology, churches, and persons who embrace positions which are more or less in alignment with the historic Orthodox Christian faith, as a whole, Anglican Christianity simply does not function theologically in the way that the historic Orthodox Church has functioned for 2000 years.

Portions have returned to Orthodoxy.  The Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate started life as a confraternity of Anglo Catholic priests disillusioned with the Protestant Episcopal Church.  Hence St. Andrews Prayerbook has two Divine Liturgies, a BCP derivative and a Tridentine mass derivative.  The two favorites for Anglo Catholics, but with a healthy dose of Byzantinisms thrown in (the epiclesis, et cetera).

I would dispute that there was anything "healthy" about inserting a Byzantine epiclesis into a Western liturgy. St. Nicholas Cabasilas noted that the Western mass already had an "implicit" epiclesis and such insertions make our claims that the Western patrimony is valid and Orthodox seem less than sincere.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 04, 2015, 09:03:19 AM
As to the original topic:

It is worth pointing out that throughout Church history, whenever there was a doctrinal disagreement on any matter deemed remotely important to the transmission of the Apostolic Faith, a council (whether local, regional, or ecumenical) met to consider the issue.  A clear resolution was reached and that teaching was either received or rejected by the people and became a statement of Church teaching with authority.  After the passage of a period of time, that teaching was accepted as orthodox (small "o") and dissenters either left to form parallel religious communities or were excommunicated.

Sometimes, as with iconoclasm, the resolution took centuries.  In other cases, the break was more immediate.  But the rejection of the unorthodox party occurred, sooner or later, in every instance.

Anglicanism is unique in history because, since the 16th century, it has made any number of equally acceptable pronouncements about any number of important theological issues which traverse the spectrum from Calvinism to near-Roman Catholicism, as was stated above.  But most importantly, I think, dissenters from any one of these pronouncements have not been excluded from the Anglican Communion on the basis of these views, but rather embraced.  The Anglican "Via Media," therefore, which has existed since at least the time of the Elizabethan Settlement and the Caroline Divines, is an entirely innovative practice which is utterly at odds with Church history.

Thus, while there may be much that is good in Anglican Christianity -- and should any part of it ever return to communion with Orthodoxy I have no doubt that there is much which would continue on -- by its very nature and practices, it can't really compete with the Orthodox Church for the status of the Apostolic Church in the sense that we intend that phrase to have.  While it may contain within it theology, churches, and persons who embrace positions which are more or less in alignment with the historic Orthodox Christian faith, as a whole, Anglican Christianity simply does not function theologically in the way that the historic Orthodox Church has functioned for 2000 years.

Portions have returned to Orthodoxy.  The Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate started life as a confraternity of Anglo Catholic priests disillusioned with the Protestant Episcopal Church.  Hence St. Andrews Prayerbook has two Divine Liturgies, a BCP derivative and a Tridentine mass derivative.  The two favorites for Anglo Catholics, but with a healthy dose of Byzantinisms thrown in (the epiclesis, et cetera).

I would dispute that there was anything "healthy" about inserting a Byzantine epiclesis into a Western liturgy. St. Nicholas Cabasilas noted that the Western mass already had an "implicit" epiclesis and such insertions make our claims that the Western patrimony is valid and Orthodox seem less than sincere.

Well, perhaps in the future there will be a move to remove Byzantinizations, if they turn out to have been unnecessary, and return to a more authentically Western liturgy. The AWRV is a work in progress, after all.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 04, 2015, 10:14:43 AM
I agree about the epiclesis.  The Eucharistic validity is not dependent on someone invoking the Holy Spirit.

Episcopalians have an epiclesis but IMO it was more a mixture of a sop to ecumenism  (which is now in deep cryonic suspension or dead, take your pick), and a desire to be more Trinitarian, it is definitely not necessary.  I think the Rite I liturgy, which is still perfectly valid, omits a strong epiclesis.

The words of institution are what make the Eucharist in the West, it has always been the case.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 04, 2015, 11:41:31 AM

One thing positive I will say about Spong, he seems to be a man of real faith, even if I disagree with him, and in fairness, it is not always clear what he really believes on all points (for instance his denial of theism could simply be an appeal to mysticism).  I do think his false teachings should be corrected, not just because it causes scandal but because it is wrong, but I won't for a minute deny him as a Christian.

Sometimes Spong has profound things to say, for instance about love.  Other times its just rubbish.  I think taking the good in what a person says and correcting the bad is far more helpful.

What faith is that? He disbelieves the majority of Christian dogma? That is like saying that Thomas Paine was a man of real faith.

What exactly does he profess that makes him a Christian? He doesn't believe in a "theistic God", the Bible's explanation of sin is "nonsense", nothing miraculous can be attributed to Jesus, there are no objective ethics, prayer as a means of petitioning God is useless,  Jesus is not God, etc.  I could go on, but you get the idea. If that can still be folded into Christianity, so can Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and primitive animism. They are all closer to Christianity's teachings than Spong is.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 04, 2015, 12:08:58 PM
What exactly does he profess that makes him a Christian? He doesn't believe in a "theistic God", the Bible's explanation of sin is "nonsense", nothing miraculous can be attributed to Jesus, there are no objective ethics, prayer as a means of petitioning God is useless,  Jesus is not God, etc.  I could go on, but you get the idea.

Spong has been disfellowshiped by many bishops in the Episcopal Church.    They've let him know they don't approve of his teachings, nor will he be allowed to preach in many diocese parishes.  Excommunication is a rather extreme step, one that I believe should be reserved for very extreme cases.  There is also the issue that Episcopalians do not want to create a negative image of their church or the Christian faith for a secular world that is jaded, because that would just feed into anti-Christian stereotypes.  It's more complicated than simply some kind of "oh, they teach heresy so we can cut them off."   Dealing with people with love requires more.  This is not the fourth century where St. Nicholaus can get away with striking an Arian.  We need to testify to Christ's love in our deeds, not just our words.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 04, 2015, 02:50:18 PM
The Orthodox define excommunication differently.  Many people in an. orthodox parish, the ones who don't commune, historically may have been excommunicate; a few might be excommunicate even today.  In Orthodoxy excommunication is a temporary withholding of the Eucharist as a medicine for sin, and also as a protection against receiving the Eucharist Unworthily.  Someone however who engages in heresy is anathematized; the excommunicated are still members of the Church in every sense and if near unto death will receive communion generally speaking.  Whereas those under an anathema have been, to use a Protestant term "disfellowshipped"; they are not members of the Church and must repent and be re-received through confession and this may well be followed by a lengthy period of excommunication and other penancees to test the sincerity of their return.

I am not sure to be honest when we last anathematized someone; the last person I can think of,,the most recent case, was John Calvin,,who was anathematized by the Church of Jerusalem at the Synod of Dositheus, an anathema widely recognized by other Orthodox churches.  I believe Luther escaped anathema by na,e but fell under some anathemas of belief or practice promulgated by that synod, but the synod referred to Luther merely as a mad man.  But I think the Orthodox as a whole regard Luther as simply being wrong; he had good intentions in objecting to a horrible error of the Roman church but sort of overshot the runway of Orthodoxy and landed in the bushes of Monergism.  But Lutheranism actually is closer to Orthodoxy than 16th century Anglicanism; it was only later that the Anglicans drew closer to us. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 04, 2015, 03:45:38 PM
Hi all. I'm ashamed to have started this thread, as I took this sub-forum into an unnecessary string of polemics against Anglicanism. Trisagion is right, proving a faith tradition false is not a fruitful endeavor. All I really need to know is that Orthodoxy is true, and the rest carries over.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 04, 2015, 05:17:49 PM
Don't be ashamed.  It was a valid discussion.  Also what you see as polemics, I see as dialogue attempting to lead more people from Anglicanism into Orthodoxy.  Anglicans account for the largest number of converses in my experience and often require just a little debunking of certain errors of Anglicanism in order to cross the Bosphorus (or perhaps in the case of OO jurisdictions like the British Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox, et cetera, the Nile.  I have speculated that converts to the Assyrian Church of the East cross the Tigris or the Euphrates).   ;)

Seriously though, it is true Christianity is not falsifiable.  And I do believe some forms of Anglicanism are not falsifiable and have the potential to be recognized as Orthodox, some of the Anglo Catholic jurisdictions in the Continuing Anglican movement.  And John Wesley, an Anglican priest who started the Methodist movement, may have been secretly ordained a bishop by Erasmus of Arcadia, a Greek Orthodox bishop in 1763.  He refused to deny it in the 1770s, but could not admit it, as under the Praemenuire Act this may have resulted in hanging, decapitation or worse.   

This does not make him an Orthodox bishop, but I do think it establishes a certain link between Wesleyan influenced Anglicanism and early Methodism, before his teachings on the Trinity, the Eucharist and Entire Sanctification (Theosis, in other words) were discarded in the 19th century to turn Methodism into a watered down Arminian version of the Prssbyterian or Reformed churches, albeit with bishops, chiefly retaining as a legacy of the Wesley's the hymns penned by his brother and the erroneous ideals surrounding the Aldersgate Experience.

But I do believe that 16th century Anglicanism before the Elizabethan Settlement, and even afterwards, was a nightmare, and can be falsified on the basis of the contradictory views of its founders.  It gave us but one useful thing: the Book of Common Prayer, which is an elegant liturgy which can train Protestants for liturgical worship, and which along with the King James Version, established a vast array of phraseology and grammatical conventions that formed the basis for what I would call ecclesiastical English.  Much of this phraseology has been borrowed by formal language translations of the Orthodox liturgy, especially in the first major Eastern Orthdoox service book in English, which was compiled by Isabel Florence Hapgood, the title of which I forget.  So that was a good contribution.  But from a dogmatic standpoint 16th century Anglicansim is falsifiable because it is self-contradictory.  And modern day "Low Church" and "Evangelical" Anglicanism can be falsified on these grounds.

In like manner I believe 20th century "Broad Church", "Affirming Catholic" or liberal modernist and postmodernist Anglicanism of the sort started by Bishop James Pike and perpetuated by the likes of Spong and Gene Robinson, is horrible; it embraces heresy and can be falsified just from the writings of St. Irenaeus.  Or the Bible.  So it actively seeks to deprecate these and become a sort of Unitarian Universalist church with an Episcopal polity.  And it has really hurt people.  So many people have been driven from their churches by the Episcopal Church USA's $40 million lawsuit program.  Check out the websites creedalchristian.blogspot.com or Stand Firm in Faith (standfirm.org I think) for a survey of the misery it's caused.  That's why there are so many Anglican "refugees" in the Orthodox Church.

It's worth stressing that 100 years ago, it seemed to many inevitable that the Anglicans and Orthodox would enter into communion, joined by the Old Catholics.  The Anglicans and the Union of Utrecht would have formed the Western Orthodox Church, catering to those who prior to the Great Schism between Eastern Orthodox and zRoman Catholics would have been under the Roman patriarchate.

But this did not happen, primarily due to a liberal takeover of the Union of Utrecht and the Anglican Communion.  But there are traditionalist remnants like the Continuing Anglicans and the union of Scranton, with the Polish National Catholic Church, that may in the future become recognized Orthodox churches by some yet to be determined process, which might involve re ordination of their bishops.  There was Low Church opposition to Union with the Orthodox but as the 20th century progressed, in the years prior to the liberal takeover, the Anglicans became in most jurisdictions progressively more high church; the Church of Ireland is a prominent exception, having always been somewhat low church.

So fR from falsifying Anglicanism, we nearly United with them.  But it did not work out. So now as we help,to aid Anglicans in crossing the Bosphorus or the Nile, rather than the Tiber, we often have success by demonstrating the problems underpinning the 16th century church, the theological inconsistency of Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and the huge problems with liberalism in the Anglican Communion and rhe human suffering it has caused.


Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 04, 2015, 07:43:37 PM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.
And the moderator has read your report and seen no merit in it. Any questions? If so, please PM me.
I was jumping to conclusions, interpreting Jonathan Gress's words in the worst possible way.  My apologies to Jonathan Gress and to all.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 04, 2015, 07:47:00 PM
Does the bread survive?  No, only the perception of bread, which advanced monastics and those otherwise blessed by a special grace can see around,mot perceive the flesh that is actually there.
What about your digestive system?  Does it recognize the housel as muscle tissue and so incorporate it into your flesh?  Or does it instead detect the bread's nonexistent molecules?

It also seems a bit different from Alexander Schmemann's view of the Eucharist, too, if I remember correctly. Didn't he believe that consecration didn't so much change the bread and wine into something totally different, but rather bring it to the fulfillment of what it already was? (This would imply that all bread, and all wine, were to some extent holy because of what they could potentially become).

Fr. Alexander's words were quoted in another discussion here. (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60620.msg1187849.html#msg1187849)  Here they are again, for your convenience:

Quote from: Alexander_Schmemann
[A sacrament] is the epiphany -- in and through Christ -- of the "new creation", not the creation of something "new."  And if it reveals the continuity between creation and Christ, it is because there exists, at first, a continuity between Christ and creation whose logos, life, and light He is.  It is precisely this aspect of both the institution and sacrament that virtually disappear in post-patristic theology.  The causality linking the institution to "signum" to "res" is viewed as extrinsic and formal, not as intrinsic and revealing.  Rather than revealing through fulfillment, it guarantees the reality of the sacrament's effect.  Even if, as in the case of the Eucharist, the sign is completely identified with reality, it is experienced in terms of the sign's annihilation rather than in those of fulfillment.  In this sense the doctrine of transubstantiation, in its Tridentine form, is truly the collapse, or rather the suicide, of sacramental theology. 
--Alexander Schmemann, "Sacrament and Symbol", in _For the Life of the World:  Sacraments and Orthodoxy_, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1973, fourth printing 1988, pp 143-144.  Italics in original.  Emphasis in boldface added.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on May 04, 2015, 08:09:06 PM
What exactly does he profess that makes him a Christian? He doesn't believe in a "theistic God", the Bible's explanation of sin is "nonsense", nothing miraculous can be attributed to Jesus, there are no objective ethics, prayer as a means of petitioning God is useless,  Jesus is not God, etc.  I could go on, but you get the idea.

Spong has been disfellowshiped by many bishops in the Episcopal Church.    They've let him know they don't approve of his teachings, nor will he be allowed to preach in many diocese parishes.  Excommunication is a rather extreme step, one that I believe should be reserved for very extreme cases.  There is also the issue that Episcopalians do not want to create a negative image of their church or the Christian faith for a secular world that is jaded, because that would just feed into anti-Christian stereotypes.  It's more complicated than simply some kind of "oh, they teach heresy so we can cut them off."   Dealing with people with love requires more.  This is not the fourth century where St. Nicholaus can get away with striking an Arian.  We need to testify to Christ's love in our deeds, not just our words.

But this is just the point.  We Orthodox maintain that the Church does need to act in the same way (generally speaking) as it did in the Fourth Century, the Eighth Century, the Sixteenth Century and, if the Lord tarries, the Twenty-Fifth Century.  That's what makes it the Church.  As did the ancient Church, we do cut off those who teach heresy.  I like to think that we do it in a studied, deliberative, compassionate way, but however one wants to couch the terms, those who teach doctrines contrary to established Church teaching will invariably find themselves on the wrong side of the divide as far as our Church praxis is concerned.   They are welcome to come back provided that they renounce their error.  It is Anglicanism's radical departure from this system -- and its affirmation of the exact opposite -- which leads me to the conclusion that while the Anglican Church may contain many godly elements and much of Apostolic Christianity may be taught in various places within her bounds, the Anglican Church as a whole cannot make the same claim to the Apostolic Succession of Faith that the Orthodox Church does.  At this point, the only solution seems to me to be the voluntary reunification of those Anglican believers, parishes, and possibly dioceses who wish to follow Orthodox teaching with Orthodoxy, with a recognition by them that their present ecclesiastical home has not, and cannot, guarantee the preservation for them of the unaltered Orthodox Christian faith, while ours can by imbuing them with the fullness of the faith which they seek.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 04, 2015, 08:38:18 PM
I also have a problem with you trying to pass your faith off as Orthodox,
I take exception to your accusation of "passing off" and have reported it to the moderator.
And the moderator has read your report and seen no merit in it. Any questions? If so, please PM me.
I was jumping to conclusions, interpreting Jonathan Gress's words in the worst possible way.  My apologies to Jonathan Gress and to all.

Thanks for the apology, but none was needed.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on May 04, 2015, 09:36:06 PM
Again, I can only refer you to the weight of our theologians on this point.   As one example, I would recommend Vladimir Lossky's examination of what it means to be made in the image of God in Chapter 6 of the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.  I quote here one salient passage:

Quote
For according to St. Gregory Nazianzen, 'God honoured man in giving him freedom, in order that goodness should properly belong to him who chooses it, no less than to Him who placed the first fruits of goodness in his nature.'  Thus, whether he chooses good or evil, whether he tends to likeness or unlikeness, man possesses his nature freely, because he is a person created in the image of God.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 05, 2015, 01:29:02 AM
I am trying to caution you here, because it seems to me that you are keen to interpret one particular account of the event in St. Nicholas's life to reach a certain result.  This is not the most reliable way to proceed, because such a cabined reading of the text veers toward a classically Protestant approach to the text, which is particularly inappropriate here given the corpus of writings both in Scripture and by the Church Fathers showing that the particular interpretation you are advancing for this text would lead to a result which contradicts the weight of Church teaching.

I am not disparaging the Saint here.  My point is simply that the quote you have provided and upon which you rely is not nearly so self-evident nor obvious as you maintain it to be, and that your interpretation of this text doesn't stand very well, from where I see things, against the strong weight of contrary teaching found in the Scriptures and among the Fathers.

The better reading, I believe, is that St. Nicholas's audacity in defending the faith was appropriate and lauded; that he was rightly excluded for a season, but that the miraculous intervention of the Lord and His Mother made clear that the viewpoint espoused by the Saint was the correct one and that his season of exclusion had been enough.  I see considerable parallel here with St. Peter's behavior in the Garden, at the trial of the Lord Jesus, and the Lord's eventual reconciliation with him by the lakeshore.

very well.
So how does this tangent about St. Nicholas punching a heretic prove Anglicanism false?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: WPM on May 06, 2015, 07:13:13 PM
The dragon of Revelation came out of the sea and Jesus slew it with the sword of His mouth.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on May 06, 2015, 09:38:13 PM
The dragon of Revelation came out of the sea and Jesus slew it with the sword of His mouth.

LOL.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 06, 2015, 09:41:43 PM
The dragon of Revelation came out of the sea and Jesus slew it with the sword of His mouth.

LOL.

The next time a premillennial dispensationalist claims that his own interpretation of Revelation is the correct one because it's literal, I'm going to ask him: How literal? Do you believe a literal giant beast is going to come out of the sea, Godzilla-style, and people are going to worship it?

Actually, now that I think about it, that'd be a great plot for an old-school Japanese kaiju movie, or else some kind of Lovecraftian horror story.

I also think it's more likely to actually happen than the one-world-government scenario the dispies prefer. Trying to put together a one-world government is like herding cats. If anything, the world seems to be becoming more fragmented these days.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Theophania on May 06, 2015, 10:03:50 PM
The dragon of Revelation came out of the sea and Jesus slew it with the sword of His mouth.

Man... and I missed it?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 07, 2015, 12:20:41 AM
Locked pending split
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 07, 2015, 01:27:46 AM
The tangent on St. Nicholas's striking of Arius has been split off and moved to Religious Topics (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?board=38.0).

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=64700.0 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=64700.0)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 07, 2015, 01:34:55 AM
The tangent on the question of whom was the last person anathematized by the Orthodox Church has been moved to Religious Topics (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?board=38.0).

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=64702.0 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=64702.0)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 07, 2015, 01:38:40 AM
Thread now unlocked... As you can see, I had to split off two tangents and move them to other places on OC.net. Please work to keep this thread focused on the topic of how Anglicanism is false and keep these side tangents to a minimum. Thank you.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 07, 2015, 03:17:07 AM
But I do believe that 16th century Anglicanism before the Elizabethan Settlement, and even afterwards, was a nightmare, and can be falsified on the basis of the contradictory views of its founders. 

The early church had contradictory views too.  Justin Martyr believed he worshipped three gods.  Does that discredit the Orthodox Church?

Quote
In like manner I believe 20th century "Broad Church", "Affirming Catholic" or liberal modernist and postmodernist Anglicanism of the sort started by Bishop James Pike and perpetuated by the likes of Spong and Gene Robinson, is horrible; it embraces heresy and can be falsified just from the writings of St. Irenaeus.  Or the Bible.  So it actively seeks to deprecate these and become a sort of Unitarian Universalist church with an Episcopal polity.  And it has really hurt people. 

Most of those people left because they did not like the idea of gay bishops.    Liberalism in Episcopalianism has been there since at least the 50's.  Which is why I found the ACNA and AMiA missions (which I visited, there are several near where I used to live) to be so insincere when they claimed they were all about historic Christian belief, and yet were in no rush to have serious ecumenical talks with Rome or the East.  They wanted their cake and to eat it too; it was just a schismatic tendency over a secondary issue, which is idolatry.  At least the Continuing Anglicans took a more principled stand based on a particular understanding of what Anglicanism is.

Quote
So many people have been driven from their churches by the Episcopal Church USA's $40 million lawsuit program.  Check out the websites creedalchristian.blogspot.com or Stand Firm in Faith (standfirm.org I think) for a survey of the misery it's caused.  That's why there are so many Anglican "refugees" in the Orthodox Church. 

I agree that is a problem, and I hope the pace of change in the Episcopal church slows down and there is more respect for the "faith of the dead", especially that the amount of liturgical innovation slows down.  But on the other hand many of those churches that left are far from Eastern Orthodoxy in their faith and worship.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 07, 2015, 03:19:49 AM
But I do believe that 16th century Anglicanism before the Elizabethan Settlement, and even afterwards, was a nightmare, and can be falsified on the basis of the contradictory views of its founders. 

The early church had contradictory views too.  Justin Martyr believed he worshipped three gods.
You have proof of that?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 07, 2015, 03:39:50 AM
The early church had contradictory views too.  Justin Martyr believed he worshipped three gods.
You have proof of that?
[/quote]

Go read his dialogue with Trypho.  He is definitely not using the precise Trinitarian language of Nicea.  In fact he uses the words "another God":

"that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them"
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 07, 2015, 03:52:44 AM
The early church had contradictory views too.  Justin Martyr believed he worshipped three gods.
You have proof of that?

Go read his dialogue with Trypho.
Would you be willing to post a link to that so I don't have to take your proof text and possible misquote at face value?

He is definitely not using the precise Trinitarian language of Nicea.  In fact he uses the words "another God":

"that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God--wishes to announce to them"
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 07, 2015, 05:00:11 AM
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html 

Be warned it is a long read.  I would focus on part LVI
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on May 07, 2015, 08:13:24 AM
Thank you, Peter.

As you can tell from my previous post, I, as the OP, am no longer interested in the main topic. You can lock this thread, if you want to. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 08, 2015, 02:34:06 AM
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html 

Be warned it is a long read.  I would focus on part LVI

The Holy Tradition of the Apostle's was complex and not all the early saints had a clear grasp on all of it.  For example, the clear Trinitarianism we see in St. John and his disciples such as Ss. Polycarp and Irenaeus was not universally present.  The early saints were learning the apostolic tradition even as they evangelized.  Most of them did not have access to all of the books of the Canonical New Testament.  Indeed it was Tertullian who later fell into heresy who coined the word Trinity to help people understand the nature of the Godhood. 

And indeed you were correct also to say initially the line between presbyter and bishop was blurred.  However by the time of St. Ignatius, it was certainly crystal clear in Antioch, which was the most important Eastern church at the time I think, already having eclipsed Jerusalem, which would soon be mostly destroyed within 40 or so years of his martyrdom.  And the epistles of Ignatius ensured this model became standard.  Also the Orthodox see in 1 Clement an episcopal model, but this is debated.

The early church must be understood as a church in formation, which by the time of Arius had fully formed as a result of everyone having thanks to St. Ignatius understood correct polity, thanks to St. Irenaeus having understood correct doctrine (except regarding the Millenium; Chiliasm seems to have been an aspect of some the followers of St. John but we have other early saints like I believe St. Justin Martyr who were aware it was wrong), and thanks to Tertullian, having one word to express the Godhead, and thanks to Hippolytus having access to vital information on the Apostolic canons, correct liturgical forms, and more catalogs of heresies, and through Origen, having a formation in philosophy and deep intellectual training. 

The result of all of this was that the bishops at Nicea were able to instantly identify Arius as being a heretic.  Providentially, God prepared the church in size and strength to receive the huge influx of converts after Constantine following the Diocletian persecutions, which ensured the authenticity of the faith of the hierarchy.  Ss. Alexander of Alexandria, Nicholas, et al, actually lived through that, but many of their friends and predecessors were killed.  In like manner, the church was prepared to fight off Arianism after the death of Constantine when the political machinations of Eusebius of Nicomedia.

I believe the Twelve Apostles and St. Paul had through their close contact the entirety of Holy Tradition.  However it had to be documented, and the Synoptics omitted key things requiring St. John according to our tradition to write one more to supplement it.  And then it took a while for this tradition to be fully propagated as you inevitably due to a shortage of manuscripts and the insidious presence of Gnostic and other heretical forgeries, and you needed heresiologists like Ss. Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian, before the latter became a heretic, to document the heresies and refute them, and you needed scholars like Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen to make the tradition easy to understand.

In the fourth century in turn Ss. Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose and John Chrysostom in particular did much work to make the faith ever more comprehensible as a whole, while others such as Ss. Anthony and Gregory of Nazianzus probed the mystical depths.  And you had still others like St. Nicholas distinguished through charity, and other types of saints, through whose labor and bloodshed the Apostolic faith, having been preserved and consistently propagated, was now made readily accessible, easy to discern from heresy, and demonstrated in its virtue through charity.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 08, 2015, 04:44:31 PM
My point is that diversity of belief doesn't make a religious body or movement "unorthodox", especially if the finer points of doctrine have yet to be spelled out.

Until the Arian controversy in the Church, there was no Trinitarian doctrine.  Which is why Justin Martyr's language seems so strange.  He probably believed in one God but was unable to articulate how three persons could be one God.


Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 08, 2015, 05:20:16 PM
Your point is lacking one. The Orthodox Church has a diversity of beliefs as the different debates on this site should indicate.  Orthodoxy is a pale beyond which we don't go, but within it any position is a matter of theological opinion.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 09, 2015, 01:42:36 PM
Trisagion is right, proving a faith tradition false is not a fruitful endeavor.
  I can recommend some other forums where you can ask Anglicans about their beliefs and hear their own answers with fewer distractions than here.  PM me if you are interested.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 09, 2015, 02:07:16 PM
Trisagion is right, proving a faith tradition false is not a fruitful endeavor.
  I can recommend some other forums where you can ask Anglicans about their beliefs and hear their own answers with fewer distractions than here.  PM me if you are interested.
Please don't. Per forum rules (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=rules), you are not permitted to advertise other forums and solicit our members to join them even via private message. If you have any questions about this rule, please PM me.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xariskai on May 10, 2015, 06:23:08 PM
Justin was not ipso facto di-theist simply because his manner of speaking is not one later generations would use (and would in fact repudiate to clarify rejection of polytheism). "Justin also shows an early attempt to reflect philosophically on the divine unity and plurality involved in traditional Christian views of God and Christ. Christ is 'numerically distinct' from the Father and was 'begotten from the Father' (Dial Tryph 128.4; 129.4), yet the essence (ousia) of the Father is not thereby reduced. Another of Justin's ways of distinguishing the Father and Son is that although the Son can be called 'God' he is 'begotten,' wherea the Father is the 'unbegotten' (agenetos; e.g. Dial Tryph 114.3; 126.2). This begetting of the Son/Logos is before all creation and is unique (e.g. Dial Tryph 105.1), but it is not clear that this is the same as the later idea of the Son's eternal sonship. Justin also distinguishes between the 'person (prosopon) of the Father and Son as he ses them referred to in the OT (e.g. Apol 1, 36-38). Justin takes all the theophanies in the OT as manifestations of the Son/Logos (e.g. Dial Tryph 59; 126), even arguing that Jesus was the divine name revealed to Moses (Dial Tryph 57; cf. Ex 23:20). A number of times Justin insists upon the property of worshiping Christ as well as the Father (e.g. Dial Tryph 65). These all amount to a creative attempt to reflect upon and justify Christian convictions about monotheism and the divinity of Christ" (Martin and Davids, eds., Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments: A Compendium of Contemporary Scholarship, p 183).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 10, 2015, 09:46:09 PM
Thank you for that Xariskai.  That seems to me to put to bed the notion of Justin Martyr being heterodox in his triadology rather nicely.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on May 28, 2015, 09:29:46 PM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 28, 2015, 09:40:37 PM
Resists what?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 28, 2015, 10:42:19 PM
Resists what?

Well, if it's put outside in a pool, maybe you could see which one attracts the fewest mosquito larvae.

How pure is the water to start out with? Do they usually use distilled, or tap, or from lakes/rivers? And is it usually chlorinated or not? All of these are confounding variables.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 28, 2015, 11:34:21 PM
Resists what?

Well, if it's put outside in a pool, maybe you could see which one attracts the fewest mosquito larvae.

How pure is the water to start out with? Do they usually use distilled, or tap, or from lakes/rivers? And is it usually chlorinated or not? All of these are confounding variables.
Remember, y'all are questioning someone who thinks the truth lies with the group that has the better miracles.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Jonathan Gress on May 28, 2015, 11:40:57 PM
Resists what?

Well, if it's put outside in a pool, maybe you could see which one attracts the fewest mosquito larvae.

How pure is the water to start out with? Do they usually use distilled, or tap, or from lakes/rivers? And is it usually chlorinated or not? All of these are confounding variables.
Remember, y'all are questioning someone who thinks the truth lies with the group that has the better miracles.

Didn't St Maximus say something like you should approach your salvation like a science?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 29, 2015, 12:01:32 AM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Ok, I've done what you told me to. As I peer intently at both of them, I see a vague reflection of myself and my cat who seems to be interested in this experiment. They don't look any different to me. What is the next step?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on May 29, 2015, 09:32:27 AM
Remember, y'all are questioning someone who thinks the truth lies with the group that has the better miracles.

If that's the criteria we were to use, it would be very confusing indeed.  I know nothing about completely non-Trinitarian groups such as Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses, but every Christian religious groups I can think of has stories of miracles, sometimes just as spectacular as anything you will find in Eastern Orthodoxy (I remember reading a story about an English free-church preacher, George Muller, noted for his charitable works, who once prayed and a fog lifted immediately).  So in the battle of the miracles you are going to come away with nothing conclusive.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: primuspilus on May 29, 2015, 10:25:12 AM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Ok, I've done what you told me to. As I peer intently at both of them, I see a vague reflection of myself and my cat who seems to be interested in this experiment. They don't look any different to me. What is the next step?
Do yourself a favor and ignore pasadi. Empirical testing of Holy Water just gets one wet.

PP
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 29, 2015, 12:29:31 PM
Actually empirical testing of the fonts in Carholic churches has shown they're a hotbed of bacteria.  As one would expect.

The Orthodox approach of sprinkling people,with Holy Water and distributing it individually is much healthier.

I've been in a modern RC church with a flowing water font,maker of a fountain; I think fonts could be made safe if they used this design, with gravel filters to trap the bacteria, similiar to those used in high end swimming pools as an alternative to chlorine.  The pump would have to be switched off though during the liturgy.  Major engineering headaches.

Some Anglo Catholic Churches also have these.  Note that I continue to use holy water fonts when I visit these churches; it has never made me sick and the water is still cleaner than your average stream.  But it is not as sterile a practice as the Orthodox procedures for distributing holy water.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 29, 2015, 01:01:42 PM
Actually empirical testing of the fonts in Carholic churches has shown they're a hotbed of bacteria.  As one would expect.

The Orthodox approach of sprinkling people,with Holy Water and distributing it individually is much healthier.

I've been in a modern RC church with a flowing water font,maker of a fountain; I think fonts could be made safe if they used this design, with gravel filters to trap the bacteria, similiar to those used in high end swimming pools as an alternative to chlorine.  The pump would have to be switched off though during the liturgy.  Major engineering headaches.

Some Anglo Catholic Churches also have these.  Note that I continue to use holy water fonts when I visit these churches; it has never made me sick and the water is still cleaner than your average stream.  But it is not as sterile a practice as the Orthodox procedures for distributing holy water.
Killjoy. ;)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 29, 2015, 02:47:05 PM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Ok, I've done what you told me to. As I peer intently at both of them, I see a vague reflection of myself and my cat who seems to be interested in this experiment. They don't look any different to me. What is the next step?
Do yourself a favor and ignore pasadi. Empirical testing of Holy Water just gets one wet.

PP
no. If pasadi has told me to do this, I must follow his instruction. He has never guided me wrong before.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on May 29, 2015, 03:42:52 PM
I will admit up front that I have read only the thread's title and I ask for forgiveness if I am repeating what has been stated before. Anglicanism is false because it is based on two basic fallacies: (1) That the right of the King to bear a male heir trumps all other considerations, and (2)  the right of homosexuals not to be condemned for their homosexual activity trumps all other considerations. Either case, it is a sort of weird religion that is based on sex.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 29, 2015, 09:06:45 PM
Carl, you accurately describe the Church of England under Hemry VIII and the ECUSA today.  But I daresay the non Juring Scottish Episcopalians who were Jacobites who supported Bonny Prince Charlie, as opposed to being Oriental Orthodox followers of St. Jacob of Sarugh like myself, and the early non schismatic Methodists, and the Anglo Catholics and High Churchmen from 1820 through 1970, including the Benedictine Order of the Holy Cross, and clergy like Percy Dearmer and Dom Gregory Dix, and musicians like Herbert Howells and Healey Willan, were eminently praiseworthy.

Even today in the continuing Anglican movement, you have some high church jurisdictions we ought to be able to do business with.

Don't forget, the Anglicans came very close, along with the Old Catholics, to becoming the official a Western arm of the Orthodox church.  Low Churchmen and Anglo Papalists were always an obstacle, but the deal breaker was the ordination of women by the ECUSA in 1979 and the subsequent liberal takeover of the Old Catholic Uniom of Utrecht.

However, there are still the Continuing Anglocans, the conservative Anglo Catholics of countries like Ghana, and the Old Catholic Union of Scranton, which consists of the Polish National Catholic Church and the Norwegian Catholic Church.  Conservative denominations who I am convinced we could do business with.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on May 30, 2015, 03:02:30 PM
Anglicanism... is a sort of weird religion that is based on sex.
No, it isn't, as you well know.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 30, 2015, 06:13:14 PM
Well, I think Carl Kraeff is right about the first decades of the Church of England.  But the Anglicans redeemed themselves in subsequent centuries.  I love everything about the Anglo Catholics of old, including their music, worship, vestments, the liturgies they used, the modifications they pushed into the 1928 English and American  and the 1962 Canadian BCP, and their service to the poor.  A Minority were Anglo Papalists like Fr. Hunwicke, who runs a hilarious blog.  Although Evelyn Waugh was an Anglo Catholic, I hate the critically acclaimed miniseries of Brideshead Revisited for its popularizing the idea of Anglo Catholics being "sodomites with funny accents."

However now, the ECUSA has become so twisted and perveese that when I think of some Episcopal bishops, I think of this leader of a fictional religion from Stargate, that of the Ori, comes to mind (Google Hallowed Are the Ori for a laugh; even the vesture looks Anglican).

 :P

The main difference being that the Ori at least knew how to grow their religion.  Which is more than can be said about the Episcopal Church.  :P

Note by the way no offence is intended to the pious conservative Anglicans who are stuck in the ECUSA, like my friend Fr. Brian Owens, and also to the Bishops of South Carolina, Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, and the San Jouaquins, and other bishops in the process of translating to the Province of the Soithern Cone or the Anglican Church of North America.  All of my righteous indignation accompanied by satire is aimed squarely at the wicked organization, based on Park Avenue, that allows our national heritage, like the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and the National Cathedral to be desecrated, and which has spent nearly $50 million on a legal war to reclaim the property of Anglicans who want to leave.

In fact within the past week or so, it was announced that Bishop Bruno of Los Angeles, who could never have been ordained without an act of economy in the zOrthodox Church on account of having killed someone as a police officer (which promoted him to resign and pursue the ministry), has sold to developers St. James Church, which was one of two high profile properties seized from their dissenting traditionalist congregations, through legal muscle, the other being St. Luke in the Mountains.  St. James will be torn down for residential development; St. Luke is somewhat of an architectural monument but my guess is the days are numbered before that church winds up as office space.

Now the Episcopal Church will not sell to any organization that wants to replace the Episcopal Church, a policy of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schiorri, so congregations that want to leave will lose their property; they will not be allowed to buy it.  However perhaps the ECUSA might sell to us Orthodox.  I think we should try to snap up these parishes as an alternative to new church construction, as often they are more beautiful and better constructed than many of the bland modern parishes being constructed (many newer aorthodox churches are beautiful on the inside but have architecture that looks nice but is lacking in the artistry that characterizes most church buildings from the 1920s for example).  In addition, to facilitate good will and the eventual integration of Continuing Anglicans and other conservative Anglicans into our Western Rite, I think we ought to allow the displaced congregations the use of the church, except for the altar area; they would be required to use an Anglican communion table set up in front of the Holy Doors or Curtain, and not venture behind the iconostasis or into the chancel.  To my knowledge none of the displaced Anglican congregations has a priestess.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 30, 2015, 06:22:11 PM
By the way, I should emphasize, I desparetely want the Orthodox to help the embattled Anglican traditionalists, even the low church ones, as much as possible, because after a period in the 19th century when Anglican missionaries tried and failed to subvert us, the Church of England did continue to render financial aid and support to the Orthodox diaspora from what I understand, through the work of groups like the Fellowship of Ss. Sergius and Albans.  Now due to the ISIL War and the tragic civil war in the Ukraine, we do have bigger fish to fry globally, but I think within the US given the steady influx we have received of Anglican converts, the best way to keep that tap from running dry is to do what we can to keep traditional Anglicans in business.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 30, 2015, 07:37:24 PM
Now the Episcopal Church will not sell to any organization that wants to replace the Episcopal Church, a policy of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schiorri, so congregations that want to leave will lose their property; they will not be allowed to buy it.  However perhaps the ECUSA might sell to us Orthodox.  I think we should try to snap up these parishes as an alternative to new church construction, as often they are more beautiful and better constructed than many of the bland modern parishes being constructed (many newer aorthodox churches are beautiful on the inside but have architecture that looks nice but is lacking in the artistry that characterizes most church buildings from the 1920s for example).

I've long had similar ideas, actually. Perhaps there could be a nonprofit organization that specializes in buying, repairing and reclaiming historic church buildings (from various denominations) that are in danger of being secularized or razed, and turning them over to whichever jurisdiction is best-equipped to hold liturgies in them, or is most in need of mission parishes in the area to begin with. So for example, if a particular building is best suited to the Western Rite, then it'd be transferred to the AWRV, but if there are a lot of Armenians in the area then it'd be given to the Armenians instead.

The organization could have its own website, and would raise donations online, with a brief description of each building it has "rescued" so far. The Church Rescue Society, maybe?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 30, 2015, 07:38:50 PM
I will admit up front that I have read only the thread's title and I ask for forgiveness if I am repeating what has been stated before. Anglicanism is false because it is based on two basic fallacies: (1) That the right of the King to bear a male heir trumps all other considerations, and (2)  the right of homosexuals not to be condemned for their homosexual activity trumps all other considerations. Either case, it is a sort of weird religion that is based on sex.

I don't want to cause a derail, but the pro-gay position is not just about sex. One can disagree with something without misrepresenting it.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 30, 2015, 08:23:32 PM
Now the Episcopal Church will not sell to any organization that wants to replace the Episcopal Church, a policy of Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schiorri, so congregations that want to leave will lose their property; they will not be allowed to buy it.  However perhaps the ECUSA might sell to us Orthodox.  I think we should try to snap up these parishes as an alternative to new church construction, as often they are more beautiful and better constructed than many of the bland modern parishes being constructed (many newer aorthodox churches are beautiful on the inside but have architecture that looks nice but is lacking in the artistry that characterizes most church buildings from the 1920s for example).

I've long had similar ideas, actually. Perhaps there could be a nonprofit organization that specializes in buying, repairing and reclaiming historic church buildings (from various denominations) that are in danger of being secularized or razed, and turning them over to whichever jurisdiction is best-equipped to hold liturgies in them, or is most in need of mission parishes in the area to begin with. So for example, if a particular building is best suited to the Western Rite, then it'd be transferred to the AWRV, but if there are a lot of Armenians in the area then it'd be given to the Armenians instead.

The organization could have its own website, and would raise donations online, with a brief description of each building it has "rescued" so far. The Church Rescue Society, maybe?

I myself have had almost exactly the same idea you had, but specifically in an OO context.  All of the Oriental Orthodox churches in the US are growing, both through reproduction and immigration, whereas tragically a declining birth rate threatens our Eastern Orthodox brethren in the Orthodox heartland of Pennsylvania (I would hate to see Wilkes-Barre lose its humorous title of Fourth Rome).  I would like to see the formation of an OO properties trust to acquire and manage disused Episcopal, Catholic and other mainline Protestant churches and convert them to Orthodox facilities.  As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.   Also I think the EO need a trust to manage the churches in PA and elsewhere they're experiencing population decline I trust if ever some parishes become redundant.

I wish you'd hurry up and join an Orthodox Church so that you could help implement something like this for the EO or OO.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 30, 2015, 09:00:14 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 30, 2015, 09:11:35 PM
Mini megachurches.  Either way the traditional church building,mdero wifely referred to by the Quaker founder George Fox as a "steeplehouse" is in decline.  We should have a trust to snap them up.

  (I shudder to think how the Protoquakerarch referred to lavatories and brothels).  :P
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 30, 2015, 09:40:38 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 30, 2015, 09:49:19 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.

Yep. I used to go to one of those. Very trendy.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on May 30, 2015, 09:57:35 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.

Anathema, anathema, anathema!   Seriously, since these gigaxhurches are invariably iconoclastic; Mars Hill certainly was.  So one could go down the Synodikon with a checklist and probably find it at least half full in the case of these gigachurches.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 30, 2015, 10:44:07 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.

Anathema, anathema, anathema!   Seriously, since these gigaxhurches are invariably iconoclastic; Mars Hill certainly was.  So one could go down the Synodikon with a checklist and probably find it at least half full in the case of these gigachurches.

Mark Driscoll, interestingly enough, was raised Catholic and originally wanted to be a priest but objected to the celibacy requirement, which is why he became Calvinist instead. At one point early on he actually wanted Mars Hill to be an "ancient future" type of church with some Catholic influences, but eventually scrapped that idea.

I seriously wonder why he never considered Orthodoxy along the way.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Tikhon29605 on May 31, 2015, 01:20:09 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.

Anathema, anathema, anathema!   Seriously, since these gigaxhurches are invariably iconoclastic; Mars Hill certainly was.  So one could go down the Synodikon with a checklist and probably find it at least half full in the case of these gigachurches.

Mark Driscoll, interestingly enough, was raised Catholic and originally wanted to be a priest but objected to the celibacy requirement, which is why he became Calvinist instead. At one point early on he actually wanted Mars Hill to be an "ancient future" type of church with some Catholic influences, but eventually scrapped that idea.

I seriously wonder why he never considered Orthodoxy along the way.

It has been my experience that the typical excuses for Roman Catholics not seriously considering Orthodoxy will be:
 
1.  They claim the Orthodox Church is "way too ethnic"  (Pot calling Kettle!  Pot calling Kettle!).

2.  They claim there are no real theological disagreements between us.  (It's just those darned "ethnic differences" again!).

3.  They hate the idea of real "Ortho" "doxia": a right and correct way to worship God. They want to reduce everything to "spiritualties" (Benedictine, Franciscan, Ignatian, Tridientine, Vatican II, Byzantine, Melkite, etc.) and unite all that diversity under their Pope:  and that magically solves EVERYTHING!   ::)
 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 31, 2015, 01:49:41 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.

Anathema, anathema, anathema!   Seriously, since these gigaxhurches are invariably iconoclastic; Mars Hill certainly was.  So one could go down the Synodikon with a checklist and probably find it at least half full in the case of these gigachurches.

Mark Driscoll, interestingly enough, was raised Catholic and originally wanted to be a priest but objected to the celibacy requirement, which is why he became Calvinist instead. At one point early on he actually wanted Mars Hill to be an "ancient future" type of church with some Catholic influences, but eventually scrapped that idea.

I seriously wonder why he never considered Orthodoxy along the way.

It has been my experience that the typical excuses for Roman Catholics not seriously considering Orthodoxy will be:
 
1.  They claim the Orthodox Church is "way too ethnic"  (Pot calling Kettle!  Pot calling Kettle!).

2.  They claim there are no real theological disagreements between us.  (It's just those darned "ethnic differences" again!).

3.  They hate the idea of real "Ortho" "doxia": a right and correct way to worship God. They want to reduce everything to "spiritualties" (Benedictine, Franciscan, Ignatian, Tridientine, Vatican II, Byzantine, Melkite, etc.) and unite all that diversity under their Pope:  and that magically solves EVERYTHING!   ::)

None of those excuses really apply to Mark Driscoll, though, since he became Calvinist.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Tikhon29605 on May 31, 2015, 02:25:20 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on May 31, 2015, 02:39:08 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: augustin717 on May 31, 2015, 02:48:37 PM
Quote
As Protestants increasingly congregate in megachurches, I see more potential parishes pop up.

Actually, megachurches are in decline. Evangelicals are turning to coffee house-like environments and warehouses.

Don't forget "gigachurches", which is basically a single church split between 10 or more smaller campuses. Frequently, they all share a single senior pastor whose sermons are televised in all of them.

NewSpring (currently the second-fastest-growing church in the USA) is like that, as was Mars Hill before it shut down.

Anathema, anathema, anathema!   Seriously, since these gigaxhurches are invariably iconoclastic; Mars Hill certainly was.  So one could go down the Synodikon with a checklist and probably find it at least half full in the case of these gigachurches.

Mark Driscoll, interestingly enough, was raised Catholic and originally wanted to be a priest but objected to the celibacy requirement, which is why he became Calvinist instead. At one point early on he actually wanted Mars Hill to be an "ancient future" type of church with some Catholic influences, but eventually scrapped that idea.

I seriously wonder why he never considered Orthodoxy along the way.
  we're grateful to God that he didn't consider orthodoxy
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 31, 2015, 02:54:11 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.

Not very surprising for a theological system thought out by a lawyer.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on May 31, 2015, 02:54:53 PM
What do you mean? We couldn't use a priest telling the ladies that they'repenis homes? (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/pastor-mark-driscoll-called-women-penis-homes.html)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: augustin717 on May 31, 2015, 03:04:27 PM
He'll probably put it different though: in synergy with men they freely choose to be penis homes.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 31, 2015, 03:04:33 PM
What do you mean? We couldn't use a priest telling the ladies that they'repenis homes? (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/pastor-mark-driscoll-called-women-penis-homes.html)

From the link:

Quote
The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may see, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.

and...

Quote
Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home. But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not. And, though women other than your wife may look like a home, to rest there would be breaking into another man’s home.

and...

Quote
the wife should rejoice at seeing his penis rise to greet her (Song of Songs 5:14b).

That man has a lively fantasy.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: augustin717 on May 31, 2015, 03:08:28 PM
What do you mean? We couldn't use a priest telling the ladies that they'repenis homes? (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/pastor-mark-driscoll-called-women-penis-homes.html)

From the link:

Quote
The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may see, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is his penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.

and...

Quote
Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home. But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not. And, though women other than your wife may look like a home, to rest there would be breaking into another man’s home.


That man has a lively fantasy.

Romanians  intuited  this as they frequently invoke the divinity to insert its penis in a variety of persons things and situations
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Arachne on May 31, 2015, 03:17:21 PM
What do you mean? We couldn't use a priest telling the ladies that they'repenis homes? (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/pastor-mark-driscoll-called-women-penis-homes.html)

The comments there gave me a much-needed belly laugh. :D
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 04:14:15 PM
I was born into the Episcopal Church because my Catholic dad married an Episcopalian and left the church (he eventually came back). It helped me: its semi-congregationalism kept it liturgically conservative, keeping things it had copied from the Catholics in the late 1800s, so I could learn them. That means parishes could resist modernization and sometimes did. Ironic from a liberal denomination but it happened. In English I still say the creed I first learned, from the old Book of Common Prayer. (Moot most of the time because my usual Mass is in Latin.)

First, one of the best explanations of Anglicanism I've read, from a former Catholic who's now an Episcopal priest, Fr. Jonathan Mitchican: Conciliar Anglican (http://conciliaranglican.com/). I think he's been linked to and posted here before.

That said, why it's false: long story short, it's Protestant. Longer version: they think they can make the church anything they want it to be (they think the church is fallible, with doctrine subject to change by vote), part of its Erastian origins (England: the government owns the church so it can change the church), and its Protestant framers, such as Cranmer, were heretics about the Eucharist (no real presence). That break with Catholic teaching is why we don't recognize their claim to apostolic succession (they don't have real bishops because they stopped teaching the truth about the Mass).

I think Orthodoxy's objections are more or less the same as Catholicism's plus the Eastern view that doesn't necessarily recognize sacraments outside the church, so Anglicanism's merely being outside the church closes the case.

I will add that classic Anglicanism's and Orthodoxy's claims are similar, a "pure" Catholicism close to the Bible and the Fathers, pruned of medieval accretions such as the Pope. The Anglicans claimed to be the best because they were both "Catholic" (meaning they kept the creeds, governance by bishops, and the idea of a liturgy) and "reformed" (getting rid of medievalia to return to the Bible and the Fathers). The cultures of course are very different, Orthodoxy at the people's level being like a folk version of Catholicism (Orthodoxy's very medieval; that's a compliment) while Anglicanism before Anglo-Catholicism in the 1800s was obviously not, as has been written here. I've long said that the convert-boomlet ex-Protestant Orthodox would have converted to Anglicanism 150 years ago, given Orthodoxy's inaccessibility in the West at the time.

Somebody posted a good thumbnail of Anglo-Catholicism (which includes classic Anglicans, shallow aesthetes, and would-be Catholics), something that formed me. It was always a minority among Anglicans. It started in the early 1800s, continuing in the Laudian high-church tradition, as an assertion of an exclusive Anglican claim to the truth (divinely instituted), NOT as would-be Catholicism, in fact reacting against an effect of Catholic emancipation in Britain (the government was going to close four Anglican dioceses in Ireland, because of course the Irish are Catholic)... but ended up imitating the Catholic Church.

The misunderstood branch theory of classic Anglicans: Catholicism and Orthodoxy are Christian churches with real bishops and a real Eucharist but Anglicanism's better than both because it's "reformed." The Catholics and the Orthodox are in grave error. Traditionally, objections to "the sacrifices of Masses" (per the Articles), veneration of the saints and of images, and in Catholicism, the Pope.

I'd describe the Episcopalians now as "liberal high church." They seem to market themselves not as Protestants (most lay Episcopalians say they're Protestants but most Episcopal priests don't) but as a "cool" alternative Catholicism. It's a unique mix. Credal orthodoxy and in some places my Catholic traditionalist services (not like Catholic liberals), but a Protestant ecclesiology: fallible church, so women clergy and gay marriage. On paper it looks like it would attract droves of spiritual seekers, lots of ex-Catholics and ex-evangelicals, but it doesn't. It's obviously man-made. Bluntly: a made-up church.

Third World (black) Anglicans are conservative Protestants.

The English don't go to church anymore but of the practicing Anglicans there, you have liberal high church like the Episcopalians and big-E Evangelicals (an Anglican term), conservative Protestants. You used to have would-be Catholics (Anglo-Papalists) but since the Church of England started having women priests and now women bishops, they're Catholic now.

The Anglicans started by objecting to the Pope's power as unscriptural but now claim a power to change holy orders and matrimony that the Pope never dared.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 31, 2015, 04:29:40 PM
I've long said that the convert-boomlet ex-Protestant Orthodox would have converted to Anglicanism 150 years ago, given Orthodoxy's inaccessibility in the West at the time.

I don't think so. The question most ex-Protestant converts faced is "Where is the Church?", not "Where can I be 'catholic' without being Roman Catholic". You're a bit too cynical about this. Some might have ended up in the Anglican Church, more would have ended up in the RCC. In the 19th century, and especially at the fin de siècle, the RCC had a convert boomlet from former protestants.

Even in 1850, though, there were westerners (few though they were) who became Orthodox or tried to do so: the Anglican Palmer comes to mind.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on May 31, 2015, 04:53:11 PM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Ok, I've done what you told me to. As I peer intently at both of them, I see a vague reflection of myself and my cat who seems to be interested in this experiment. They don't look any different to me. What is the next step?
Do yourself a favor and ignore pasadi. Empirical testing of Holy Water just gets one wet.

PP
no. If pasadi has told me to do this, I must follow his instruction. He has never guided me wrong before.

Keep them three weeks and see which one becomes bad eventually green before. IN my experience, orthodox holy water can be drinked after years.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on May 31, 2015, 05:02:54 PM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Ok, I've done what you told me to. As I peer intently at both of them, I see a vague reflection of myself and my cat who seems to be interested in this experiment. They don't look any different to me. What is the next step?
Do yourself a favor and ignore pasadi. Empirical testing of Holy Water just gets one wet.

PP
no. If pasadi has told me to do this, I must follow his instruction. He has never guided me wrong before.

Keep them three weeks and see which one becomes bad eventually green before. IN my experience, orthodox holy water can be drinked after years.

Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad: pasadi has returned.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Czar Lazar on May 31, 2015, 05:16:08 PM
Do me a favor.

Take Holy water from an Orthodox Church and Holy Water from a Roman Catholic Church and put them side by side seeing which one resists more.

That will show you what can do a modification of the procedure of obtaining Holy Water. Now Anglican  in my understanding did more modifications that Roman Catholics not only regarding Holy Water. You go with modifications, you get a risk.

Protestants modified even more renouncing at Holy Water all together, at prayers for departed and others. You go with modifications you get risk.
Ok, I've done what you told me to. As I peer intently at both of them, I see a vague reflection of myself and my cat who seems to be interested in this experiment. They don't look any different to me. What is the next step?
Do yourself a favor and ignore pasadi. Empirical testing of Holy Water just gets one wet.

PP
no. If pasadi has told me to do this, I must follow his instruction. He has never guided me wrong before.

Keep them three weeks and see which one becomes bad eventually green before. IN my experience, orthodox holy water can be drinked after years.

I can say this as well.
Have had Orthodox holy water for over 5 years, pure and clear and tastes great, also has a smell of basil.
Have had Catholic holy water for two weeks, accidentally took a drink of it and got violently ill for two weeks --- needed antibiotics;smelled like something died in it....nasty!
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on May 31, 2015, 07:38:36 PM
In history of Romania, one ruler Mihai Viteazul conquered a region and decided to build a church. THe people of the city wanted Roman Catholic Church , Mihai Viteazul wanted orthodox Church. They agreed to do a test. They decided to put Holy Water from Orthodox Church and Holy Water from Roman Catholic Church and which denomination Holy Water resists more, they decided to build the church with that denomination. So they put Holy Water from both denominations and prayed to God and after some time, they went inside and orthod ox Holy Water was crisp and clear and Roman Catholic Holy Water was smelly. So the Church existing even today was orthodox.

So, as in Apostles time,as in early roman catholic church before the change, in the orthodoxy, when Holy Water is made , Holy Spirit is called to come and to make from water Holy Water. So in my understanding Holy Water is made by God at the request of the priest. So Holy Water is made by God, is Holy so it has to be drinked on an empty stomach or dispersed with care. Ask Eastern Orthodox priest for proper way of handling and dispersing Holy Water made by God. In my understanding sprinkling on walls if great or throwing in a clean space with grass is Ok.

In my understanding, in Roman Catholic a change was made. A small change that in the prayers said is hard to spot. The results tell the story.

So Anglican is further away. Protestants renounced Holy Water all together are much much further away.

And if you don't hate yourself or your neighbor and if you believe that you and your neighbor deserve the best of what religion can offer in the entire world, orthodoxy may be the way.

Not saying Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism are bad. I am saying orthodoxy is better and you deserve the best.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on May 31, 2015, 07:44:34 PM
I don't know about other denominations and their holy water, so I won't comment.

But I know that I have had our holy water that is over a year old and it was fine.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Yurysprudentsiya on May 31, 2015, 07:58:59 PM
I will add that classic Anglicanism's and Orthodoxy's claims are similar, a "pure" Catholicism close to the Bible and the Fathers, pruned of medieval accretions such as the Pope.

I think that we Orthodox would disagree with the notion that we ever "pruned" any such accretions.  From our perspective, they were never there to begin with.

It may be fair to say, from our perspective, that the Protestants (especially the Anglicans) tried to travel back to where we were, but somewhere between Canterbury and Constantinople they lost the road map.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on May 31, 2015, 07:59:37 PM
I just want to emphasize that Holy Water has to be handled with care. Throwing it in a sink I don't think is a proper way of handling Holy Water.

So in my understanding Holy Water is made by God at the request of the priest. So Holy Water is made by God, is Holy so it has to be drinked on an empty stomach or dispersed with care. Ask Eastern Orthodox priest for proper way of handling and dispersing Holy Water made by God. In my understanding sprinkling on walls if great or throwing in a clean space with grass is Ok.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 08:16:12 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 08:19:08 PM
I will add that classic Anglicanism's and Orthodoxy's claims are similar, a "pure" Catholicism close to the Bible and the Fathers, pruned of medieval accretions such as the Pope.

I think that we Orthodox would disagree with the notion that we ever "pruned" any such accretions.  From our perspective, they were never there to begin with.

It may be fair to say, from our perspective, that the Protestants (especially the Anglicans) tried to travel back to where we were, but somewhere between Canterbury and Constantinople they lost the road map.

Like I said, a very similar claim, but not identical.

Principled classic Anglicans weren't "trying to be Catholic without the Pope"; they thought they were the church. Just like the Orthodox.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Echa on May 31, 2015, 08:20:51 PM
In history of Romania, one ruler Mihai Viteazul conquered a region and decided to build a church. THe people of the city wanted Roman Catholic Church , Mihai Viteazul wanted orthodox Church. They agreed to do a test. They decided to put Holy Water from Orthodox Church and Holy Water from Roman Catholic Church and which denomination Holy Water resists more, they decided to build the church with that denomination. So they put Holy Water from both denominations and prayed to God and after some time, they went inside and orthod ox Holy Water was crisp and clear and Roman Catholic Holy Water was smelly. So the Church existing even today was orthodox.

So, as in Apostles time,as in early roman catholic church before the change, in the orthodoxy, when Holy Water is made , Holy Spirit is called to come and to make from water Holy Water. So in my understanding Holy Water is made by God at the request of the priest. So Holy Water is made by God, is Holy so it has to be drinked on an empty stomach or dispersed with care. Ask Eastern Orthodox priest for proper way of handling and dispersing Holy Water made by God. In my understanding sprinkling on walls if great or throwing in a clean space with grass is Ok.

In my understanding, in Roman Catholic a change was made. A small change that in the prayers said is hard to spot. The results tell the story.

So Anglican is further away. Protestants renounced Holy Water all together are much much further away.

And if you don't hate yourself or your neighbor and if you believe that you and your neighbor deserve the best of what religion can offer in the entire world, orthodoxy may be the way.

Not saying Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism are bad. I am saying orthodoxy is better and you deserve the best.

This story somehow brightens my day. Thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Czar Lazar on May 31, 2015, 08:24:59 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.

 the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it"
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 08:53:18 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.

 the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it"

That spring is different from the water that's blessed in the Roman Rite to use in church for liturgical sprinkling/blessing (just like the Byzantine Rite) and to dip your fingers in to cross yourself at the church door entering and leaving.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Czar Lazar on May 31, 2015, 08:55:31 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.

 the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it"

That spring is different from the water that's blessed in the Roman Rite to use in church for liturgical sprinkling/blessing (just like the Byzantine Rite) and to dip your fingers in to cross yourself at the church door entering and leaving.

So, its not Holy Water then?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 31, 2015, 08:57:03 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.

An acquaintance of mine once called Orthodoxy "limp wristed."
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 09:04:55 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.

 the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it"

That spring is different from the water that's blessed in the Roman Rite to use in church for liturgical sprinkling/blessing (just like the Byzantine Rite) and to dip your fingers in to cross yourself at the church door entering and leaving.

So, its not Holy Water then?

Right.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on May 31, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.

An acquaintance of mine once called Orthodoxy "limp wristed."
And how many martyrs have their been in his denomination?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Czar Lazar on May 31, 2015, 09:07:56 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.

 the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it"

That spring is different from the water that's blessed in the Roman Rite to use in church for liturgical sprinkling/blessing (just like the Byzantine Rite) and to dip your fingers in to cross yourself at the church door entering and leaving.

So, its not Holy Water then?

Right.

Interesting.
Does this apply to all Roman outdoor water font "things"?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 09:33:23 PM
My guess is if holy water goes bad, you handle it like like the water used to clean sacred vessels in a Catholic sacristy. The sacristy has a special sink called a piscina whose drain, called the sacrarium, goes directly into the ground so the water never mixes with sewage. If you can't use the holy water anymore, pour it on the ground.

In the Roman Rite, holy water isn't drunk so its going bad isn't an issue.

 the instruction of Our Lady of Lourdes to "drink at the spring and bathe in it"

That spring is different from the water that's blessed in the Roman Rite to use in church for liturgical sprinkling/blessing (just like the Byzantine Rite) and to dip your fingers in to cross yourself at the church door entering and leaving.

So, its not Holy Water then?

Right.

Interesting.
Does this apply to all Roman outdoor water font "things"?

Not sure I understand. Do you mean miraculous wells and springs or the holy-water fonts at church doors (not outdoors)? Like I said, miraculous well and spring water isn't liturgical holy water so I guess the answer's yes.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Tikhon29605 on May 31, 2015, 09:49:05 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.

An acquaintance of mine once called Orthodoxy "limp wristed."


Goodness, if there is any religion that is "limp wristed" it is modern, apostate Anglicanism of the Church of England and ECUSA variety.

Orthodoxy practically drips testosterone.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on May 31, 2015, 09:52:52 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.

An acquaintance of mine once called Orthodoxy "limp wristed."


Goodness, if there is any religion that is "limp wristed" it is modern, apostate Anglicanism of the Church of England and ECUSA variety.

Orthodoxy practically drips testosterone.

I criticize Orthodoxy but I'd NEVER call it "limp-wristed."
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on May 31, 2015, 09:55:15 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.

An acquaintance of mine once called Orthodoxy "limp wristed."


Goodness, if there is any religion that is "limp wristed" it is modern, apostate Anglicanism of the Church of England and ECUSA variety.

Orthodoxy practically drips testosterone.

Well, he's an quasi-Anabaptist who proudly describes himself as an "ecclesiastical anarchist." I think for him anything that isn't "four bare walls and a sermon" is queer as the day is long.

Which made if funny watching him butt heads with a macho Calvinist who called his beloved Arminius a metrosexual.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: augustin717 on May 31, 2015, 10:01:47 PM
True.

Perhaps the logic of Calvinism appealed to him?  I think that draws in a lot of Calvinist converts.  There's very little mystery there.  Lots of "if this, then this" type of thinking.  Lots of focusing on rules and "principles" that intellectual-type people enjoy.  I would think Calvinism would appeal more to men than it would to women.  Very little emotion and big on theological jargon and head-knowledge.  I would think women might prefer something softer, with more emphasis on the heart, and less doctrinaire.  Something like Methodism or Wesleyanism, perhaps?

It definitely does. Mark Driscoll made overt masculinity a huge part of his overall shtick, as does John Piper with his claim that "Christianity should have a masculine feel". There's an almost manospherian ethos around some of these guys. Back in the Victorian era, it was the same way with "Muscular Christianity" going hand in hand with low-church (Calvinistic) Anglicanism and nonconformism.

An acquaintance of mine once called Orthodoxy "limp wristed."


Goodness, if there is any religion that is "limp wristed" it is modern, apostate Anglicanism of the Church of England and ECUSA variety.

Orthodoxy practically drips testosterone.
http://m.quickmeme.com/img/ec/ec26da759856de5d2b1f477a528e5d08b94f95ec724932bdea1afc563e6ce8bf.jpg
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on May 31, 2015, 11:40:12 PM
In history of Romania, one ruler Mihai Viteazul conquered a region and decided to build a church. THe people of the city wanted Roman Catholic Church , Mihai Viteazul wanted orthodox Church. They agreed to do a test. They decided to put Holy Water from Orthodox Church and Holy Water from Roman Catholic Church and which denomination Holy Water resists more, they decided to build the church with that denomination. So they put Holy Water from both denominations and prayed to God and after some time, they went inside and orthod ox Holy Water was crisp and clear and Roman Catholic Holy Water was smelly. So the Church existing even today was orthodox.

So, as in Apostles time,as in early roman catholic church before the change, in the orthodoxy, when Holy Water is made , Holy Spirit is called to come and to make from water Holy Water. So in my understanding Holy Water is made by God at the request of the priest. So Holy Water is made by God, is Holy so it has to be drinked on an empty stomach or dispersed with care. Ask Eastern Orthodox priest for proper way of handling and dispersing Holy Water made by God. In my understanding sprinkling on walls if great or throwing in a clean space with grass is Ok.

In my understanding, in Roman Catholic a change was made. A small change that in the prayers said is hard to spot. The results tell the story.

So Anglican is further away. Protestants renounced Holy Water all together are much much further away.

And if you don't hate yourself or your neighbor and if you believe that you and your neighbor deserve the best of what religion can offer in the entire world, orthodoxy may be the way.

Not saying Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism are bad. I am saying orthodoxy is better and you deserve the best.
So we should choose Orthodoxy because it's the home of the best Holy Water... ::)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: biro on May 31, 2015, 11:58:54 PM
No offense, but pasadi can prove the Anglican Church is false because of an incident in Romania?  :o Didn't know the Church of England sent a lot of people over there.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 01, 2015, 12:24:33 AM
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 01, 2015, 05:57:37 AM
Getting back on topic, I think it was high-church Anglican apologist Vernon Staley himself who noted the irony of the Anglicans dropping anointing of the sick, during their "Reformation" founding (they'd call it a renewal, not a founding), even though it's scriptural. Their Articles list it as a minor sacrament, holding with other Protestants that Christ instituted only two main sacraments, baptism and Communion. Like how they listed confession but no longer had a form for it, dropping the practice until, controversially, Anglo-Catholics started doing it again. Now the Episcopalians have an official form for it, based on the traditional Roman Rite form that Anglo-Catholics copied, but I think few Episcopalians do it, because unlike Catholicism and Orthodoxy, you don't have to do it for serious sins in order to go to Communion (they believe the service's general confession prayer and blessing are the same as private confession).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 01, 2015, 06:41:23 AM
In history of Romania, one ruler Mihai Viteazul conquered a region and decided to build a church. THe people of the city wanted Roman Catholic Church , Mihai Viteazul wanted orthodox Church. They agreed to do a test. They decided to put Holy Water from Orthodox Church and Holy Water from Roman Catholic Church and which denomination Holy Water resists more, they decided to build the church with that denomination. So they put Holy Water from both denominations and prayed to God and after some time, they went inside and orthod ox Holy Water was crisp and clear and Roman Catholic Holy Water was smelly. So the Church existing even today was orthodox.

So, as in Apostles time,as in early roman catholic church before the change, in the orthodoxy, when Holy Water is made , Holy Spirit is called to come and to make from water Holy Water. So in my understanding Holy Water is made by God at the request of the priest. So Holy Water is made by God, is Holy so it has to be drinked on an empty stomach or dispersed with care. Ask Eastern Orthodox priest for proper way of handling and dispersing Holy Water made by God. In my understanding sprinkling on walls if great or throwing in a clean space with grass is Ok.

In my understanding, in Roman Catholic a change was made. A small change that in the prayers said is hard to spot. The results tell the story.

So Anglican is further away. Protestants renounced Holy Water all together are much much further away.

And if you don't hate yourself or your neighbor and if you believe that you and your neighbor deserve the best of what religion can offer in the entire world, orthodoxy may be the way.

Not saying Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism are bad. I am saying orthodoxy is better and you deserve the best.

Orthodoxy holy water is blessed and exorcised like RC (and Anglo Catholic) holy water but I've never read anything along the lines of the quasi-eucharistic doctrine you espouse for its creation.  After all we have the Great and Lesser Blessing of Water, not the Great Transmutation of Water Into Supernatural Holy Water.

Also I have to confess I'm exceedingly tired of miracle stories of a polemical nature the purpose of which is to "prove" one denomination over another.  Two glasses of holy water side by side sounds like the basis for an ecclesiastical version of Three Card Monte.

However, it may well have happened, for a different reason: if the Romans grabbed a glassful of holy water from a font, and the Orthodox used fresh holy water, the bacteria scientists have found in Roman fonts and other microorganisms from people dipping their fingers in it, which would probably have been much worse in medieval Romania, the RC holy water would naturally turn foul.

This is why I'm a fan of not having fonts but using other means of conveying the holy water that are coincidentally more sanitary.  But Holy Water is not the Eucharist nor anything close to it amd I would urge you pasadi to not regard it or its blessing in the way you look on the Eucharist; we don't even count the Great Blessing of Water as a sacrament (I've seen a few arguments along the lines that the idea of seven sacraments is a Roman invention, and we should also count Pannikhidas, the Great Blessing of Water, et cetera, but I'm just going by Orthodox a Dogmatic Theology) on this point.  That said I do think that as blessed water our customs regarding the acquisition of it on Theophany and drinking the fresh bottled holy water when ill can be of benefit.  But the Eucharost and unction are more definitive medicine, the difference between Holy Water and the sacraments being like aspirin vs. prescription agents, if I might use a crude analogy.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 01, 2015, 06:52:32 AM
Getting back on topic, I think it was high-church Anglican apologist Vernon Staley himself who noted the irony of the Anglicans dropping anointing of the sick, during their "Reformation" founding (they'd call it a renewal, not a founding), even though it's scriptural. Their Articles list it as a minor sacrament, holding with other Protestants that Christ instituted only two main sacraments, baptism and Communion. Like how they listed confession but no longer had a form for it, dropping the practice until, controversially, Anglo-Catholics started doing it again. Now the Episcopalians have an official form for it, based on the traditional Roman Rite form that Anglo-Catholics copied, but I think few Episcopalians do it, because unlike Catholicism and Orthodoxy, you don't have to do it for serious sins in order to go to Communion (they believe the service's general confession prayer and blessing are the same as private confession).

In the early 20th century some Anglo Catholics tried to enforce oracular confession using the Anglican priests power to repel from the Sacrament "a notorious evil liver" with mixed success.  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on June 01, 2015, 09:21:38 AM
In history of Romania, one ruler Mihai Viteazul conquered a region and decided to build a church. THe people of the city wanted Roman Catholic Church , Mihai Viteazul wanted orthodox Church. They agreed to do a test. They decided to put Holy Water from Orthodox Church and Holy Water from Roman Catholic Church and which denomination Holy Water resists more, they decided to build the church with that denomination. So they put Holy Water from both denominations and prayed to God and after some time, they went inside and orthod ox Holy Water was crisp and clear and Roman Catholic Holy Water was smelly. So the Church existing even today was orthodox.

So, as in Apostles time,as in early roman catholic church before the change, in the orthodoxy, when Holy Water is made , Holy Spirit is called to come and to make from water Holy Water. So in my understanding Holy Water is made by God at the request of the priest. So Holy Water is made by God, is Holy so it has to be drinked on an empty stomach or dispersed with care. Ask Eastern Orthodox priest for proper way of handling and dispersing Holy Water made by God. In my understanding sprinkling on walls if great or throwing in a clean space with grass is Ok.

In my understanding, in Roman Catholic a change was made. A small change that in the prayers said is hard to spot. The results tell the story.

So Anglican is further away. Protestants renounced Holy Water all together are much much further away.

And if you don't hate yourself or your neighbor and if you believe that you and your neighbor deserve the best of what religion can offer in the entire world, orthodoxy may be the way.

Not saying Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism are bad. I am saying orthodoxy is better and you deserve the best.

Orthodoxy holy water is blessed and exorcised like RC (and Anglo Catholic) holy water but I've never read anything along the lines of the quasi-eucharistic doctrine you espouse for its creation.  After all we have the Great and Lesser Blessing of Water, not the Great Transmutation of Water Into Supernatural Holy Water.

This whole thing reminds me of the Penta Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penta_Water) controversy, involving a guy who claims to have transmuted water (http://www.chem1.com/CQ/pentabunk.html) into having 5 molecules per cluster instead of the normal 11 or so, and that the "restructured" water is better for you.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Timon on June 01, 2015, 09:54:12 AM
Quote
Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/church-of-england-womens-group-bishops
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 01, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
Quote
Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/church-of-england-womens-group-bishops
We're already discussing this movement here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html)

So how does this desire to use feminine titles for God prove Anglicanism false?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 01, 2015, 12:12:13 PM
Anglicanism... is a sort of weird religion that is based on sex.
No, it isn't, as you well know.

I was in a hurry and did not choose the right word. Sorry. Here is what I was driving at:

1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 01, 2015, 12:55:42 PM
Quote
Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/church-of-england-womens-group-bishops
We're already discussing this movement here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html)

So how does this desire to use feminine titles for God prove Anglicanism false?

I would like to answer that Peter by quoting Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: "A Mother Goddess is not the Lord of the Christian Church."

Read his entire thoughts on the subject here, or turn to Page 34 of your copy of The Orthodox Way: http://bit.ly/1JezEmd

Note this only falsifies the belief of those Anglicans who in my mind have committed grave heresy or apostasy by feminizing God.  it also applies to the strange ELCA parish in San Francisco, in the Cascade Pacific Synod, which should be anathematized on this basis, and for stealing the name of a paper company, formerly known as Ebeneezer Lutheran Church amd now known as herchurch, where you can buy a Mother Goddess Rosary with an idol of Aurora instead of a crucifix.

This falsification does not apply to the huddled masses of traditionalist Episcopalians like those at the conservative parish I used to visit, where my friend was the rector; they now got stuck with the ultra liberal deaconess who insists on calling herself a deacon who was historically posted there to keep the priest in check.  This also certainly does not apply to the ACNA and the dioceses and parishes that have risked everything, and in the case of the latter, lost, to leave ECUSA, and it does not apply to the Continuing Anglicans who left ECUSA in 1979 when womens ordination begin, the Anglo Catholic jurisdictions of which are prime candidates for becoming a part of Western Rite Orthodoxy.  i cant falsify their beliefs.

 In my opinion a large number of them are functionally identical to, and thus in practice united with, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, even if this union isnt formal (ecclesiology becomes fuzzy and necdessarily allows for such conditions if you are an OO like myself who regards the EO as fully Orthodox, I think,,although other Oos may disagree with me on this point, also many would cite the apostolic succession issue as one reason why the functionally Orthodox Anglicans are "false" and in fact, if one wants to argue that the entire Anglican Communion and every derivative conservative church that sprung from it starting with the Scottish Non Jurors is false, one should attack the validity of their orders, its a bit of an Achilles heel for them). 

So et voila, I believe I just proved a portion of heretical Anglicans false based on the esteemed wrotings of the Metropolitan of Diokleia, and also showed you how if you must you can falsify the entire Communion, with the exception of those priests and bishops who recognized this problem and took additonal consecration from Old Catholics and, according to rumors, the Orthodox (almost a certainty in the case of John Wesley).  In fact its on the basis of invalid form that the Roman Catholics regard Anglican ordinations as invalid and thus demy the Anglicans have a valid Eucharist.

I do hope that convinces the OP, even though it doesnt convince me, so I can win the thread.   :P  By the way sorry about the word count Peter, think of this as Wheel of Fortune and myself as having just attempted a solution.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Timon on June 01, 2015, 01:02:38 PM
Quote
Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/church-of-england-womens-group-bishops
We're already discussing this movement here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html)

So how does this desire to use feminine titles for God prove Anglicanism false?

I did not know it was already being discussed. My apologies. And with regard to the 2nd question, it seems to answer itself. I realize its a fairly small group claiming this, but if it were to catch on, it would contradict the language used in the creed, which is the Church's statement of faith. Wouldnt it be understood that any "Christian" group who contradicts the Creed is "false"?

No need to discuss this here, though, unless you wish to respond to my claim. I was just pointing out something happening within that particular communion. I will hop on over to the other thread.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 01, 2015, 04:14:09 PM
Sometimes I feel like a bit of a hypocrite.  I have spoken out here about how I believe the Church should be more understanding towards gay men and women.  And yet, I told my wife the moment I started hearing God referred to as "Mother" in the doxology, Lord's Prayer, or baptismal formula is the moment I walk out of a parish/church and never go back.  It has nothing to do with being hostile to women or feminism:  some things I just view as divine revelation.  If Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then the only way we ultimately know anything about God's being is through Jesus.  And Jesus did not call God "Mother", but "Father".
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 01, 2015, 05:18:52 PM
Sometimes I feel like a bit of a hypocrite.  I have spoken out here about how I believe the Church should be more understanding towards gay men and women.  And yet, I told my wife the moment I started hearing God referred to as "Mother" in the doxology, Lord's Prayer, or baptismal formula is the moment I walk out of a parish/church and never go back.  It has nothing to do with being hostile to women or feminism:  some things I just view as divine revelation.  If Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then the only way we ultimately know anything about God's being is through Jesus.  And Jesus did not call God "Mother", but "Father".

Interesting.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on June 01, 2015, 07:01:42 PM
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.

Again God does the Holy Water so it is the same in any jurisdiction irrespective of what the priest did or how much he prayed.

Holy Water is not sacrament neither Holy Communion.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 01, 2015, 09:10:37 PM
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.

Again God does the Holy Water so it is the same in any jurisdiction irrespective of what the priest did or how much he prayed.

Holy Water is not sacrament neither Holy Communion.

You need to go outside, take a long walk, and look at flowers.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 02, 2015, 06:26:30 AM

In the early 20th century ...  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.

Extreme Anglo-Catholics were mimicking what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th century, including not just Low Mass early in the morning for Communion but early-morning Communion from the tabernacle outside of Mass. A pious Roman or Anglo-Catholic lay person would go to church three times on Sunday; devout Protestants went at least twice for a morning AND evening service (movies, radio, and TV killed Sunday-night services). Low Mass or Communion early, then High Mass for the sermon, at which Communion was NOT offered to the congregation, then back to church Sunday night for Vespers (compare to the vigil Vespers in the Byzantine Rite) and Benediction (priest's blessing with the reserved Eucharist).

Regarding Mark Driscoll, I agree that muscular Christianity is problematic (it can be idolatrous like HerChurch) but has a point, and I don't think you want somebody converting to Orthodoxy and asking to be a seminarian just because he wants to be a married priest.

"God as female" isn't new, certainly from the Anglicans. Interestingly, it, including women's ordination, doesn't attract converts. It doesn't impress the unchurched and it drives away the religious.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 02, 2015, 10:34:58 AM

In the early 20th century ...  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.

Extreme Anglo-Catholics were mimicking what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th century, including not just Low Mass early in the morning for Communion but early-morning Communion from the tabernacle outside of Mass. A pious Roman or Anglo-Catholic lay person would go to church three times on Sunday; devout Protestants went at least twice for a morning AND evening service (movies, radio, and TV killed Sunday-night services). Low Mass or Communion early, then High Mass for the sermon, at which Communion was NOT offered to the congregation, then back to church Sunday night for Vespers (compare to the vigil Vespers in the Byzantine Rite) and Benediction (priest's blessing with the reserved Eucharist).

Regarding Mark Driscoll, I agree that muscular Christianity is problematic (it can be idolatrous like HerChurch) but has a point, and I don't think you want somebody converting to Orthodoxy and asking to be a seminarian just because he wants to be a married priest.

"God as female" isn't new, certainly from the Anglicans. Interestingly, it, including women's ordination, doesn't attract converts. It doesn't impress the unchurched and it drives away the religious.

Thank you for the information on 19th century Catholic praxis.  Two things confuse me still: when did Catholics begin communing more frequently?  Also I tought low mass tended to have communion by just the priest, with solemn mass more likely to commune the people; did I get that backwards?  The Preanctified Mass on Good Friday only had the Priest communicate.  What were the rules regarding communion on Maundy Thursday and Easter Even?  And were there ever any solemn masses, like on Easter Sunday, which was a day, correct me if Im wromg, that even in the period of infrequent communion, it was commonly taken by Catholics?

Also, to what extent was the Divine Oiffoce historically celebrated and publically attended in Roman churches outside of monasteries?  Ive always felt to a degree like the Roman Church neglects the Office in favor of Masses in parish churches and the LOTH, which was supposed romchange that, did not.

I believe the time is ripe for a comeback of Sunday evening services, due among other things to the most offensive practice of Sunday morning sports practice in schools.  A local Catholic parish has a Vincentian Father who celebrates a well attended Novus Ordo mass with banal music, not praiseband but not pretty, every Sunday evening.  I think in Orthodoxy having a Sunday evening liturgy is probably not doable, or would be difficult, due to the one priest per altar per day rule, but I see no reason why Sunday night vespers should not be celebrated.

My understanding of Anglican Mattins and Evensong is that the Sunday Mattins served to introduce the liturgy,mand the evensong on Sunday would hint at the service next Sunday, a bit like EO Saturday night Vigils.

i dont follow your point on Mark Driscoll.  I do believe the Roman Rite is in error in insisting on secular clergy to be celibate, however, the UK Ordinariate blogger Fr. Hunwicke indicated that many Catholic parishes have experienced "sticker shock" at the increased cost of married clergy.  However, regular clergy are surely less expensive than secular celibates.  I find myself wishing among other things about your church that you had married secular priests and more religious priests, and that all your bishops were drawn from religious orders and followed monastic rules. Imlove Archbishop Cordielone but the incident where he was out dining with friends and got nailed at a DUI checkpoint for being just slightly over the limit was a huge embarassment, that while not unheard of among Orthodox bishops, i believe following the ancient canons regarding bishops would prevent altogether.

On your last point, I agree entirely.  Ive encountered many great female theologoans but in Christianity, not a good female priest.  Imdomt think they can do the job any more than a man can give birth.  I dont mind women telling me waphat to do, but there is just something about female clergy that I find extremely unnatural, and have since I was a child. I refuse to visit a Protestsnt church that has a female minister.  But the Mother Goddess thing is even worse.  And the teo are related; bith emerged with the theological liberalism that bubbled to life after World War II..

With some exceptions: the Disciples of Christ had a female elder decades before any other mainline church, in a rural part of the country.  And of course in the fringes we have Mar Baker Eddy and Ellen G White, who along with the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky, were powerful cult leaders.

The mother Goddess rhing however, well, the first trace of it I am aware of since the Gnostics, would be the Sophianism of St. Pavel Florensky and Archoriest Sergei Bulgakov.  I love the oainting, The Philosophers, showing them strolling thriugh a hardenbefore the latter was ordained and the former murdered.  But I consider their theological scheme a dire heresy.  If I understand it correctly, the idea was that at the annunciation the Virgin Mary became hypostatically joined to the Holy Spirit and thus became a part of the Trinity, and was thus Sophia, or the personified Wisdom that was discuseed poetically in Proverbs.  Nasty stuff.  However, from that awful core they developed a theologocal, economic and social peogram intended to rival Communism, that I daresay would have peobably been an improvement on both the USSR and the Czarist regime.  But basing it on such a blasphemous Mariology would make it feel a bit like selling ones soul. 


Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on June 02, 2015, 12:25:52 PM

In the early 20th century ...  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.

Extreme Anglo-Catholics were mimicking what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th century, including not just Low Mass early in the morning for Communion but early-morning Communion from the tabernacle outside of Mass. A pious Roman or Anglo-Catholic lay person would go to church three times on Sunday; devout Protestants went at least twice for a morning AND evening service (movies, radio, and TV killed Sunday-night services). Low Mass or Communion early, then High Mass for the sermon, at which Communion was NOT offered to the congregation, then back to church Sunday night for Vespers (compare to the vigil Vespers in the Byzantine Rite) and Benediction (priest's blessing with the reserved Eucharist).

Regarding Mark Driscoll, I agree that muscular Christianity is problematic (it can be idolatrous like HerChurch) but has a point, and I don't think you want somebody converting to Orthodoxy and asking to be a seminarian just because he wants to be a married priest.

"God as female" isn't new, certainly from the Anglicans. Interestingly, it, including women's ordination, doesn't attract converts. It doesn't impress the unchurched and it drives away the religious.

Thank you for the information on 19th century Catholic praxis.  Two things confuse me still: when did Catholics begin communing more frequently?  Also I tought low mass tended to have communion by just the priest, with solemn mass more likely to commune the people; did I get that backwards?  The Preanctified Mass on Good Friday only had the Priest communicate.  What were the rules regarding communion on Maundy Thursday and Easter Even?  And were there ever any solemn masses, like on Easter Sunday, which was a day, correct me if Im wromg, that even in the period of infrequent communion, it was commonly taken by Catholics?

Also, to what extent was the Divine Oiffoce historically celebrated and publically attended in Roman churches outside of monasteries?  Ive always felt to a degree like the Roman Church neglects the Office in favor of Masses in parish churches and the LOTH, which was supposed romchange that, did not.

I believe the time is ripe for a comeback of Sunday evening services, due among other things to the most offensive practice of Sunday morning sports practice in schools.  A local Catholic parish has a Vincentian Father who celebrates a well attended Novus Ordo mass with banal music, not praiseband but not pretty, every Sunday evening.  I think in Orthodoxy having a Sunday evening liturgy is probably not doable, or would be difficult, due to the one priest per altar per day rule, but I see no reason why Sunday night vespers should not be celebrated.

My understanding of Anglican Mattins and Evensong is that the Sunday Mattins served to introduce the liturgy,mand the evensong on Sunday would hint at the service next Sunday, a bit like EO Saturday night Vigils.

i dont follow your point on Mark Driscoll.  I do believe the Roman Rite is in error in insisting on secular clergy to be celibate, however, the UK Ordinariate blogger Fr. Hunwicke indicated that many Catholic parishes have experienced "sticker shock" at the increased cost of married clergy.  However, regular clergy are surely less expensive than secular celibates.  I find myself wishing among other things about your church that you had married secular priests and more religious priests, and that all your bishops were drawn from religious orders and followed monastic rules. Imlove Archbishop Cordielone but the incident where he was out dining with friends and got nailed at a DUI checkpoint for being just slightly over the limit was a huge embarassment, that while not unheard of among Orthodox bishops, i believe following the ancient canons regarding bishops would prevent altogether.

On your last point, I agree entirely.  Ive encountered many great female theologoans but in Christianity, not a good female priest.  Imdomt think they can do the job any more than a man can give birth.  I dont mind women telling me waphat to do, but there is just something about female clergy that I find extremely unnatural, and have since I was a child. I refuse to visit a Protestsnt church that has a female minister.  But the Mother Goddess thing is even worse.  And the teo are related; bith emerged with the theological liberalism that bubbled to life after World War II..


If I'm not mistaken, though, Methodism had female leaders (maybe not always formally ordained, though) since its inception, and Pentecostalism followed suit. The rationale wasn't theological liberalism, since it wasn't much of a factor back then, but rather the existence of Biblical figures such as Deborah. Look, for example, at Alma White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Bridwell_White), who was quite a disagreeable character in a lot of ways, but hardly a liberal.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 02, 2015, 12:32:09 PM
Since the schism of Wesleyan Methodism with the Anglicans after John Wesleys dearh, and after the Revolutionary War in the US, the Methodists under his direction, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the US, had no female elders or suoerintendents (bishops) until 1957 when a female elder was ordained.  The superintendents had all authority,

There were other Methodists thiugh.  Like the Countess of Huntingdon's Connection.  They were Calvinist Methodists and theolgically in opposition to the Wesleyan Methodist Episcopal Church.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 02, 2015, 12:39:32 PM
Option 3 sounds a bit like a European Cathedral.  St. Peters can be a bit like Grand Central Station, with pilgrim priests reserving altars at which to offer a low mass.  Every altar might be in use at the same time, and Fr. Z on his blog reported dashing through the basillica with his server, to find a free altar, after the basillica staff double booked his office.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 02, 2015, 06:08:22 PM
Two things confuse me still: when did Catholics begin communing more frequently?

About 100 years ago, after Pope St. Pius X lowered the age for First Communion from around 12 or 13 (after Confirmation?) to 7.

Also I thought low mass tended to have communion by just the priest, with solemn mass more likely to commune the people; did I get that backwards?

Yes.

And were there ever any solemn masses, like on Easter Sunday, which was a day, correct me if Im wromg, that even in the period of infrequent communion, it was commonly taken by Catholics?

Sure there were. We're required to go to Communion during the Easter liturgical period, but again, High Mass was non-communicating for the laity. People would receive at Low Mass or in church between Masses.

Also, to what extent was the Divine Offce historically celebrated and publicly attended in Roman churches outside of monasteries?  Ive always felt to a degree like the Roman Church neglects the Office in favor of Masses in parish churches and the LOTH, which was supposed to change that, but did not.

Until radio and movies revolutionized entertainment, Roman Rite parish churches had Sunday Vespers and people were expected to attend. You're right about the failure now to have public recitation of the office.

i dont follow your point on Mark Driscoll.

People here complained because he didn't become Orthodox. I was trying to say of course you want somebody to become Orthodox because he believes in Orthodoxy, not just because he's a frustrated Roman Catholic who wants to be a married priest. (Catholicism doesn't let men switch rites if that's their only or main reason.)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 03, 2015, 01:21:52 AM
I believe the time is ripe for a comeback of Sunday evening services, due among other things to the most offensive practice of Sunday morning sports practice in schools.  A local Catholic parish has a Vincentian Father who celebrates a well attended Novus Ordo mass with banal music, not praiseband but not pretty, every Sunday evening.  I think in Orthodoxy having a Sunday evening liturgy is probably not doable, or would be difficult, due to the one priest per altar per day rule, but I see no reason why Sunday night vespers should not be celebrated.

I can see several ways around that:

  • Rent space from another church (like an Anglican, Catholic or Methodist one). Since that church is using the building on Sunday morning, the Orthodox parish meeting there would of necessity have to have its Sunday service in the evening.
  • Have an EO and an OO congregation (or an Eastern Rite and Western Rite) use the same building. There would then be two different altars in it, one designed for each rite, and two priests. It would effectively be two parishes in one.
  • For very large parishes, just have multiple priests and altars. This would have the added benefit of spreading attendance throughout the week, thus preventing overcrowding.

A "Sunday evening liturgy" would actually be the Liturgy of Monday.  What you probably want is a "Saturday evening liturgy", which is feasible, but not without leaving a big hole in Sunday morning.  But if you actually wanted a "Sunday evening Liturgy", that would not necessarily violate the "one priest per altar per day" rule if there was a "Sunday morning Liturgy", but, again, it's a Monday at that point.   
I don't know what the rubrics say in the OO tradition, but an EO church is permitted to celebrate the Divine Liturgy twice in one liturgical day (Vespers to Vespers) but not twice in one civil day (midnight to midnight). As such, an EO parish can celebrate the Divine Liturgy Saturday evening and Sunday morning, as is the case for Pascha, but cannot celebrate a Liturgy on Sunday evening.

Do you have a source for that?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 03, 2015, 02:32:05 AM
NVM
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on June 03, 2015, 08:03:03 PM
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.

Again God does the Holy Water so it is the same in any jurisdiction irrespective of what the priest did or how much he prayed.

Holy Water is not sacrament neither Holy Communion.

Wanted to mention one more time that Holy Water has to be disposed with care.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: sprtslvr1973 on June 04, 2015, 07:17:48 AM
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Nicely said; to paraphrase Lewis's Screwtape, "moderate" devotion to God serves "Our Father Below" (Satan)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 04, 2015, 11:36:22 AM
Thread locked temporarily for split
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 04, 2015, 11:41:22 AM
The tangent on the hoped for return of Sunday evening services has been moved to Liturgy (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?board=4.0).

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=65038.0 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=65038.0)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 04, 2015, 11:43:03 AM
Thread now unlocked. Please stay on topic.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 04, 2015, 12:05:40 PM
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Now the main falsification for Anglicanism in its High Church, Anglo Catholic, Percy Dearmer, Edward Pussey and Dom Gregory Dix / Order of the Holy Cross form, is that the orders are invalid due to invalid form and non-recognition by the Anglican bishops outside of this Anglo Catholic realm that ordination is a Sacrament.  This form survives in the Global South in the Anglo Catholic churches of Africa, like The Church of Ghana, and in the Continuing Anglican Movement in the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Orthodox Church and a host of small traditionalist jurisdictions, one of which rescued the foemer Anglican church in Chico, CA, where I lived as a young  boy, from its fate as a Chinese Restaurant; the Episcopalians moved to a massove, ugly, wooden church in the 70s or 80s that is one of those deeply unpleasant churches of the architectural style called Brutalism.

Now, if ROCOR or other Orthodox were prepared to accept the orders of Anglicans before the ECUSA decided that James Pike was the model bishop, perhaps even now we might say that the continuing Anglo Catholic jurisdictions are true churches, and enter into communion with them.  Many of them have augmented their episcopal succession through various lines, some of dubious validity, through groups like the Order for Corporate Reunion, a vagante group that thought it could achive the aims of Anglo Papalists by forming a cadre of bishops who had apostolic succession from all known communions.  They sound a bit like ecclesiastical underpants gnomes; ultimately Pope Benedict XVI realized the aims of the Anglo Papalosts through the ordinariates, but the Order for Corporate Reunion did not have anything to do with it.  Nonetheless, several continuing Anglican bishops have I believe been co-consecrated by the OCR before their demise (their leader, Henry de Wilmott Newman, was I believe the uncle and predeccessor of Metropolitan Seraphim of Glastonbury at the helm of the British Orthodox Church).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 04, 2015, 07:01:54 PM
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Some Orthodox, including the founding metropolitan of ROCOR, speculated about Anglican orders thus: they thought that, unlike Catholicism on Anglican orders, IF the WHOLE Anglican Communion dropped Protestantism AND asked to become Orthodox, THEN they could be received in their orders, just like ex-Catholics have been. That will never happen so the question's moot.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mockingbird on June 06, 2015, 02:16:58 PM
1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.
No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 07, 2015, 05:48:01 PM
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Some Orthodox, including the founding metropolitan of ROCOR, speculated about Anglican orders thus: they thought that, unlike Catholicism on Anglican orders, IF the WHOLE Anglican Communion dropped Protestantism AND asked to become Orthodox, THEN they could be received in their orders, just like ex-Catholics have been. That will never happen so the question's moot.

Since some Comtuing Anglican churches of an Anglo Catholic orientation are out of communion with any other Anglicans,,such churches could I daresay become entirely Orrhodox with relative ease and then be accepted on that basis, or alternately persuade us of their Orthodoxy, by dropping the fliioque and the 39 arricles amd affirming the Sacraments as seven in number.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 07, 2015, 06:33:01 PM
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Some Orthodox, including the founding metropolitan of ROCOR, speculated about Anglican orders thus: they thought that, unlike Catholicism on Anglican orders, IF the WHOLE Anglican Communion dropped Protestantism AND asked to become Orthodox, THEN they could be received in their orders, just like ex-Catholics have been. That will never happen so the question's moot.

Since some Comtuing Anglican churches of an Anglo Catholic orientation are out of communion with any other Anglicans,,such churches could I daresay become entirely Orrhodox with relative ease and then be accepted on that basis, or alternately persuade us of their Orthodoxy, by dropping the fliioque and the 39 arricles amd affirming the Sacraments as seven in number.

We'll see if one ever does. My guess is the Orthodox body receiving them would disregard this idea and just receive them as ex-Anglicans usually are received, at least through chrismation.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 07, 2015, 06:54:34 PM
1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.
No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.

Born Episcopalian, now ex, who respectfully disagrees, but since this is an Eastern Orthodox board, you expected disagreement. I know you believe Anglicanism has the minimum to count as part of the church founded by Christ. Classical Anglicans do one better: they say you ARE the church, certainly in England, better than Roman Catholics and Orthodox thanks to being "reformed" (return to the Bible and the Fathers) as well as "Catholic" (here meaning the creeds, bishops, and the idea of a liturgy, different from the Roman Catholic one, and better, by virtue of being "reformed").

On women priests:

Catholicism: We can't change the matter of the sacraments. The church is infallible and irreformable (it can't change its mind).
Orthodoxy: We can't change the matter of the sacraments. The church is infallible and irreformable (it can't change its mind).
Classical Anglicanism: We can't change the matter of the sacraments. That's how we read the Bible and the Fathers.
Modern Anglicanism: We believe in women's rights.

I've been told the real reason for the change was shallow: the nice WASP gentlemen in the House of Bishops didn't want to be seen as male chauvinists. Women's ordination was greenlighted in Anglicanism only around 1968 or 1970, when the otherwise fairly good Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, said there was no theological problem with it.

Anglo-Catholicism has come in two versions: those who wanted to be Catholic (Anglo-Papalists, mostly a tiny minority of Englishmen; what most outside Anglo-Catholicism thought/feared Anglo-Catholics were) and those who, just like the Orthodox, thought they were Catholic so who needs Rome? Modern liberal high church, the mode now in Episcopalianism, is a version of the latter of course. But for those of us who were in or influenced by Anglo-Catholicism, be we Anglo-Papalists or more classical Anglicans, women's ordination was a punch in the face. (I found out about it in late 1981 or sometime in 1982.) I don't hate the Anglicans, including the women ministers, but still. I'm sure the ex-Anglican Orthodox here agree.

Interestingly in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, agitators for women's ordination are the exception. It just doesn't come up. Ignorant or lapsed members might tell pollsters they're fine with it, but they usually know they can't change the church so they don't waste their time trying.

And everybody knows women's ordination hasn't reversed decline in the Episcopal Church or the Church of England.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 07, 2015, 06:55:20 PM
1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.
No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.

Many Anglicans disagree with you and reject the authority of female priests and bishops.  The main concept the conservative Episcopalians were too slow to realize is that "you are what you are in communion with."

Ergo, I propose Anglicanism is generally an Imposter of the Church Catholic, on three grounds:

1. Lack of valid Apostolic succession, due to this being forfeit by the rejection of ordination as a Sacrament and the irregular liturgical form.
2. A history of heterodox dogma in direct opposition to the faith of the Orthodox, such as the 39 Articles, and now the ordination of women and the marriage of homosexuals.
3. The further disruption of apostolic authority by the exercose of the offices of Bishop and Priest by persons not authorized to hold that office, such as women, divorced and remarried men, persons who have killed another after baptism (I believe this may possibly apply to Bishop Bruno of LA), amd so on.

This applies in general. I am inclined to regard as true members of the Church the early Methodists, the Scottish Non Jurors, the Puseyites and Anglo Catholics, who desired an Apostolic faith in opposition to Calvinist error.  Actually, I am inclined to regard Anglicanism in general as part of the True Church before it fell into its current errors, albeit a defective part having only de facto and not de jure authority due to apostolic succession having been dampened by de-sacralizing ordination.  I am also willing to believe Anglican apostolic succession is generally dormant, and could be meaningful if an Anglican bishop were ordained using an Orthodox liturgy.  After all, our Orthodox lines of succession do in some cases pass through persons of dubious Orthodoxy; I dont believe ordination to be a magical act, but it is a sacramemt, and muat be reverently celebrated for someone to be properly recognized as a Worthy Successor to the Apostles.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: biro on June 07, 2015, 06:58:29 PM
I thought the high church adherents believed in the full range of sacraments?  :o
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 07, 2015, 07:05:32 PM
I thought the high church adherents believed in the full range of sacraments?  :o

They do but "you are who you are in communion with." In the Church of England, the Anglo-Catholic parish that believes in the Mass and the Evangelical parish that doesn't are both in good standing in that church.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 07, 2015, 07:09:04 PM
I thought the high church adherents believed in the full range of sacraments?  :o

Some do, especially those who identify as "Anglo Catholic."  However the bar for High Churchmanship has been lowered, so someone who we would a century ago call low church, celebrating the Eucharist in an academic grown or a cassock, surplice and tippet, and saying Mattins and Holy Communion, with simple Protestant hymns, could now be considered high church in comparison to, say, Holy Trinity Brompton or "HTB" as it is known.  Which ironically is adjacent to the Brompton Oratory, where many Tiber-crossing Anglicans have wound up, and which probably has the best liturgical service of any non-Orthodox church in the UK.  Going from HTB down the lane to the Oratory is surreal; its like taking a walk to another planet.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on June 07, 2015, 07:25:32 PM
I am also willing to believe Anglican apostolic succession is generally dormant, and could be meaningful if an Anglican bishop were ordained using an Orthodox liturgy.  After all, our Orthodox lines of succession do in some cases pass through persons of dubious Orthodoxy; I dont believe ordination to be a magical act, but it is a sacramemt, and muat be reverently celebrated for someone to be properly recognized as a Worthy Successor to the Apostles.

Well, yeah. Nearly every Patriarchal throne has been, in the past, occupied by one or more shady characters (either heretics, or morally corrupt individuals). But that didn't cause the thrones to stop existing.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 07, 2015, 07:55:11 PM
It's interesting how high church, low church, middle-of-the-road, and liberal have changed meanings in Anglicanism over the years. High church originally meant a high view of authority, of the church's divine origin, a divine right of bishops if you will as well as supporting the king's authority. Which in a theoretical way resembled Catholicism or Orthodoxy, like them positing itself as the true church, definitely NOT "wanting to be Roman Catholic," including imitating Roman Catholic ceremonial, which, especially as Anglo-Catholicism, it came to mean.

I've been told that classic Evangelicals in the Church of England were like "Presbyterians with Prayer Books," with a low view of episcopal authority but good Anglicans following the text and rubrics in the Prayer Book; Anglican liturgy. And keeping episcopal order (being confirmed and ordained by bishops; not allowing non-episcopal ministers to officiate) without necessarily believing bishops are essential. Today in England it tends to discard that stuff to imitate American evangelicalism: no more vestments, a praise band instead of an organ, etc.

Middle-of-the-road's always been relative to the shifting goalposts of high and low.

Liberals used to look like Evangelicals, following the letter of English law, not wanting high ceremonial because they too didn't believe in popish mumbo-jumbo. An unintended influence of Anglo-Catholicism has been for about 100 years there have been liberal clergy who also love high ceremonial; Catholic minus Rome appeals to them, then ecumenism became fashionable (they thought Catholicism was coming around to their point of view) as did hippie/New Age/shamanism.

I think a lot of Anglicans, including the conservative ones in the Continuum, don't get that the Orthodox don't care about lines of succession outside the Orthodox Church. An Anglican bishop with a hundred claimed Orthodox lines being ordained for the Anglican Church but with an Orthodox liturgy would still not be a bishop, the Orthodox and the Catholics agree. (Even if a Catholic or Orthodox bishop disobeyed his church and co-consecrated him.) Such Anglicans seem not to understand our churches' true-church claims. They think doctrinal orthodoxy and lines of succession qualify them for intercommunion agreements with Catholics and Orthodox, not realizing that our churches don't do intercommunion agreements. They can't "enter communion with Orthodoxy"; Orthodoxy expects them to become Orthodox. Ditto Catholicism. (I think we agree that an Orthodox who goes to Communion at our church becomes a Catholic.)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 07, 2015, 08:04:42 PM
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: biro on June 07, 2015, 08:19:31 PM
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.

But they won't.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 07, 2015, 08:31:56 PM
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.
I don't know enough about Catholic theology to comment on them, but do you have any examples of the Orthodox Church doing such a thing? I've frequently seen the opposite complaint, that they are never willing to change anything and are fossilized, but never the complaint that they change things and then seek justification for doing so.  That is a new one for me.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on June 07, 2015, 08:59:18 PM
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.
I don't know enough about Catholic theology to comment on them, but do you have any examples of the Orthodox Church doing such a thing? I've frequently seen the opposite complaint, that they are never willing to change anything and are fossilized, but never the complaint that they change things and then seek justification for doing so.  That is a new one for me.

I think Daedalus is assuming that the Orthodox Church will eventually cave to the pressure from the world to ordain women. I don't know. I don't think it will; on the other hand, I'm not sure if women's ordination is really wrong. I have yet to see an airtight argument against it... not that I would necessarily support it either. I'm fine with the way things are in any case.

I think the bigger problems for Anglicanism are its blatant heresies, e.g. iconoclasm and Calvinism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 07, 2015, 09:15:34 PM
I think I understand women's ordination's appeal. Equal opportunity, and as a straight man I love women and want them to love me back. If I thought I could invent a church, it would probably look like credally and sacramentally sound and conservative-looking but "open-minded" high Episcopal, like their Order of Julian of Norwich. If I really didn't understand women, I'd probably buy this.

The world, including relations between the sexes and the church, doesn't work that way. We can't invent a church, and giving women power doesn't endear you to them. Think about it: are women turned on by men who don't stand up to them? Women want men to be men. That and, as the conservative Protestants say, the Bible's clear about male headship. Ordaining women doesn't impress secular feminists; the love of my life 25 years ago was one so I know. It doesn't convert the unchurched and drives away most of the religious. Like the other mainline Protestant churches, the Anglicans have done everything the secular world said it wants and they're still cratering.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy can't make that change. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to a higher power than the king or public opinion including a majority vote.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 09, 2015, 12:05:21 AM
The tangent on women's ordination has been moved to Religious Topics (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?board=38.0).

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8894.msg1300670.html#msg1300670 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8894.msg1300670.html#msg1300670)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 09, 2015, 10:40:43 AM
I don't know enough about Catholic theology to comment on them, but do you have any examples of the Orthodox Church doing such a thing? I've frequently seen the opposite complaint, that they are never willing to change anything and are fossilized, but never the complaint that they change things and then seek justification for doing so.  That is a new one for me.

I could give many examples.  Usury, serfdom, slavery, those things have been discarded.  On these your church has changed its position.   The practice of confession in your church is also not the same as in the ancient church, neither is the liturgy exactly the same, in fact its much longer and has more litanies and other features.  And the early Church didn't have the Palamist theology.  Etc. etc.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 09, 2015, 10:57:52 AM
Usury, serfdom, slavery, those things have been discarded.

Is it, though?

The practice of confession in your church is also not the same as in the ancient church

The sacrament is essentially the same, but the practice has been modified a bit in externals. Shouting your sins to the priests with everyone around you is a bit awkward.

neither is the liturgy exactly the same, in fact its much longer and has more litanies and other features.

It's actually shorter. It's been shortened multiple times, notably by St. Basil who brought it down from 5 hours. But what has a change of externals to do with a change of beliefs?

And the early Church didn't have the Palamist theology.  Etc. etc.

'Palamism' was there, notably in Scripture itself. It was a bit less pronounced, but it was there. The Cappadocian fathers clearly taught it.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 09, 2015, 11:16:50 AM
The sacrament is essentially the same, but the practice has been modified a bit in externals. Shouting your sins to the priests with everyone around you is a bit awkward..

I don't see evidence the early Church taught that confession to a priest was mandatory.  This was a practice that started in the west in Ireland and Britain among monastics and spread to the laity over centuries.  Then in the 13th century with the 4th Lateran Council it became an obligation and mandatory.

The modern Orthodox practice you saw in some Russian churches of tying communion to confession seems to me to be a Latinization.   Not surprising since  19th century Russian theology was influenced by contact with Roman Catholic Scholastic thought.  Most Orthodox started increasingly focusing their theology on Scholasticism in the wake of the Reformation, doubling down to defend what they perceived as historic doctrines in the face of new "threats" from Protestant faith (hence the denunciation of Calvinism and the Council of Dositheos in Jerusalem.)

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 09, 2015, 11:27:16 AM
I don't see evidence the early Church taught that confession to a priest was mandatory. 

Read the writings of the early Church, starting with the Didache and the letter of Barnabas. Confession is there. Early canons had very heavy penances, disbarring people for years on end from communion for some sins.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 09, 2015, 11:41:58 AM
Read the writings of the early Church, starting with the Didache and the letter of Barnabas. Confession is there. Early canons had very heavy penances, disbarring people for years on end from communion for some sins.

Penances are a separate issue from the Scholastic understanding that confession to a priest works ex opere operatio, and was therefore necessary for the forgiveness of sins.  That idea did not exist in the early Church.  Certain church fathers encouraged confession of sins, but only to unburden ones conscience.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 09, 2015, 11:43:42 AM
ex opere operatio

Not this discussion again.

It's ex opere operato btw.

The Anglican (and Lutheran?) understanding of the issue is donatist.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 09, 2015, 11:59:29 AM
ex opere operatio

Not this discussion again.

It's ex opere operato btw.

The Anglican (and Lutheran?) understanding of the issue is donatist.

How is it Donatist? They don't even believe that Confession is a condition for forgiveness. They just believe it's a nice gesture.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 09, 2015, 04:26:58 PM
How is it Donatist? They don't even believe that Confession is a condition for forgiveness. They just believe it's a nice gesture.

Yup.

Luther realized its impossible for anybody to know with certainty if they had given a good confession or not (many of the points about the 95 Theses are concerning this).  So basically he said just confess whatever is really troubling your conscience.   Lutheran and Anglican priests and pastors would occasionally encourage private confession, but it was seldom required.


Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on June 09, 2015, 05:39:20 PM
If Anglican Church was not started by a King where was Anglican Church in 1st, 2nd century?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 09, 2015, 05:45:47 PM
Holy Water Deathmatch!!
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 09, 2015, 05:56:56 PM
If Anglican Church was not started by a King where was Anglican Church in 1st, 2nd century?
Catholic
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 09, 2015, 06:05:45 PM
How is it Donatist? They don't even believe that Confession is a condition for forgiveness. They just believe it's a nice gesture.

Yup.

Luther realized its impossible for anybody to know with certainty if they had given a good confession or not (many of the points about the 95 Theses are concerning this).  So basically he said just confess whatever is really troubling your conscience.   Lutheran and Anglican priests and pastors would occasionally encourage private confession, but it was seldom required.

Note that Orthodox theology regarding confession is different, and more flexible.  A Russian priest when I was in EO land whose command of English was poor gave me a laminated sheet which inckuded a list of all conceivable categories of sin to confess, which I did; I realized in a certain sense I was guilty of all of them.  It also advised me to mention to the priest anything troubling me, I mentioned my nightmares, and they got better for a time.

St. John of Kronstadt did a form of general confession, with everyone shouring their sins simultaneously.

Ex opere operato began not regarding confession specifically, but baptism and the Eucharist, and indeed all the Sacraments including confession; the Donatists argued that only a worthy priest could confect the Sacraments.  Which is a viewpoint related to Pelagianism, the heresy that we ourselves must overcome sin without divine grace and are capable of ridding ourselves of evil, on our own, in this life.  St. Augustine, realizing that there were perhaps no absolutely worthy priests other than our Lord, and if a holy priest or monk had through divine grace suppressed the evil passions, this would be known with certainty only by God, felt compelled to argue the Sacraments are effective in and of themselves.

I think the Orthodox would generally agree with this, with the understanding that some require an ordained priest to be administered, and this was one of the better contributions of St. Augustine to Patristic theology.

Ex opere operato, though believed in by the Scholastics, was not in any sense uniquely their idea.  The sole downside of it is that if misinterpreted, it can give rise to a view that the sacraments a re amagical theurgy, where one simply has to say certain words to compel the action of God; this is not true, and a misintepretation of the concept.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 09, 2015, 07:14:47 PM
I was objecting to the idea of the 4th Lateran Council, that it is possible for a person to know all their sins, and that they must confess all of them.  That is what Lutherans and Anglicans would be arguing against.  Confession is used as a way for people to have a private experience of absolution by having the Word (in the Lutheran sense) applied to them, but it is not required.   I'm not saying its a bad thing, in some cases it saves peoples faith, but the Roman Catholic teaching on the absolute necessity of confessing every sin has significant pastoral problems, to say the least.  And it doesn't fit with Reformation theology.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: biro on June 09, 2015, 07:19:29 PM
In my earlier church, at the end of Confession, I would say, "...and these are all the sins I can remember." They accepted it.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 09, 2015, 07:49:49 PM
I was objecting to the idea of the 4th Lateran Council, that it is possible for a person to know all their sins, and that they must confess all of them.  That is what Lutherans and Anglicans would be arguing against.  Confession is used as a way for people to have a private experience of absolution by having the Word (in the Lutheran sense) applied to them, but it is not required.   I'm not saying its a bad thing, in some cases it saves peoples faith, but the Roman Catholic teaching on the absolute necessity of confessing every sin has significant pastoral problems, to say the least.  And it doesn't fit with Reformation theology.

Well, if you want to debate about the fourth Lateran Council, take it to the Catholic forum.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 09, 2015, 09:52:47 PM
Certain church fathers encouraged confession of sins, but only to unburden ones conscience.
Can I have a source for this?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on June 10, 2015, 06:17:35 AM
Actually in 1st and 2nd century Anglican Church was orthodox with what orthodoxy believe now.
Encouraging Anglican Church of today means encouraging the idea that Anglicans don't deserve best, that is orthodoxy means giving a disservice to anglican community.

Returning to the Bible and Fathers did not happen since both Bible and Fathers do not contradict orthodoxy so in fact was returning to error.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: pasadi97 on June 10, 2015, 07:07:48 AM
Actually no document tell about Anglican Church in 1st and 2nd century because Anglican Church did not exist then, the king that made it not being born.
Also the human teachings that differ today from orthodoxy were not there since people that made them were not born in 1st or 2nd century. Filioloque not there in 1st or 2nd century and so on.

If Anglicanism assumes as true the teachings of England Orthodox Church in first 1000 years, it has to renounce to today human teachings contradicting them
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 10, 2015, 07:35:13 AM
ex opere operatio

Not this discussion again.

It's ex opere operato btw.

The Anglican (and Lutheran?) understanding of the issue is donatist.

How is it Donatist? They don't even believe that Confession is a condition for forgiveness. They just believe it's a nice gesture.

Their sacramental theology is reverse donatism in the sense that they believe the efficacy of sacraments is dependant on the beliefs and worthiness of the recipient. The donatists believed the efficacy of sacraments depended on the beliefs and worthiness of the priest. You can most clearly see it with the Anglicans' beliefs on the eucharist: "It 'is' Christ's body and blood if you believe it is that"
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 07:58:18 AM
Certain church fathers encouraged confession of sins, but only to unburden ones conscience.
Can I have a source for this?

Check out the Catholic Catechism (1447), it admits that the practice of confession developed into its current forum.  To accept the Roman interpretation of confession, you have to first be persuaded that the Bishop of Rome holds supremacy and infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Early Christians only required penance for apostasy, idolatry, adultery, and murder.  Even then it was more about what the Church did for discipline, than some kind of limitation on God's mercy- which is exactly how the Catechism of the Catholic Church presents it as being (it's juridical).  If you have a mortal sin and you don't manage to have "perfect contrition" (how would a person even know what that means- does anybody really love God perfectly?), and you were to die before you could reach the confessional, your soul is lost. 

No wonder Luther spent hours in the confessional.  Actually, what he was doing was quite reasonable if the presuppositions were true.  Why risk your soul walking around with imperfect contrition when you could die any second?  Religious doubt and scruples continue to be a problem among devout catholics, and the only reason its not more common is because most Catholics are either nominal and don't know what their church teaches, or a spiritual advisor or priest will relativize the teachings to the situation of the individual.

Their sacramental theology is reverse donatism in the sense that they believe the efficacy of sacraments is dependant on the beliefs and worthiness of the recipient. The donatists believed the efficacy of sacraments depended on the beliefs and worthiness of the priest. You can most clearly see it with the Anglicans' beliefs on the eucharist: "It 'is' Christ's body and blood if you believe it is that"

No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  Even then, I would say that's one interpretation of the articles.  But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

Now days the articles are not considered normative, they are considered historical documents that give a guide to Anglican beliefs in the 16-17th century.  The modern Episcopal catechism suggests an objective view of the sacrament similar to Lutherans, and that is how many Anglicans interpreted the 39 Articles in the past
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 10, 2015, 08:22:46 AM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference.

Now days the articles are not considered normative

Nothing is normative in the Anglican Church anymore.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 08:34:21 AM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference. 

Faith is not self-generated by an act of ones own individual will, it is a gift from God.  Therefore the person is not wishing Christ's body and blood into existence.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 10, 2015, 08:36:22 AM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference. 

Faith is not self-generated by an act of ones own individual will, it is a gift from God.  Therefore the person is not wishing Christ's body and blood into existence.

That's just sophistry.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 08:38:52 AM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference. 

Faith is not self-generated by an act of ones own individual will, it is a gift from God.  Therefore the person is not wishing Christ's body and blood into existence.

That's just sophistry.

Really? Orthodox do not also believe that faith is a gift from God?  You really believe a human being is capable of coming to God apart from his grace?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 10, 2015, 08:42:03 AM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference. 

Faith is not self-generated by an act of ones own individual will, it is a gift from God.  Therefore the person is not wishing Christ's body and blood into existence.

That's just sophistry.

Really? Orthodox do not also believe that faith is a gift from God?  You really believe a human being is capable of coming to God apart from his grace?

More sophistry.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on June 10, 2015, 09:56:04 AM
Actually no document tell about Anglican Church in 1st and 2nd century because Anglican Church did not exist then, the king that made it not being born.
Also the human teachings that differ today from orthodoxy were not there since people that made them were not born in 1st or 2nd century. Filioloque not there in 1st or 2nd century and so on.

If Anglicanism assumes as true the teachings of England Orthodox Church in first 1000 years, it has to renounce to today human teachings contradicting them

Well, technically, neither was the Creed.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 10, 2015, 03:01:43 PM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference. 

Faith is not self-generated by an act of ones own individual will, it is a gift from God.  Therefore the person is not wishing Christ's body and blood into existence.

That's just sophistry.

Really? Orthodox do not also believe that faith is a gift from God?  You really believe a human being is capable of coming to God apart from his grace?

No, we dont believe that.  Ss. John Cassian and Augustine spent much energy refuting that theory, known as Pelagianism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Marc1152 on June 10, 2015, 03:16:28 PM
One problem is that there is so much latitude between what is taught different places. On the east end of town, the Anglicans are very conservative and have decent enough Christology. But on the West end of town, they teach what's popular lately.

Our Priest and his family and many in our Parish ( not me) are converts from Anglicanism.. The last straw for our Matushka was when a lesbian was made rector of her parish. She carried around a crucifix that had a female Christ on it.

"Oh waiter..I'll take my check now"
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 10, 2015, 03:29:08 PM
One problem is that there is so much latitude between what is taught different places. On the east end of town, the Anglicans are very conservative and have decent enough Christology. But on the West end of town, they teach what's popular lately.

Our Priest and his family and many in our Parish ( not me) are converts from Anglicanism.. The last straw for our Matushka was when a lesbian was made rector of her parish. She carried around a crucifix that had a female Christ on it.

"Oh waiter..I'll take my check now"

Indeed, to use a phrase popular among Episcopalians, "Thats a hill I would die on."
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 10, 2015, 04:48:30 PM
ex opere operatio

Not this discussion again.

It's ex opere operato btw.

The Anglican (and Lutheran?) understanding of the issue is donatist.

How is it Donatist? They don't even believe that Confession is a condition for forgiveness. They just believe it's a nice gesture.

Their sacramental theology is reverse donatism in the sense that they believe the efficacy of sacraments is dependant on the beliefs and worthiness of the recipient. The donatists believed the efficacy of sacraments depended on the beliefs and worthiness of the priest. You can most clearly see it with the Anglicans' beliefs on the eucharist: "It 'is' Christ's body and blood if you believe it is that"

Ah, ok. I guess that makes sense.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
No, that's not what Anglicans teach in the doctrine of receptionism.  They teach that the bread and wine are Christ body and blood if faithfully received.  [...] But nowhere does it suggest that people wish Christ's body and blood into existence.  The point is that the unfaithful do not partake of Christ.

I see no difference. 

Faith is not self-generated by an act of ones own individual will, it is a gift from God.  Therefore the person is not wishing Christ's body and blood into existence.

That's just sophistry.

Really? Orthodox do not also believe that faith is a gift from God?  You really believe a human being is capable of coming to God apart from his grace?

I think the Anglican view is too individualistic. Christ is objectively present in the Eucharist because of the faith of the priest with the congregation ("wherever two or more..."). Those who encounter Him faithlessly do so to their own peril.

It's like the Orthodox view of Hell. God is still present but is a fire to those who don't love Him.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 07:45:41 PM
I would not say receptionism is the Anglican view.  There really isn't a single Anglican Eucharistic theology, though in the Episcopal church, some kind of realist understanding of the sacrament is the most common.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 10, 2015, 08:02:10 PM
There really isn't a single Anglican Eucharistic theology.

True. Which convinces me Anglicanism is false.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 08:18:36 PM
There really isn't a single Anglican Eucharistic theology.

True. Which convinces me Anglicanism is false.

I am beginning to have a low opinion of this forum. 

I went to an Episcopal healing service today.  You know what I found?  Quiet, dignified sanctity. A broad love for Christians of all confessions.   When the canon stooped down to pray for the sick at the altar and anoint them, I could feel the presence of God.  I walked out of the service thanking God that he was still raising up servants like that.

I don't see the point in trashing other churches just because they don't present a simple, easy, paint-by-numbers solution to Christian faith.  In my experience people that are selling those simple solutions are usually selling flim-flam.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on June 10, 2015, 08:44:38 PM
There really isn't a single Anglican Eucharistic theology.

True. Which convinces me Anglicanism is false.

I am beginning to have a low opinion of this forum. 

I went to an Episcopal healing service today.  You know what I found?  Quiet, dignified sanctity. A broad love for Christians of all confessions.   When the canon stooped down to pray for the sick at the altar and anoint them, I could feel the presence of God.  I walked out of the service thanking God that he was still raising up servants like that.

I don't see the point in trashing other churches just because they don't present a simple, easy, paint-by-numbers solution to Christian faith.  In my experience people that are selling those simple solutions are usually selling flim-flam.

First, seriously, I wouldn't deny the love and grace of that Episcopal healing service, nor I think would many others there. God founded the church; he isn't limited to it. But there is the church and there is not the church. Anglicanism is not the church. But you knew you'd read that here; the Orthodox Church has the same one-true-church claim as the Catholic Church, traditional Lutherans, and a few others.

Guess we're not cool enough for you. Back to painting by numbers (worshipping idols, us Catholics selling indulgences, etc.).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 09:46:56 PM
Guess we're not cool enough for you. Back to painting by numbers (worshipping idols, us Catholics selling indulgences, etc.).

Those things don't bother me.  It's the triumphalism and authoritarianism that bothers me. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 10, 2015, 09:55:21 PM
Certain church fathers encouraged confession of sins, but only to unburden ones conscience.
Can I have a source for this?

Check out the Catholic Catechism (1447), it admits that the practice of confession developed into its current forum.  To accept the Roman interpretation of confession, you have to first be persuaded that the Bishop of Rome holds supremacy and infallibility in matters of faith and morals.

Early Christians only required penance for apostasy, idolatry, adultery, and murder.  Even then it was more about what the Church did for discipline, than some kind of limitation on God's mercy- which is exactly how the Catechism of the Catholic Church presents it as being (it's juridical).  If you have a mortal sin and you don't manage to have "perfect contrition" (how would a person even know what that means- does anybody really love God perfectly?), and you were to die before you could reach the confessional, your soul is lost. 

No wonder Luther spent hours in the confessional.  Actually, what he was doing was quite reasonable if the presuppositions were true.  Why risk your soul walking around with imperfect contrition when you could die any second?  Religious doubt and scruples continue to be a problem among devout catholics, and the only reason its not more common is because most Catholics are either nominal and don't know what their church teaches, or a spiritual advisor or priest will relativize the teachings to the situation of the individual.

That's not exactly what I asked. Do you have any quotes from the Early Church Fathers that suggests that the only purpose of confession is to clear ones conscience, not to receive the forgiveness of sin, as a Sacrament?

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to pick a fight, in case you're suspecting that. I'm genuinely interested.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 10, 2015, 09:58:29 PM
Guess we're not cool enough for you. Back to painting by numbers (worshipping idols, us Catholics selling indulgences, etc.).

Those things don't bother me.  It's the triumphalism and authoritarianism that bothers me.
Same here, though we may disagree on what we consider as "triumphalism" ;)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 10, 2015, 10:16:51 PM
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to pick a fight, in case you're suspecting that. I'm genuinely interested.

Direct quotes?  No, not really.  I think I've read a quote by Chrysostom and a few others a long time ago that was talking about confessing to clergy as a way to clear one's conscience, and the dangers of going around with a searing conscience.  I would tend to agree, confession is good- especially confessing weighty matters that genuinely bother ones conscience.  The Fathers don't seem to support the Roman view of confession, just a vague sense that it is beneficial sometimes.  But in other places they assert that sin is dealt with through acts of charity and prayer.

Anselm suggested at one point, for people with troubled consciences at the point of death- not confession, but faith in Christ's Cross.  Putting confession in place of faith in Christ's finished work is part of the problem, it's the breeding ground for scrupulosity, because then it makes confession all about what a sinful, weak human being can do.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 03:39:16 AM
Daedelus, I think its very important you study the difference, which is vast, between the Orthodox mystery of reconciliation, and the Catholic sacrament of confession and penance.

Now interestingly I have never been assigned a penance after making a confession in the Orthodox Church.  Whereas my understanding is that penances are, or were, a normal part of RC confession.

The Apostolic Canons, through the canons of St. John the Faster, show us that penances in the early church were dramatic and aweful, but never involved corporal punishment as in Judaism or Zoroastrianism.  The concept of private Tariff Penances I believe orginated among the Celtic monasteries of Ireland, some of which followed the very strict rule of St. Benedict.  I believe the relaxed and supportive way I have been treated during this sacrament is indicative of how Christianity has reshaped society for the better.  Humiliating penances are now minly the province of fundamentalist Calvinist churches that force members to sign contracts, and emforce "church discipline" which can amount to shunning; 9Marks is the worst offender of this class, led by Rev. Marl Dever's Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and Mars Hill of Seattle was their most famous member churhc until the recent implosion.  And 9Marks doesn't seem to like us very much: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/07/21/9-marks-deeply-disturbing-remarks-aimed-at-roman-catholics-and-intervarsity/

I would say reconciliation has been a blessing to me and you have nothing to fear from this sacrament.  And all sins committed prior to reception are washed away through the waters of baptism or the Seal of the Holy Spirit.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 03:51:40 AM
I was objecting to the idea of the 4th Lateran Council, that it is possible for a person to know all their sins, and that they must confess all of them.  That is what Lutherans and Anglicans would be arguing against.  Confession is used as a way for people to have a private experience of absolution by having the Word (in the Lutheran sense) applied to them, but it is not required.   I'm not saying its a bad thing, in some cases it saves peoples faith, but the Roman Catholic teaching on the absolute necessity of confessing every sin has significant pastoral problems, to say the least.  And it doesn't fit with Reformation theology.

By the way, just to be clear, this is not Orthodox theology.

Have you read The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware yet?  Also as a definitive reference, do not ignore St. John Damascene's Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, the Philokalia and Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Pomaranaky. 
But the books I suggest you read the most right now to get a grasp on the idea of repentance in Orthodoxy and the meaning of the Sacrament of Reconciliation are the aforementioned Philokalia pf Ss. Nicodemus and Macarius, the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus, the anonymous Way of the Pilgrim, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, and St. Seraphim of Sarov on the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit.

I cannot stress enough that the hair shirt, the cilice, and self flagellation, came from RCism.  One could even argue an exegesis of Canon I of Nicea is possible that would make these devices a disqualifier for the priesthpod, as the wording of the canon says "mutilates himself" amd it is the Ancient Epitome that explains this as meaning castration.  It's a stretch, and not my view, but I think such a view wherein committing acts of violence as substitutes for fasting and anstinence against ones person is inherently a form of self-murder.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: LBK on June 11, 2015, 07:55:58 AM

Have you read The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware yet?  Also as a definitive reference, do not ignore St. John Damascene's Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, the Philokalia and Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Pomaranaky. 
But the books I suggest you read the most right now to get a grasp on the idea of repentance in Orthodoxy and the meaning of the Sacrament of Reconciliation are the aforementioned Philokalia pf Ss. Nicodemus and Macarius, the Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus, the anonymous Way of the Pilgrim, the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, and St. Seraphim of Sarov on the Acquisition of the Holy Spirit.

The Philokalia and the Ladder of Divine Ascent are advanced texts, and geared towards monastics, not laymen, and certainly not inquirers or catechumens. It is no accident that a great many priests will dissuade those new to the faith from reading them until their spiritual growth and knowledge of Orthodoxy in doctrine and practise has sufficiently progressed.

Far better to attend as many services as one can, and, in the matter of confession and the nature of sin, to become familiar with the pre- and post-communion prayers, found in most good prayer books.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on June 11, 2015, 10:51:44 AM
I cannot stress enough that the hair shirt, the cilice, and self flagellation, came from RCism.  One could even argue an exegesis of Canon I of Nicea is possible that would make these devices a disqualifier for the priesthpod, as the wording of the canon says "mutilates himself" amd it is the Ancient Epitome that explains this as meaning castration.  It's a stretch, and not my view, but I think such a view wherein committing acts of violence as substitutes for fasting and anstinence against ones person is inherently a form of self-murder.

Although the distinction between "acts of violence" against the self, and more acceptable forms of asceticism isn't always clear-cut. Some Protestants reject all forms of asceticism, including fasting, as being self-harm.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 12:24:58 PM
By the way, just to be clear, this is not Orthodox theology.

... But the books I suggest you read the most right now to get a grasp on the idea of repentance in Orthodoxy and the meaning of the Sacrament of Reconciliation are the aforementioned Philokalia pf Ss. Nicodemus and Macarius, .

I don't understand the difference.  It is true Orthodox do not teach that a person must articulate the number of their sins, but isn't it true the Orthodox teach the necessity of confessing all of ones sins before death?   How is that different from Roman Catholicism?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 12:56:54 PM
Even within Roman Catholicism if one dies intending to confess a given sin, in a state of pure premetance or perfect contrition, that is conosdered adequete.

From an Orthodox perspectove I would say our faith unlike Protestantism gives us nothing like unconditional election or eternal security; since we cannt recall our sins we must focus that much more on repentance and throw ourself at the mercy of the Lord.  Read the story of the death of Abba Sisoes for a clear answer to your question.

Then if you can find a copy of the Philokalia, you can immerse yourself in the concept of repentance or metanoia as a lifestyle or considition of being that is simultaneously positive, healing and transformative.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 03:08:10 PM
From an Orthodox perspectove I would say our faith unlike Protestantism gives us nothing like unconditional election or eternal security

Outside of Calvinism and Calvinistic theological systems or sentiments, I don't believe any Protestant preaches those things.  But Protestants seem to be positive in having confidence in God's grace (mercy).  That seems to be something Orthodox do not want to emphasize.  I can only speculate as to why.

Quote
since we cannt recall our sins we must focus that much more on repentance and throw ourself at the mercy of the Lord. 

Isn't that what Protestants advocate behind justification sola fide?

It isn't just about recalling ones sins.  Suppose a person is terrified of confessing their sins to a stranger, perhaps due to years of psychological or other abuse, or traumatic experiences at the confessional in the past (it happens).  You think God is going to ignore their repentance?  I don't think so.  And yet that is the message that mandatory auricular confession often sends, people are anxious facing the prospect of dying unconfessed, without confidence in God's mercy.   At least in the West, this has a proven history.  That is what Protestants were reacting to.

Quote
  Then if you can find a copy of the Philokalia, you can immerse yourself in the concept of repentance or metanoia as a lifestyle or considition of being that is simultaneously positive, healing and transformative.

I see the Orthodox being vague on the question of justification.  Orthodox seem reluctant to look at a sinner and say "God loves you, no matter how bad you are".  Some people need to hear that, desperately.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 11, 2015, 03:10:42 PM
I see the Orthodox being vague on the question of justification. 

You confuse "vague" with "not expressing it in your theological lingo".

Orthodox seem reluctant to look at a sinner and say "God loves you, no matter how bad you are".

You confuse not saying "God loves you, no matter how bad you are" with not saying "God loves you, so you can keep on doing your favorite sins".


Quote
since we cannt recall our sins we must focus that much more on repentance and throw ourself at the mercy of the Lord. 

Isn't that what Protestants advocate behind justification sola fide?

No.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 03:24:45 PM
You confuse not saying "God loves you, no matter how bad you are" with not saying "God loves you, so you can keep on doing your favorite sins". 

That's not at all what Lutherans are saying, I can tell you that.  However, having faith in our ability not to sin is not going to save us - we are sinners, it's what we do.  This world is not a place of justice, as Luther says, in this life we will sin.  So it's better to sin boldly, but to have faith more boldly still, and to pray boldly, because we are great sinners.

Quote
Quote
since we cannt recall our sins we must focus that much more on repentance and throw ourself at the mercy of the Lord. 

Quote
Isn't that what Protestants advocate behind justification sola fide?

Quote
No.
 

What do you think Protestants do?  How are you not justifying yourself by your works of religion?   Because you have found the true denomination, hold the correct doctrines and do the right things, you are justified, but a Protestant with faith in Christ is not?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 11, 2015, 03:28:39 PM
You confuse not saying "God loves you, no matter how bad you are" with not saying "God loves you, so you can keep on doing your favorite sins". 

That's not at all what Lutherans are saying, I can tell you that.  However, having faith in our ability not to sin is not going to save us - we are sinners, it's what we do.  This world is not a place of justice, as Luther says, in this life we will sin.  So it's better to sin boldly, but to have faith more boldly still, and to pray boldly, because we are great sinners.

That's even worse.

Because you have found the true denomination, hold the correct doctrines and do the right things, you are justified

No.

What do you mean with "justified"?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 03:32:09 PM
What do you mean with "justified"?

Being forgiven and accepted by God, being saved from everlasting damnation.  That is what Protestants mean by "justified".
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 11, 2015, 03:33:27 PM


That's not at all what Lutherans are saying, I can tell you that.  However, having faith in our ability not to sin is not going to save us - we are sinners, it's what we do.  This world is not a place of justice, as Luther says, in this life we will sin.  So it's better to sin boldly, but to have faith more boldly still, and to pray boldly, because we are great sinners.
I missed the part of the Bible that tells us to sin boldly. What verse is that again? Coming from a sola scriptura tradition, I expect that they have a handy verse at the ready for such a position.

Quote
What do you think Protestants do?  How are you not justifying yourself by your works of religion?   Because you have found the true denomination, hold the correct doctrines and do the right things, you are justified, but a Protestant with faith in Christ is not?
No one has taken a position whether Protestants are justified or not. We don't even take a definitive position on our own salvation, why would we take one on a Protestant's? We are justified by Christ, not by our works, not by our correct doctrines and not because of a "true denomination" (whatever that means). The Church is the Body of Christ.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 03:41:07 PM
I missed the part of the Bible that tells us to sin boldly. What verse is that again? Coming from a sola scriptura tradition, I expect that they have a handy verse at the ready for such a position. 

Luther never taught sola scriptura.  It is a product of later Protestant scholasticism.  And sola scriptura doesn't mean that theology is irrelevant, that is Biblicism, something mainline Lutherans such as the ELCA and World Lutheran Federation rejects.

Luther in his own life realized he was a sinner and in the depths of his being, at war with God- with another law at work within him, and yet, he wanted to find a way to find peace with God.  The answer came to him in the Psalms ("deliver me in your righteousness"), when he realized that the righteousness of God delivers sinners, rather than judges them.  This new understanding of righteousness lead him to read Paul in a new light, differently from how his peers interpreted Paul.

If you accept that we are justified by Christ and not our works, then we are in agreement.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 11, 2015, 03:48:03 PM
I missed the part of the Bible that tells us to sin boldly. What verse is that again? Coming from a sola scriptura tradition, I expect that they have a handy verse at the ready for such a position. 

Luther never taught sola scriptura.  It is a product of later Protestant scholasticism.  And sola scriptura doesn't mean that theology is irrelevant, that is Biblicism, something mainline Lutherans such as the ELCA and World Lutheran Federation rejects.

Luther in his own life realized he was a sinner and in the depths of his being, at war with God- with another law at work within him, and yet, he wanted to find a way to find peace with God.  The answer came to him in the Psalms ("deliver me in your righteousness"), when he realized that the righteousness of God delivers sinners, rather than judges them.  This new understanding of righteousness lead him to read Paul in a new light, differently from how his peers interpreted Paul.

If you accept that we are justified by Christ and not our works, then we are in agreement.
There is a big difference between realizing you are a sinner and proclaiming that it is better to sin boldly. How can we be justified by Christ if we are not willing to be united to Him and how are we going to be united to Him if we are not willing to approach in a spirit of humility and repentance? Repentance from our sin is a necessity for salvation. You can't strip that away, otherwise Christianity just becomes an intellectual exercise and a dead religion.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 04:20:46 PM
There is a big difference between realizing you are a sinner and proclaiming that it is better to sin boldly. How can we be justified by Christ if we are not willing to be united to Him and how are we going to be united to Him if we are not willing to approach in a spirit of humility and repentance? Repentance from our sin is a necessity for salvation. You can't strip that away, otherwise Christianity just becomes an intellectual exercise and a dead religion.

In classical Lutheran theology, repentance is not a work we do, but what God does in us through the Holy Spirit.   Repentance is very much part of Protestant theology, at least the classical form.  But even then, repentance is not defined by a return to legalism, but a freedom to love God and our neighbor without fear of eternal judgment if we fall short of the ideal.

I have a feeling a lot of converts to Orthodoxy are attracted by the synergistic theology and the "doing" bit.  I know my own Orthodox priest was attracted by that.  But, I believe its possible to miss something true and right in the Protestant teachings, if that is the reason a person embraces Orthodoxy.

I have a feeling so many here misunderstand Protestant theology because they have been exposed mostly to Baptist and Holiness movements that negate the teaching on justification by faith alone, or they have encountered churches that teach a radical antinomianism. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: sakura95 on June 11, 2015, 04:25:28 PM
What do you mean with "justified"?

Being forgiven and accepted by God, being saved from everlasting damnation.  That is what Protestants mean by "justified".

Justification to the Protestant is by God alone. Humanity have no part in it. This is why Luther wrote "On the Bondage of the Will" which argues against Erasmus' position that humanity is capable of doing so.

Orthodoxy believes in a synergistic process of Salvation and doesn't really have a distinction between justification and sanctification. Both are seen as a single Divine Action where man and God cooperate together. In Protestantism, it's kinda like God reprogramming the wills of individuals in Justification which then leads to Sanctification.

Also, Orthodoxy does not see the process of being Saved as a one time event like the Protestants do. It's a continuous process.


Quote
Luther never taught sola scriptura.  It is a product of later Protestant scholasticism.  And sola scriptura doesn't mean that theology is irrelevant, that is Biblicism, something mainline Lutherans such as the ELCA and World Lutheran Federation rejects.

Surprise, Luther did taught Sola Scriptura. The Reformers are known to take an ancillary viewpoint of Scripture and Tradition, that makes Tradition inferior to Scripture. Orthodoxy teaches a "Coincidence" viewpoint between the two where you can't have one without the other. Where both coincide as one and are equal. Luther doesn't teach this.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 11, 2015, 04:26:35 PM
There is a big difference between realizing you are a sinner and proclaiming that it is better to sin boldly. How can we be justified by Christ if we are not willing to be united to Him and how are we going to be united to Him if we are not willing to approach in a spirit of humility and repentance? Repentance from our sin is a necessity for salvation. You can't strip that away, otherwise Christianity just becomes an intellectual exercise and a dead religion.

In classical Lutheran theology, repentance is not a work we do, but what God does in us through the Holy Spirit.   Repentance is very much part of Protestant theology, at least the classical form.  But even then, repentance is not defined by a return to legalism, but a freedom to love God and our neighbor without fear of eternal judgment if we fall short of the ideal.

I have a feeling a lot of converts to Orthodoxy are attracted by the synergistic theology and the "doing" bit.  I know my own Orthodox priest was attracted by that.  But, I believe its possible to miss something true and right in the Protestant teachings, if that is the reason a person embraces Orthodoxy.

I have a feeling so many here misunderstand Protestant theology because they have been exposed mostly to Baptist and Holiness movements that negate the teaching on justification by faith alone, or they have encountered churches that teach a radical antinomianism.
That is interesting, but what is the basis for such a belief? Is there Scriptural basis for that? Do the fathers of the Church teach this? What is the authority that such a proclamation comes from?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: biro on June 11, 2015, 04:34:44 PM
I missed the part of the Bible that tells us to sin boldly. What verse is that again? Coming from a sola scriptura tradition, I expect that they have a handy verse at the ready for such a position. 

Luther never taught sola scriptura.  It is a product of later Protestant scholasticism.  And sola scriptura doesn't mean that theology is irrelevant, that is Biblicism, something mainline Lutherans such as the ELCA and World Lutheran Federation rejects.

Luther in his own life realized he was a sinner and in the depths of his being, at war with God- with another law at work within him, and yet, he wanted to find a way to find peace with God.  The answer came to him in the Psalms ("deliver me in your righteousness"), when he realized that the righteousness of God delivers sinners, rather than judges them.  This new understanding of righteousness lead him to read Paul in a new light, differently from how his peers interpreted Paul.

If you accept that we are justified by Christ and not our works, then we are in agreement.

Huh? Did Luther himself not propound the 'five solas'?  :o
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: TheTrisagion on June 11, 2015, 05:02:07 PM
I missed the part of the Bible that tells us to sin boldly. What verse is that again? Coming from a sola scriptura tradition, I expect that they have a handy verse at the ready for such a position. 

Luther never taught sola scriptura.  It is a product of later Protestant scholasticism.  And sola scriptura doesn't mean that theology is irrelevant, that is Biblicism, something mainline Lutherans such as the ELCA and World Lutheran Federation rejects.

Luther in his own life realized he was a sinner and in the depths of his being, at war with God- with another law at work within him, and yet, he wanted to find a way to find peace with God.  The answer came to him in the Psalms ("deliver me in your righteousness"), when he realized that the righteousness of God delivers sinners, rather than judges them.  This new understanding of righteousness lead him to read Paul in a new light, differently from how his peers interpreted Paul.

If you accept that we are justified by Christ and not our works, then we are in agreement.

Huh? Did Luther himself not propound the 'five solas'?  :o
Luther never used the terms "sola ..."

Those are later terms that encapsulate his positions, but if you read his writings, Luther most definitely did hold to what we now call sola scriptura. Its a distinction without a difference really, but I've heard that argument from Lutherans before.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 11, 2015, 05:17:53 PM
"Sin boldly"...that was really a thing?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 06:42:19 PM
Huh? Did Luther himself not propound the 'five solas'?  :o

No.

Luther believed the Bible was the only rule or norm of faith.  That's different from what the average Southern Baptist or non-denom Christian believes about the Bible.  In disputations he did quote from church fathers as an authority, but he saw the authority as strictly subordinate.

He also didn't subscribe to a modern concept of inerrancy.

He encouraged people to read books besides the Bible to inform their faith, in particular he recommended the Theologica Germanica, a 14th century mystical text associated with Tauler and the Friends of God movement, a mystical and anti-clerical movement in medieval Germany.


Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
"Sin boldly"...that was really a thing?

Lither did in fact claim that one should sin, and sin boldly.  Consider his evacuation of the Roman Catholic convent to obtain a wife as a case in point.  IMO the Council of Jerusalem was right to call him a madman.

I respect Luther the same way I respect Tertullian; he did good work initially and his efforts did cause the Carholic Church to reform itself, and IMO in some respects Lutheranism is a superior ecclesiastical environment to the highly corrupt, post-Schism, pre-Tridentine Catholic Church.  But he really jumped the shark, like Tertullian.  However, instead of jumping on board a silly heretical cult, Luther instead missed the mark catastrophically both wirh his blasphemous exhortation to "sin boldly", his speculation as to the moral lacceptability of polygamy in Christianity, his editing of Galatians and attempted suppression of Hebrews, Jude, Revelations and especially James (when asked by what authority with which he inserted the word "alone" into Galatians to strengthen the sola fide argument, his answer was something like "on the authority of Dr. Martin Luther."  The nadir of Luther was his rancorous, unprovoked attack on the Jews, illustrated by his friend Lucas Cranach the Elder, which contained imagery so scatalogical and perverse that it shocked a great many people.  The spiritual pride of Luther, and the subsequent delusion this produced, became epic as time passed; he was so puffed up by his success in defeating the hitherto undefeated Pope of Rome that he seems to have imagined himself endowed with prophetic authority.

However, on the bright side, Luther contributed much to insults as an art form,  :P  although by contemporary atandards his corpus looks a tad third grade: http://ergofabulous.org/luther/ (caution: the insults he used are deeply offensive by contemporary standards)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 07:25:03 PM
Lither did in fact claim that one should sin, and sin boldly. 

I can see that most Orthodox don't even understand what that means.  Is Luther saying that sin is a good thing?  No.  But in a broken world, what other way is there to live?

I realize some Orthodox live with the delusion that by being Orthodox and living an ascetic life, they become more morally pure than the rest of us.  And it's precisely here they need to hear the story of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14).  The Torah-keeping Pharisee's offering was not accepted by God and he was not accounted righteous, but the sinner went away justified.

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: LBK on June 11, 2015, 07:26:40 PM
However, on the bright side, Luther contributed much to insults as an art form,  :P  although by contemporary atandards his corpus looks a tad third grade: http://ergofabulous.org/luther/ (caution: the insults he used are deeply offensive by contemporary standards)

Someone please tell me why this is relevant to either the post, or to the thread topic.  :P ::)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 07:28:02 PM
Someone please tell me why this is relevant to either the post, or to the thread topic.  :P ::)

This thread seems to have degenerated into Protestant-bashing.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 11, 2015, 07:29:20 PM
wgw, I'm pretty sure that's not what "sin boldly" meant. It was more like, "don't be ashamed of your sins because people are all scum anyway. Just acknowledge what you did and repent of it." It's just another expression of the Lutheran despair in the possibility of good works. And to be fair, St. Augustine's "Love God and do as you wish," can be egregiously misinterpreted as well.

Also, it isn't quite fair to ascribe The Jews and their Lies to insanity on Luther's part. Medieval Germany was already grossly anti-Semitic centuries before Luther, it was already in the air. Most of the great cathedrals of that country already contained the Judensau- a sculpture of a group of Jews violating a giant pig. Luther referred lovingly to Wittenburg's Judensau is one of his sermons.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 11, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
Someone please tell me why this is relevant to either the post, or to the thread topic.  :P ::)

This thread seems to have degenerated into Protestant-bashing.

Quote
I realize some Orthodox live with the delusion that by being Orthodox and living an ascetic life, they become more morally pure than the rest of us.  And it's precisely here they need to hear the story of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14).

Pot, kettle, black.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 11, 2015, 07:32:31 PM
However, on the bright side, Luther contributed much to insults as an art form,  :P  although by contemporary atandards his corpus looks a tad third grade: http://ergofabulous.org/luther/ (caution: the insults he used are deeply offensive by contemporary standards)

Someone please tell me why this is relevant to either the post, or to the thread topic.  :P ::)
You don't need to know, LBK. If you hound wgw with another off-topic chastisement like this in my section, you will feel the full sting of my official disdain for all forms of harassment. You have dogged wgw long enough.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 07:35:39 PM
Daedelus, just to refresh:

In Orthodoxy, sin is disease, not malfeasance, therefore salvation does not require forensic justification.

In Orthodoxy, one is saved through theosis.  God's grace enables us to repent, and then become holy and like God.

What alienates me about Western Christianity is actually how mean it is; the wrathful Father sacrificing his son to avenge His wounded honor, sparing only those of us lucky enough to hear the Gospel, but not from one of those (Catholics/Protestants/Anyone outside my sect), and throwing everyone else into the Lake of Fire.  Especially Calvinism, but to a lesser extent Lutheranism, where an over emphasis of St. Augustine instead of St. John Cassian, who was orders of magnitude more competent when it came to Soteriology, resulted in the heresy of monergism being taken to a ridiculous level.

Men must actively assent to their salvation, but the work of salvation is accomplished with the inestimable support of divine grace, which assists the faithful in embracing Truth.

I feel like you keep projecting Western theological values onto the Orthodpx, and then misreading us as a kind of stricter, more traditional Roman Catholic Church.  I urge you for this reason to read The Orthodox Way by Meteopolitan Kallistos Ware, or perhaps check out the writings of Fr. John C Romanides.  These represent an extreme view, and do not accurately reflect what the majority of Orthodox actually believe about the Roman Catholics or Western Christianity.  However, Romanides does present with radical clarity the difference between the two extremes of Western and Eastern theology.  There is alas a whiff of Greek nationalism, but ignore that, and focus on the sharp contrast he paints between East and West, because rifht now it feels like you are confused on this and we are talking past each other: http://www.romanity.org
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 08:00:40 PM
wgw, I'm pretty sure that's not what "sin boldly" meant. It was more like, "don't be ashamed of your sins because people are all scum anyway. Just acknowledge what you did and repent of it." It's just another expression of the Lutheran despair in the possibility of good works. And to be fair, St. Augustine's "Love God and do as you wish," can be egregiously misinterpreted as well.

Also, it isn't quite fair to ascribe The Jews and their Lies to insanity on Luther's part. Medieval Germany was already grossly anti-Semitic centuries before Luther, it was already in the air. Most of the great cathedrals of that country already contained the Judensau- a sculpture of a group of Jews violating a giant pig. Luther referred lovingly to Wittenburg's Judensau is one of his sermons.

On your first point, I would argue that Luther's exhortation is inherently blasphemous.  And the quote of St. Augustine you provide is in my opinion a classic example of Augustine usimg dangerous generalities, which is why some Orthodox like Fr. Romanides, and if memory serves, Christos Yannaras, reject his sainthood and instead interpret him as a heresiarch.  I am not of that view, but I think the writings of St. Augustine's tutor St. Ambrose, the Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius, and the Orthodox alternative to Augustine, St. John Cassian, are almost infintely better.  Actually frankly as a matter of personal preference I would rather read the Cappadocian Philocalia of Origen, which contains his theologically useful work, and excludes the dubious bits, than St. Augustine by himself.  I think like Origen, we need an Augustinian Philocalia which contains those portions of his writings profitable for Orthodox readers, and omits the rest, like the verse you cited, the bit about unbaptized babies going to Hell, and so on.

By the way one thing I love about Anglicanism is that its not Lutheran; in its early uears it inclined towards a via media between Lutheranism and Calvinism, and later inclined towards a via media between Catholicosm and Protestantism, and occasionally has emerged in forms which I privately regard as de facto, if not de jure, expressions of Orthodoxy, for example among the Scottish non jurors.  Lutheranism is inherently a distortion, whereas Anglicanism has the humility to admit it seeks the truth, and as such can be induced into Orthodoxy.  This was the origin of the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate: an order of devout Anglo Catholic priests who decided not to cross the Tiber (perhaps because they were a mix of Prayer Book Catholics and Missal Catholics).

Some Lutherans, like the Swedish Lutherans, are similiar, in fact, Swedish Lutheranism at its best was less doctrinaire and more Catholic than early Anglicanism.  However in general I think the Lutheran worldview is a hill that Lutherans must cross, which while not as dramatic as the mountain range separating Orthodoxy from Calvinism, also lacks the seductive beauty that induces frustrated Calvinists to come over, but in either case, these obstacles do not exost in the case of Anglicanism.  In theory, they shouldnt exist for Methodists either, given the similiarity beteeen Wesleyan and Orthodox theology, but in my experience Methodists tend to be somewhat complacent (indeed, if I lived in an area where there was a conservative Methodist church with a male pastor and traditional worship, I will readily admit that I would have remained a Methodist; I had to find a new church after finding myself alienated from the cozy, comfortable little world of the UMC, and for reasons described elsewhere on this forum, joined the Orthodox).

On your second part, all I will say is that the scatologocal imagery of Luther's illustrated anti-Semitic volumes horrified many in a population desensitized by the anti-Semitic culture you describe, accustomed to the ghastly sight of the Judensau (forget cultural heritage; every such image should be removed from the Cathedrals of Europe).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 08:31:25 PM
Daedelus, just to refresh:

In Orthodoxy, sin is disease, not malfeasance, therefore salvation does not require forensic justification. 

I think a case could be made that in the West we could think of sin a disease too, and in fact Augustinian original sin makes a better case for that, than Orthodoxy.

Quote
In Orthodoxy, one is saved through theosis.  God's grace enables us to repent, and then become holy and like God. 

I've never felt remotely God-like, and I doubt I ever will.

Quote
  What alienates me about Western Christianity is actually how mean it is; the wrathful Father sacrificing his son to avenge His wounded honor, sparing only those of us lucky enough to hear the Gospel, but not from one of those (Catholics/Protestants/Anyone outside my sect), and throwing everyone else into the Lake of Fire.   

Prior to modernity, Orthodox believed the same things about who would be saved.  Go read Orthodoxinfo.com some time, it's full of that sort of stuff.

That's a caricature of Western views of the atonement.

And given my experience of the world, if God has no wrath against sin... he's not holy and worthy of worship.   You may think it is some kind of sickening worldview, but I would argue you haven't stared down evil in the face.  Real evil.  Having to listen to people you care about talking about being brutalized or dehumanized.  I would rather have God hold that wrath, than myself.

Quote
  I feel like you keep projecting Western theological values onto the Orthodpx, and then misreading us as a kind of stricter, more traditional Roman Catholic Church 

Why not? It may not be legalistic but its even more paternalistic.  And I have personally encountered legalism as I'm sure you are aware.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 11, 2015, 09:02:51 PM
Theosis is not about feeling God-like.  Its about becoming through grace what Chrost is by nature.

The Orthodox do believe that God has wrath; this wrath is the experience of God's love when rejected.  If you reject the love of God, if you hate him, as does Satan, he becomes a consuming fire.  But God is infinitely merciful.  If you are counting on God to punish people who have wronged you, that to me at least suggests that you have not forgiven these persons; "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord," does not mean that God is there among other things to do the dirty work of revenge for us.

Now regarding Orthodoxinfo.com, this is not an official publication of any canonical Orthodox church but rather appears to support Old Calendarists, who in their traditionalism, in my opinion, occasionally unwittingly advocate Western corruptions accidentally brought into the faith through the contrivances of Jesuits during the Turkish yoke, and during the attempt of Peter the Great to "modernize" Russia (which had really only become backwards since Ivan the Terrible, IMO).  Every religion has fundamentalists, and orthodoxinfo comes into that group; the suggestion in one of their articles that Orthodox priests chastise first time visitors who show up at the liturgy for their lack of respect for Holy Tradition should tell you everything you need to know about that site.

The two offical EO websites with the most useful information are goarch.org and oca.org; several of the Coptic diocesan websites, and the website of the Eastern Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church, are also full of useful information.

Now Orthodoxy is unabashedly paternalistic, and I think this is a good thing.  However, you seem to have been having problems communicating your situation to one of the two Orthodox priests in your area.  Many here have offered suggestions; I would urge you to consider asking one of the Priest-members of this site privately for advice.  The standard procedure in Orthodoxy is to baptize or chrismate those in irregular relationships who desire a valid Orthodox marriage, and then either bless their existing marriage, or perform the Crowning Sacrament on them, which is of exquisite beauty.

The only case where we cant baptize/receive someone is if they are in a persistant and unrepentant condition of sin, or practice and refuse to renounce a sinful occupation.  For example, the Apostolic Canons, based on the morality of the time, prohibited Roman governors (anyone "in the purple"), gladiators, actors in the bawdry theatre of that era, keepers of prostitutes, and prostitutes themselves, and as a rule, sophists, from approaching the mysteries.  Restrictions existed on soldiers.  In modern times I would say the list, if we were to update it, which we never have, would probably include fewer government officials, but would add abortionists, practitioners of euthanasia, and a broad range of workers in adult entertainment, perhaps including owners of casinos, although no such restrictions are to my knowledge presently in place on a formal level.

In general, anyone willing to repent is worthy to receive illumination.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 11, 2015, 10:41:00 PM
Someone please tell me why this is relevant to either the post, or to the thread topic.  :P ::)

This thread seems to have degenerated into Protestant-bashing.

Quote
I realize some Orthodox live with the delusion that by being Orthodox and living an ascetic life, they become more morally pure than the rest of us.  And it's precisely here they need to hear the story of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14).

Pot, kettle, black.

Bless you. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: scamandrius on June 11, 2015, 11:12:39 PM
Whether Anglicanism is false or not may not even be the most important question.  It's whether Anglicanism will even be around in 50 years.  Demographic analysis suggests it won't be, so it will be a moot question.  Read about it here (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 11, 2015, 11:18:34 PM
The Orthodox do believe that God has wrath; this wrath is the experience of God's love when rejected.  If you reject the love of God, if you hate him, as does Satan, he becomes a consuming fire.  But God is infinitely merciful.  If you are counting on God to punish people who have wronged you, that to me at least suggests that you have not forgiven these persons

Frankly, all that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that you have read on the internet or some devotional but not actually lived out and tested for yourself.  Saying God's love is also anger makes love meaningless, it's nonsense.   

Forgiveness is not something that comes easily to anybody, especially to victims.  Years ago an Episcopalian priest whom I am still fond of told us that forgiveness is something that goes against our fallen nature, it's a work we just can't do on our own.  I agree.  God doesn't hold it against us if we can't forgive monsters.  That's why I trust in his justice, whatever mystical casuistry you use to dismiss my pain.

Quote
For example, the Apostolic Canons, based on the morality of the time, prohibited Roman governors (anyone "in the purple"), gladiators, actors in the bawdry theatre of that era, keepers of prostitutes, and prostitutes themselves, and as a rule, sophists, from approaching the mysteries.   

No tax collectors and sinners, gotcha
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 11, 2015, 11:29:55 PM
The Orthodox do believe that God has wrath; this wrath is the experience of God's love when rejected.  If you reject the love of God, if you hate him, as does Satan, he becomes a consuming fire.  But God is infinitely merciful.  If you are counting on God to punish people who have wronged you, that to me at least suggests that you have not forgiven these persons

Frankly, all that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that you have read on the internet or some devotional but not actually lived out and tested for yourself.  Saying God's love is also anger makes love meaningless, it's nonsense.

God is love. Full stop.

His love and his justice are not some seesaw sliding scale, the more the one the less the other. Otherwise, you've got Limited Atonement Calvinism.

Forgiveness is not something that comes easily to anybody, especially to victims.  Years ago an Episcopalian priest whom I am still fond of told us that forgiveness is something that goes against our fallen nature, it's a work we just can't do on our own.  I agree.  God doesn't hold it against us if we can't forgive monsters.  That's why I trust in his justice, whatever mystical casuistry you use to dismiss my pain.

I agree that forgiveness is incredibly difficult and I certainly wouldn't judge anybody who hasn't done it yet. But we always have to remember that all things are possible with God. Jesus would not have commanded that our righteousness exceed that of the Pharisees if He didn't also offer a way to achieve this. We must never use God's mercy as an excuse for no longer trying (not that you're doing that).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 12, 2015, 01:02:42 AM
Hi Daedelus

I share some of the sentiments you have about fundamentalism. I've seen so many unfair criticisms of Protestantism from both Orthodox and Catholic apologists. (Though I can't blame them for their sentiments if they had a really bad experience in a Protestant Church.) Everything from "you hate Mary" to "you think that truth is relative." In all fairness, though, there are bad polemicists from all sides. Protestants also make very unjustified criticisms of Orthodoxy and Catholicism, caricature of legalism being one of them. So please, tone down on the polemics, or you'll be just as guilty of the judgmental attitude that you perceive from some Orthodox apologists.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 12, 2015, 02:13:23 AM
Whether Anglicanism is false or not may not even be the most important question.  It's whether Anglicanism will even be around in 50 years.  Demographic analysis suggests it won't be, so it will be a moot question.  Read about it here (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/)

do you really think Orthodoxy will do much better?

Orthodox are small in numbers in the west, and not very influential.  Yes, Orthodox theology has some interesting insights that need to be heard in the west (particularly the mystical theology, where in Protestant circles we tend to overly reify God), but the actual church life is very difficult and alien for the average westerner.

I've struggled with legalism in the Orthodox church for years.  I know its bizarre considering many of the saints didn't countenance that sort of thing but its been my experience anyways.   In fairness, there is Protestant legalism as well, but its usually restricted to non-mainline churches.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: sakura95 on June 12, 2015, 02:44:54 AM
Huh? Did Luther himself not propound the 'five solas'?  :o

No.

Luther believed the Bible was the only rule or norm of faith.  That's different from what the average Southern Baptist or non-denom Christian believes about the Bible.  In disputations he did quote from church fathers as an authority, but he saw the authority as strictly subordinate.

He also didn't subscribe to a modern concept of inerrancy.

He encouraged people to read books besides the Bible to inform their faith, in particular he recommended the Theologica Germanica, a 14th century mystical text associated with Tauler and the Friends of God movement, a mystical and anti-clerical movement in medieval Germany.

That falls under the vein of Sola Scriptura like it or not. Sola Scriptura by definition requires the dominion of Scripture over Tradition. In Orthodoxy, Tradition and Scripture are equals that coincide. Because the very Bible itself is the norm of faith, every single Tradition is judged against it and this is precisely what opened the floodgates for the disputes within Protestantism we see today and even amongst the Reformers themselves. Without Tradition to support Scripture and give a framework on how it should be read and interpreted, we pretty much end up with a state of one interpretation standing off against another in a stalemate and a particularly troubling epistemological question. That is to say: Whose interpretation of Scripture is the right one?

In practice, I've seen Protestants, particularly when dealing with a Baptist pastor once, the claim that the Reformers cite a lot from the Church Fathers. When I point out things from them that contradict the teachings of the Reformers, it is simply a matter of "they are wrong and the Reformers are right". The Baptist pastor in question actually tried to window dress the disputes within Protestantism too which is quite laughable tbh.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 12, 2015, 03:16:49 AM
That falls under the vein of Sola Scriptura like it or not. Sola Scriptura by definition requires the dominion of Scripture over Tradition. 

It was my understanding the Orthodox Church also gave a primacy to the Scriptures.  At the very least, it seems there is no consensus as to exactly how Scriptures and the Tradition relate to each other.  But I believe the primacy of Scriptures is indeed something that has been affirmed in Orthodox-Protestant dialogues at times.

Quote
Because the very Bible itself is the norm of faith, every single Tradition is judged against it and this is precisely what opened the floodgates for the disputes within Protestantism we see today and even amongst the Reformers themselves. 

The Lutheran pastor I know said a great deal of this is due to American cultural values of individualism and populism.

Do not ignore the fact there are many non-Orthodox sects, some quite old, in Russia and other Orthodox countries.    Merely having a magisterial authority doesn't ensure everyone else will agree with it.

Quote
Without Tradition to support Scripture and give a framework on how it should be read and interpreted...

Most mainline and conservative Protestant churches have a tradition that guides their interpretation of Scriptures.  But the tradition is not recognized as infallible and is itself subject to scrutiny, particularly in liberal or mainline churches. 

I'd argue the reason we have so much plurality in the US in terms of Protestant churches is partly because we are an immigrant nation.  In the Old World, there was far less diversity in each nation.  It's the same reason there are so many Orthodox jurisdictions in the US. 

Quote
In practice, I've seen Protestants, particularly when dealing with a Baptist pastor once, the claim that the Reformers cite a lot from the Church Fathers.

Baptists are about as different from Lutherans and Anglicans as they are from Orthodox Christians.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: sakura95 on June 12, 2015, 03:42:21 AM
It was my understanding the Orthodox Church also gave a primacy to the Scriptures.  At the very least, it seems there is no consensus as to exactly how Scriptures and the Tradition relate to each other.  But I believe the primacy of Scriptures is indeed something that has been affirmed in Orthodox-Protestant dialogues at times.

We do affirm the primacy of Scripture. Just as we also affirm the primacy of Tradition as well. While there isn't really an Orthodox consensus on this, what is clear is that Scripture and Tradition are equals. It is only a difference on whether Tradition is a separate source of revelation supplementary to Scripture or that it and Scripture co-arise as one.

Quote
Do not ignore the fact there are many non-Orthodox sects, some quite old, in Russia and other Orthodox countries.    Merely having a magisterial authority doesn't ensure everyone else will agree with it.

Yes, there are many non Orthodox sects out there but there is also a litmus test to determine if those other non Orthodox sects are heretical or not through the use of Tradition. With the dominion of Scripture over Tradition, we pretty much destroyed this safeguard and yardstick of protecting the true message of Scripture itself.

Quote
Most mainline and conservative Protestant churches have a tradition that guides their interpretation of Scriptures.  But the tradition is not recognized as infallible and is itself subject to scrutiny, particularly in liberal or mainline churches. 

Yes this is correct. But the Presbyterian would differ from the Methodist. The Lutheran might differ from the Episcopalians and so on. In fact since, that tradition isn't infallible and is subject to scrutiny to Scripture itself, it is the case that if one is crafty enough, one can actually forward an interpretation of Scripture that opposes tradition, on the basis of Scripture itself and thus, there is no safeguard against heresy here or if there is, it's efficacy is reduced. 

Quote
I'd argue the reason we have so much plurality in the US in terms of Protestant churches is partly because we are an immigrant nation.  In the Old World, there was far less diversity in each nation.  It's the same reason there are so many Orthodox jurisdictions in the US. 

It's not a matter of whether or not the US is an immigrant nation. The very variety in doctrine and disputes within Protestantism is already there long before the US is formed.

Quote
Baptists are about as different from Lutherans and Anglicans as they are from Orthodox Christians.

True but that doesn't mean that Lutherans don't do that either. They already do by playing cherry pick with the Church Fathers. Ignore the parts where they agree with the Catholicism they deny and affirm the part where they might think support their doctrine.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 12, 2015, 05:12:13 AM
Daedelus, only five churches can claim Apostolic continuity outside of the small number of Protestant churches with Apostolic succession.  They are the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East, and various offshoots of the above that retain the same essential theology (the Old Calendarists, tthe Society of St. Pius X, amd the Ancient Church of the East). 

The last surviving sect of Christian Gnostics, the Paulicians, converted to Armenian Orthodoxy in the 19th century.  They appear to have been atrongly Marcionite influenced.  There is a theory that the Waldensians are descended from the Cathars and the Bogomils, but the generally accepted history is they originated with an early reformer named Peter Waldo, who had a Lollard-like theology that was anti-clerical and unwittingly Donatist, which seems to have been a natural reaction to the corrupt, heretical and schismatic Roman Catholic Church of that era.

Of the sects in Russia you memtion, these entirely postdate, and are often products of, the Nikonian Schism.  I cite of course the Molokans and other Judaizing sects, the Doukhobors,,and other groups which cant be classed as Old Believers.  I, beimg particularly liberal with regards to what I conaider Orthodox amd heterodox, regard the priested Old Believers as fully Orthodox, in a state of inherited schism that is not entirely their fault, and the priestless as attempting to be Orthodox.  Occasionally, a sunbeam of heavenly delight kisses the Bride of Christ when a group of priestless Old Believers overcome their fears and apocalyptic worldciew inherited from the cruel persecution ro which they were subjected, over the ridiculous triciality of how they crossed themselves, and are able to summon the courage to join a canonical church.  And once again, the iconostasis has an altar behind it.  This happened to the Church of the Nativity from which I bought my Lestovka.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on June 12, 2015, 07:53:22 AM
Whether Anglicanism is false or not may not even be the most important question.  It's whether Anglicanism will even be around in 50 years.  Demographic analysis suggests it won't be, so it will be a moot question.  Read about it here (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/)

In 50 years, will we be calling it Ugandicanism?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 12, 2015, 08:13:23 AM
Whether Anglicanism is false or not may not even be the most important question.  It's whether Anglicanism will even be around in 50 years.  Demographic analysis suggests it won't be, so it will be a moot question.  Read about it here (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/)

The article is a bit more disconcerting than that, however, I disagree with its main message, not with what you're saying.

Anglicanism in England proper has always been more of a matter of seeing and being seen. English Christians of a more genuine persuasion were usually non-conformist or Roman Catholic. "For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do". Now that the social function is gone the nominal and extremely liberal Christians, which have always been a sizable part of the CoE, just stopped bothering, and will stop bothering. But since the CoE has gone so far in accomodating the nominal and liberal Christians it will be almost impossible to attract the remaining Christians. It isn't surprising that the Tory Party at prayer - the Church of respectable people - is the hardest hit by secularism.

Don't forget that, even in the 19th and 18th century, church attendence in the Anglican Church was very low.

It isn't surprising that, in the Roman Catholic Church, the young and the very old hold hands against the liberalism and the "spirit of Vatican II" of, respectively, their parents (sometimes, young grandparents) and their children. The young liberals just stopped bothering. I've read an amusing article by a 40-something liberal British Roman Catholic who noticed just that and tried to dissuade the young from joining forces with the old fogeys. Pope Francis notoriously complained that he could see why the aged go to the Tridentine Mass, since they grew up with it, but that it's a huge cause for concern that the youngsters are going en masse to the Latin Mass as well.

Short story short: the nominals and liberals will drop off and the sincere Christians will remain, a relatively small and powerless group (think of Pope Benedict's "smaller but purer Church" remarks), but the reports of Christianity's death in the west have been greatly exaggerated.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 12, 2015, 11:34:33 AM
The Church of England is changing- it's becoming much more influenced by low-church evangelicalism and the Charismatic movement.  The Alpha Course is a good example of where that church is headed.  The current Archbishop of Canterburry, Justin Welby, was very much influenced by that type of Anglicanism.   Evangelicalism in this context is defined by the traditional marks of an emphasis on the Bible, the Cross, social activism, and winning converts, and less interested in the institutional Church or sacramentalism.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 12, 2015, 12:10:58 PM
Actually I think there is increased polarozation in the C of E with evangelical low church parishes like HTB, Prayer Book Society parishes, and Forward in Faith conservative Anglo Catholic parishes.  I see the Affirming Catholicism broad church parishes dyimg out membership wise, but the tragedy of the C of E is that its a state church and is onliged to do the government's will.  Votes were held each uear on women bishops until the "right answer" passed.  That said the beauty of the C of E is its large enough so as to host some eccentric rectors who are pretty darn Orthodox, as well as some total heretics, and some rather interesting chaps like Fr. Peter Owen Jones who certainly are neither Orthodox nor boring.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 12, 2015, 12:13:06 PM
The Church of England is changing- it's becoming much more influenced by low-church evangelicalism and the Charismatic movement.  The Alpha Course is a good example of where that church is headed.  The current Archbishop of Canterburry, Justin Welby, was very much influenced by that type of Anglicanism.   Evangelicalism in this context is defined by the traditional marks of an emphasis on the Bible, the Cross, social activism, and winning converts, and less interested in the institutional Church or sacramentalism.

The smells and bells were one of the last reasons people - usually those burnt-out in more traditional communions - converted to Anglicanism. Good luck demolishing that reason as well.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 12, 2015, 12:16:46 PM
I think you are right, the liberal broad church is dying out.  There are some moderate or liberal evangelicals, but the broad, dry, liberal, moralistic tradition is being replaced by secularism and non-churchgoing. 

The CoE is being taken over by women clergy because in England, the Chruch is perceived as a social service by a lot of ordinary people, with ministers being just another "helping profession" naturally dominated by women.  That could be down to the Erastian influence of being a state church.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 13, 2015, 06:32:31 AM
Whether Anglicanism is false or not may not even be the most important question.  It's whether Anglicanism will even be around in 50 years.  Demographic analysis suggests it won't be, so it will be a moot question.  Read about it here (http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9555222/2067-the-end-of-british-christianity/)

In 50 years, will we be calling it Ugandicanism?

The Anglicans are doing quite well pretty much everywhere in the "The Global South" other than New Zealand and much of Australia; the evangelical Diocese of New South Wales being somewhat of an exception.  I particularly like the Anglo Catholic Anglican Church of Ghana; I hope,we can call it Ghanicanism, becase I used to live there.  And Ghanican has a nice ring.  Also a Ghanaian was the outsoder among the Coptic martyrs...I love those people, that country, and everything it stands for.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 13, 2015, 06:50:46 AM
The Orthodox do believe that God has wrath; this wrath is the experience of God's love when rejected.  If you reject the love of God, if you hate him, as does Satan, he becomes a consuming fire.  But God is infinitely merciful.  If you are counting on God to punish people who have wronged you, that to me at least suggests that you have not forgiven these persons

Frankly, all that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that you have read on the internet or some devotional but not actually lived out and tested for yourself.  Saying God's love is also anger makes love meaningless, it's nonsense.   

Forgiveness is not something that comes easily to anybody, especially to victims.  Years ago an Episcopalian priest whom I am still fond of told us that forgiveness is something that goes against our fallen nature, it's a work we just can't do on our own.  I agree.  God doesn't hold it against us if we can't forgive monsters.  That's why I trust in his justice, whatever mystical casuistry you use to dismiss my pain.

Quote
For example, the Apostolic Canons, based on the morality of the time, prohibited Roman governors (anyone "in the purple"), gladiators, actors in the bawdry theatre of that era, keepers of prostitutes, and prostitutes themselves, and as a rule, sophists, from approaching the mysteries.   

No tax collectors and sinners, gotcha

Firstly. Jesus did not encourage tax collectors and sinners to remain in their profession.   "Go forth and sin no more." Ss. Matthias and Zacchaeus, both tax collectors, abdandoned that trade; Matthias replaced Judas as the scribe of the Twelve, and Zacchaeus was an active member of the early church and if memory serves, an Apostle.

Do you remember how the Adultery Pericope  ended, "Go forth and sin no more?"  The church baptized gladiators, prostitutes, pimps and others in sinful trades when they renounced their trade, and indeed provided means for their welfare.

Secondly, regarding the wrath and love of God, this is a mystical concept that is integral to Orthodox teachings about the Afterlife.  It is not "mumbo jumbo."  A great many Orthodox writers, in a great many books and publications, have used essentislly the language I used to describe the love and wrath of God.  If you would read the Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, which is now on Kindle I believe, you would find it described in this manner. 

God's love is a consuming fire; if one does not willingly receive it one exoeriences it as wrath; the commandments of the Gospel, chiefly, to love God and love our fellow human beings, are designed to avert such a fate.  Consider, if you will, the anger in your last post.  Your desire to tell off the priest eho offended you. Does this not burn you?  How much more would anger towards God burn?

I urge you to read immediately The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, for an altered perspective on love, wrath, forgiveness, and life: http://www.orthodoxebooks.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The%20Sayings%20of%20the%20Desert%20Fathers%20-%20Desert%20Fathers.pdf

I have often wished the most profitable of the Sayings were, with 1 Clement, and the Epistles of St. Ignatius, included in an Appendix to every Bible, to show the Gospel message being put into practice.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 13, 2015, 11:57:15 AM
Firstly. Jesus did not encourage tax collectors and sinners to remain in their profession.   "Go forth and sin no more."   

Do you remember how the Adultery Pericope  ended, "Go forth and sin no more?"  The church baptized gladiators, prostitutes, pimps and others in sinful trades when they renounced their trade, and indeed provided means for their welfare.

Wearing a Lutheran hat for a moment: Christ gave that as an invitation, not a commandment.  It's not a commandment for us to go around saying the same thing to other people that are not living up to our ideals.

If someone has to be a prostitute or a tax collector for a living because they have no choice, do you think God will not have mercy on them?   Why else did Jesus say that prostitutes and tax collectors would enter the kingdom before Pharisees, if he did not mean it?

I already know from experience the Church cannot mend everything broken in a persons life.  It is wrong to cast judgment on other people and exclude them.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on June 13, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
Firstly. Jesus did not encourage tax collectors and sinners to remain in their profession.   "Go forth and sin no more."   

Do you remember how the Adultery Pericope  ended, "Go forth and sin no more?"  The church baptized gladiators, prostitutes, pimps and others in sinful trades when they renounced their trade, and indeed provided means for their welfare.

Wearing a Lutheran hat for a moment: Christ gave that as an invitation

Wrong, the verb in Greek is in the imperative mood.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: eddybear on June 13, 2015, 02:45:48 PM
wgw, I'm pretty sure that's not what "sin boldly" meant. It was more like, "don't be ashamed of your sins because people are all scum anyway. Just acknowledge what you did and repent of it." It's just another expression of the Lutheran despair in the possibility of good works. And to be fair, St. Augustine's "Love God and do as you wish," can be egregiously misinterpreted as well.

The essential ingredient in determining what Luther's "sin boldly - God can only forgive a lusty sinner" meant is the context it was given, i.e. to a friend (Melancthon if I remember rightly, but don't quote me on that) who was suffering from scruples of conscience about the tiniest things. Luther was basically trying to shake him out of it, something along the lines of "Stop worrying about these trifles. If you're going to ask for forgiveness, at least make it something worth forgiving". He wasn't advocating licencious living, but many people (especially those who seek to discredit him) have misinterpreted it that way over the years.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: eddybear on June 13, 2015, 02:58:51 PM
Actually I think there is increased polarozation in the C of E with evangelical low church parishes like HTB, Prayer Book Society parishes, and Forward in Faith conservative Anglo Catholic parishes.  I see the Affirming Catholicism broad church parishes dyimg out membership wise, but the tragedy of the C of E is that its a state church and is onliged to do the government's will.  Votes were held each uear on women bishops until the "right answer" passed.  That said the beauty of the C of E is its large enough so as to host some eccentric rectors who are pretty darn Orthodox, as well as some total heretics, and some rather interesting chaps like Fr. Peter Owen Jones who certainly are neither Orthodox nor boring.
Why is the fact that the CofE hosts total heretics (e.g one in six of the clergy don't even believe in a personal God) a thing of beauty? That there is beauty in some of the buildings, liturgy, music I can agree, but surely not this?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 13, 2015, 03:33:47 PM
Wrong, the verb in Greek is in the imperative mood.

Exegesis of a single verb doesn't make for theology.

That passage is often abused by moralists to push their agenda.   "We aren't being mean to people, just sayin' what the Bible says...".  It's what Lutherans call confusing Law and Gospel in their application.

The term "Sin boldly" has to do with the axiom that the perfect and the good are often at odds with each other in a fallen world.  We can become so enchanted with our own moral perfectionism that we forget that we live in a world with obligations outside ourself, and we need to have our conscience unbound, hence "sin boldly".  Roman Catholic spiritual directors and confessors often teach something similar to those whose conscience has become bound and scrupulous.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 13, 2015, 04:00:08 PM
Wrong, the verb in Greek is in the imperative mood.
Exegesis of a single verb doesn't make for theology.
Honest question: If neither tradition nor exegesis of Scripture determines correct interpretation of Scripture, then what's left? Are you then free to use exegesis whenever it suits your agenda, and ignore exegesis when it doesn't? 


Quote
That passage is often abused by moralists to push their agenda.   "We aren't being mean to people, just sayin' what the Bible says...".  It's what Lutherans call confusing Law and Gospel in their application.
Like you, I have much qualms about people who just proof-text, whether it's from an Evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, or Lutheran. That's not an excuse, though, to ignore the merits of their exegesis.   


Quote
The term "Sin boldly" has to do with the axiom that the perfect and the good are often at odds with each other in a fallen world.  We can become so enchanted with our own moral perfectionism that we forget that we live in a world with obligations outside ourself, and we need to have our conscience unbound, hence "sin boldly".  Roman Catholic spiritual directors and confessors often teach something similar to those whose conscience has become bound and scrupulous.
So if I understand you correctly, it is permissible in God's sight to sin on purpose, as long as one feels in his heart that it is an "obligation outside or ourself?" I can see where you are coming from with that. Just curious: Is that also the LCMS and WELS view of "Sin boldly?"

It does get tiresome when people quote Luther just to try to discredit Lutheranism, or even all of Protestantism. Doesn't it?

Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 13, 2015, 04:19:19 PM
Wrong, the verb in Greek is in the imperative mood.

Exegesis of a single verb doesn't make for theology.

That passage is often abused by moralists to push their agenda.   "We aren't being mean to people, just sayin' what the Bible says...".  It's what Lutherans call confusing Law and Gospel in their application.

The term "Sin boldly" has to do with the axiom that the perfect and the good are often at odds with each other in a fallen world.  We can become so enchanted with our own moral perfectionism that we forget that we live in a world with obligations outside ourself, and we need to have our conscience unbound, hence "sin boldly".  Roman Catholic spiritual directors and confessors often teach something similar to those whose conscience has become bound and scrupulous.

Exegesis of a single verb is Eisegesis.  However Christ commanded us, with fearsome language, to not sin; he threatened those who transgressed his commandments with hellfire and damnatiom, nad commanded that we "be perfect, even as your Father is perfect."

"Go forth and sin no more" was in no respects an invitation.  It was more like "I just saved your life, Ma'am, now dont do that again, or you might not be as fortunate."

Martin Luther completely ignored Christ's directive that we be perfect; Lutheran theology cant even support the notion of humans becoming perfect except through divine grace (Soli deo gloria).

But if this is what our Lord meant, he would not have issued commandments.

Ultimately though, we're delving into interpretation, and you are forgetting the Orthodox Church regards her historical exegesis of scripture, which still leaves much room for private opinion, as infallible.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: PeterTheAleut on June 13, 2015, 04:21:10 PM
Wrong, the verb in Greek is in the imperative mood.

Exegesis of a single verb doesn't make for theology.
But it is effective at refuting a wrong theology already made.

Quote

That passage is often abused by moralists to push their agenda.   "We aren't being mean to people, just sayin' what the Bible says...".  It's what Lutherans call confusing Law and Gospel in their application.

The term "Sin boldly" has to do with the axiom that the perfect and the good are often at odds with each other in a fallen world.  We can become so enchanted with our own moral perfectionism that we forget that we live in a world with obligations outside ourself, and we need to have our conscience unbound, hence "sin boldly".  Roman Catholic spiritual directors and confessors often teach something similar to those whose conscience has become bound and scrupulous.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on June 13, 2015, 04:28:15 PM
Martin Luther completely ignored Christ's directive that we be perfect; Lutheran theology cant even support the notion of humans becoming perfect except through divine grace (Soli deo gloria).

But if this is what our Lord meant, he would not have issued commandments.

Fwiw, I have not found this argument convincing as a Protestant. Protestants (at least the non-liberal types) don't deny the call to holiness and following God's commandments. They just disagree on what those commandments may be, how they are practically applied in this life, and exactly how it contributes to our salvation. There is a temptation among apologists of all sides to present false dichotomies. Example: Sola Fide = antinomianism; Theosis = Pharisaism (if that's a word.)   
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 13, 2015, 05:06:51 PM
Luther didn't ignore Christ's command to be perfect, he just saw himself as unable to do that, so he had to figure out the "why" behind it.   It's not like he didn't try- he seems to have thrown himself into the life and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church 110 percent.   Just keep in mind, Luther was an incredibly broken, flawed man.  He basically grew up in a home where physical abuse and emotional abuse was routine, and he was terrified of God because in his understanding, God was incomprehensible and allowed some horrendous things to happen, so there was little reason to think that God was merciful to him, especially when so many of Catholic doctrines stated otherwise.  That doesn't make his theological insights irrelevant- we live in a fallen world, there is a little Luther in all of us.   
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on June 13, 2015, 05:17:55 PM
Luther didn't ignore Christ's command to be perfect, he just saw himself as unable to do that, so he had to figure out the "why" behind it.   It's not like he didn't try- he seems to have thrown himself into the life and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church 110 percent.   Just keep in mind, Luther was an incredibly broken, flawed man.  He basically grew up in a home where physical abuse and emotional abuse was routine, and he was terrified of God because in his understanding, God was incomprehensible and allowed some horrendous things to happen, so there was little reason to think that God was merciful to him, especially when so many of Catholic doctrines stated otherwise.  That doesn't make his theological insights irrelevant- we live in a fallen world, there is a little Luther in all of us.   

I have a great deal of sympathy for Luther, but many Orthodox saints endured far worse, and nothing you just said about Luther seems to me to be a good argument for listening to him on theological matters.

Orthodox saints in many cases attained visible degrees of Theosis in this life precisely on account of their worldly suffering.  Humans can become perfect, and Luther is a figure to be pitied; he did a good service in breaking the back of the papacy, but his doctrines deny Christians who follow them the promise of deification, which seems an unintentional cruelty on Luther's part.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on June 13, 2015, 09:09:04 PM
Orthodox saints in many cases attained visible degrees of Theosis in this life precisely on account of their worldly suffering.  Humans can become perfect, and Luther is a figure to be pitied; he did a good service in breaking the back of the papacy, but his doctrines deny Christians who follow them the promise of deification, which seems an unintentional cruelty on Luther's part.

Lutherans do believe in glorification, but they emphasize it happening in the next world, where God will make a new Heaven and a new Earth.

I have read alot of Orthodox saints and I don't know a single one that believed they were sinless.  Isn't that the whole point of the Jesus Prayer? (which seems to be increasingly popular with Lutherans).
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Czar Lazar on June 14, 2015, 12:22:55 AM
Luther didn't ignore Christ's command to be perfect, he just saw himself as unable to do that, so he had to figure out the "why" behind it.   It's not like he didn't try- he seems to have thrown himself into the life and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church 110 percent.   Just keep in mind, Luther was an incredibly broken, flawed man.  He basically grew up in a home where physical abuse and emotional abuse was routine, and he was terrified of God because in his understanding, God was incomprehensible and allowed some horrendous things to happen, so there was little reason to think that God was merciful to him, especially when so many of Catholic doctrines stated otherwise.  That doesn't make his theological insights irrelevant- we live in a fallen world, there is a little Luther in all of us.   

I have a great deal of sympathy for Luther, but many Orthodox saints endured far worse, and nothing you just said about Luther seems to me to be a good argument for listening to him on theological matters.

Orthodox saints in many cases attained visible degrees of Theosis in this life precisely on account of their worldly suffering.  Humans can become perfect, and Luther is a figure to be pitied; he did a good service in breaking the back of the papacy, but his doctrines deny Christians who follow them the promise of deification, which seems an unintentional cruelty on Luther's part.

did he now?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Volnutt on June 14, 2015, 03:54:01 AM
Orthodox saints in many cases attained visible degrees of Theosis in this life precisely on account of their worldly suffering.  Humans can become perfect, and Luther is a figure to be pitied; he did a good service in breaking the back of the papacy, but his doctrines deny Christians who follow them the promise of deification, which seems an unintentional cruelty on Luther's part.

Lutherans do believe in glorification, but they emphasize it happening in the next world, where God will make a new Heaven and a new Earth.

I have read alot of Orthodox saints and I don't know a single one that believed they were sinless.  Isn't that the whole point of the Jesus Prayer? (which seems to be increasingly popular with Lutherans).

It's kind of a paradox. St. Sisoes the Great, for example, on his deathbed cried out to God because he had "not yet begun to repent."

I tend to think that Orthodoxy supports something of a middle ground- perfection in this life can and does happen, we're supposed to always strive for it, but we should never conclude that someone living is definitely there.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: xariskai on July 05, 2015, 04:41:00 PM
Lutherans do believe in glorification, but they emphasize it happening in the next world, where God will make a new Heaven and a new Earth.
Glorification has its beginnings and firm reality in this present age.
"And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit" 2 Cor 3:18.

This is abundantly clear on reading the excellent article "Glory" in Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of NT Theology.

Orthodox saints in many cases attained visible degrees of Theosis in this life precisely on account of their worldly suffering.  Humans can become perfect, and Luther is a figure to be pitied; he did a good service in breaking the back of the papacy, but his doctrines deny Christians who follow them the promise of deification, which seems an unintentional cruelty on Luther's part.

Lutherans do believe in glorification, but they emphasize it happening in the next world, where God will make a new Heaven and a new Earth.

I have read alot of Orthodox saints and I don't know a single one that believed they were sinless.  Isn't that the whole point of the Jesus Prayer? (which seems to be increasingly popular with Lutherans).

It's kind of a paradox. St. Sisoes the Great, for example, on his deathbed cried out to God because he had "not yet begun to repent."

I tend to think that Orthodoxy supports something of a middle ground- perfection in this life can and does happen, we're supposed to always strive for it, but we should never conclude that someone living is definitely there.
"One limit of perfection is the fact that it has no limit. For that divine Apostle, great and lofty in understanding, ever running the course of virtue, never ceased straining toward those things that are still to come... We should show great diligence not to fall away from the perfection which is attainable but to acquire as much as possible." -St. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses (CWS/Classsics of Western Spirituality Series, 1979) p. 30.

"Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Jesus Christ." Phil 3:12

“Repentance is fitting at all times and for all persons. To sinners as well as to the righteous who look for salvation. There are no bounds to perfection, for even the perfection of the most perfect is naught but imperfection. Hence, until the moment of death neither the time nor the works of repentance can ever be complete” (St. Isaac the Syrian, as quoted in Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 204).

Protestants (at least the non-liberal types) don't deny the call to holiness and following God's commandments. They just disagree on what those commandments may be, how they are practically applied in this life, and exactly how it contributes to our salvation. There is a temptation among apologists of all sides to present false dichotomies. Example: Sola Fide = antinomianism; Theosis = Pharisaism (if that's a word.)

The Eastern Church views this as a two sided coin: the Christian working out his or her salvation "with fear and trembling" is a repentant sinner (notice there are two variables, not just one) -neither "morally perfect" (moralism/perfectionism) nor unrepentant (antinomianism); according to the Eastern fathers there is only one sin which is called mortal (1 Jn 5): refusal to repent. This is consonant with the dire warning in Heb 10 which speaks of continual willful sin rather than particular sins as such, and 1 Jn 3:9 which translates a verb in the Greek present/continual tense. All sin can blind, corrupt, harm, and deceive the sinner; one can "know" Christianity "ideologically" and be far from God; on the other hand "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself" (Jn 7:17). Western Christianity sometimes tends to bifurcate into incomplete and often unbalanced alternatives of moralistic legalism on the one hand and undisciplined "hyper-grace" antinomianism on the other; the New Covenant as spoken of in Jeremiah taught the creation of a new heart which would cause us to walk in his ways, as opposed to a religion of tablets and laws (Jer 31), or devil-may-care lawlessness in effect denying Him even if drawing near with the lips and the mind alone (Titus 1:16: "They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works"). Neither trust in the sufficiency of one's own moral achievements nor despair in the face of impossible standards are issues in the Christian East.; similarly there is no tension between such categories as self-discipline as a Spiritual fruit (Gal 5:22). The Orthodox faith understands both the reality and seriousness of our present sin even in the midst of repentance as well as the uncomprormising upward call to holiness ("pursue... holiness, without which no one will see the Lord" -Heb 12:14); where one of these poles is emphasized to the exclusion or minimization of the other the disciple becomes unbalanced, whether in a Pharisaical direction or legalistic moralism, or the equally perilous direction of the lawless who regard continual repentance and the call to holiness as matters to minimize in the least and/or dismiss. The heart of the manner of our continual hope is exemplified by the ancient Jesus Prayer, which we pray at all times: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: NoahB on July 05, 2015, 04:58:03 PM
Just a quick note on the filioque controversy...

Most Anglo-Catholics I've talked to agree that it was wrong for it to be added to the Creed without the consent of the whole Church, however, it is also understood in a different way than most here believe. When we say he proceeds from the Father and the Son, we are talking about the economy of salvation, not the procession of the Godhead. I believe even Orthodox Christians can affirm that in the economy of salvation, the Holy Spirit is sent from both the Father and the Son. But when talking about the Godhead by itself, it is true that he proceeds only from the Father.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Peter J on July 07, 2015, 11:55:59 AM
Wow.

I got out of the habit of checking this section ... looks like I missed a lot in the last couple months.  ;)

Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.   

High church Anglican is a good beginning. (Edit: Hopefully that doesn't come across as too condescending.)

I don't know if you've read Evangelical is Not Enough: Worship of God in Liturgy and Sacrament, but I would recommend at least reading the Postscript (https://books.google.com/books?id=lwgzMj8nHEkC&pg=PT73&lpg=PT73&dq=%22evangelical+is+not+enough%22+postscript&source=bl&ots=S5LOWa2Ogh&sig=PF_4WWYpTj-jDHrtgb0BU6sFbWY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ruybVbDfGsfxoATl4pqQDQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22evangelical%20is%20not%20enough%22%20postscript&f=false) ... or better yet, if you've got 5 or 10 minutes, go back two pages to the one starting with "Little is".
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: byhisgrace on July 12, 2015, 04:02:59 PM
The 2 pages before the postscript was a good read.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Shlomlokh on July 12, 2015, 06:14:18 PM
People still need to be convinced that Anglicanism and Episcopaganism are false??
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: scamandrius on July 12, 2015, 07:44:23 PM
People still need to be convinced that Anglicanism and Episcopaganism are false??

Well, with both their numbers plummeting, I dont think anyone will need convincing since both will be dead in 50 years, 75 tops. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: The young fogey on July 12, 2015, 08:11:29 PM
It might still exist but "the empire strikes back"; it won't be British anymore. It will be African, maybe a little paganized around the edges but conservative and definitely Protestant. As for the rest, elementary as Holmes said. If you teach heresy about the Eucharist (as in the Thirty-Nine Articles), you don't have holy orders anymore, even though you still have a line of succession. (That what Pope Leo XIII taught.) So Anglicanism is not a "church"; it's an "ecclesial community," polite Vaticanese for a group of Christians, Protestants, who are not a church.

The Orthodox line is almost the same: it's outside the church and impossible to graft in as a group, so individual conversions are the way to go.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Peter J on July 13, 2015, 10:02:23 AM
As you say, the Orthodox line is almost the same -- almost being the key word, since we recognize them as a Church but not vice versa.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Peter J on July 13, 2015, 10:08:37 AM
The 2 pages before the postscript was a good read.

 :)
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Minnesotan on July 13, 2015, 08:03:35 PM
It might still exist but "the empire strikes back"; it won't be British anymore. It will be African, maybe a little paganized around the edges but conservative and definitely Protestant. As for the rest, elementary as Holmes said. If you teach heresy about the Eucharist (as in the Thirty-Nine Articles), you don't have holy orders anymore, even though you still have a line of succession. (That what Pope Leo XIII taught.) So Anglicanism is not a "church"; it's an "ecclesial community," polite Vaticanese for a group of Christians, Protestants, who are not a church.

The Orthodox line is almost the same: it's outside the church and impossible to graft in as a group, so individual conversions are the way to go.

Ugandicanism FTW!
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Peter J on July 13, 2015, 08:06:04 PM
People still need to be convinced that Anglicanism and Episcopaganism are false??

 I don't need to be convinced, I can quit any time I want.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on July 15, 2015, 05:41:16 PM
. As for the rest, elementary as Holmes said. If you teach heresy about the Eucharist (as in the Thirty-Nine Articles), you don't have holy orders anymore, even though you still have a line of succession. (That what Pope Leo XIII taught.)

1) How do you know this to be true?

2) How does the sacramental grace of ordination end with teaching "heresy"?  I thought a sacrament's validity was not determined by the worthiness of ministers?

3) What makes you think transubstantiation was the belief of the early church?
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Cyrillic on July 15, 2015, 05:59:01 PM
Re 3: The writings of those in the early Church.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Peter J on July 15, 2015, 07:24:47 PM
1) How do you know this to be true?

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: wgw on July 15, 2015, 07:45:08 PM
1) How do you know this to be true?

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Nice Empire Strikes Back reference. 
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Daedelus1138 on July 15, 2015, 08:28:36 PM
Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

No, that's not true! That's impossible!
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Peter J on July 17, 2015, 09:09:40 AM
Try to get a low church Anglican and a high church Anglican in one room and start talking about what Anglicanism is and isn't. You'll be in for a lot of fun.
Okay. I'll narrow it down to High Church.

Even that doesn't say much. You have Anglo-Papalists, who are pretty much only the latter, people who are only in it for the aesthetics and Oxford Movement Anglicans. Since recently there even are "Anglo-Orthodox" who have doubts about the filioque and the penal atonement.

Yeah, Anglo-Papalists and Anglo-Orthodox are probably the most interesting Anglicans ...
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: rakovsky on March 30, 2016, 12:04:46 PM
A main difference with Anglicanism is not so much prima scriptura, but rather views on the Eucharistic food. Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Catholicism agree that Jesus is directly in the food itself, and so whether or not a person is faithful and worthy, he/she actually eats Jesus' body because he/she puts it in the mouth. Luther explained:
Quote
Of all the [Church] fathers, as many as you can name, not one has ever spoken about the sacrament as these fanatics do. None of them uses such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread and wine,’ or, ‘Christ’s body and blood are not present.’ Yet since this subject is so frequently discussed by them [the Church Fathers], it is impossible that they should not at some time have let slip such an expression as, ‘It is simply bread,’ or, ‘Not that the body of Christ is physically present,’ or the like [if they had believed this], since they are greatly concerned not to mislead the people; actually, they simply proceed to speak as if no one doubted that Christ’s body and blood are present. Certainly among so many fathers and so many writings a negative argument should have turned up at least once, as happens in other articles; but actually they all stand uniformly and consistently on the affirmative side.” – Martin Luther. [1] That These Words of Christ, ‘This is My Body’ Still Stand Firm Against the Fanatics, 1527, in Luther’s Works, Word and Sacrament III,

In contrast, Cranmer, a founding figure of the English Reformation, took a position of Receptionism, whereby Jesus is not actually in the bread and so only the worthy receive that body.

Here is what the Articles of Religion says in the Anglican Church:
Quote
XXVIII. Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

XXIX. Of the Wicked which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper


The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.

So my question is: on the face of it, which position does this support: The Lutheran/Orthodox/RC position whereby Jesus is directly in the food, or the Calvinist position of Cranmer, whereby it isn't and "eating" Jesus' body just means believing in Jesus, as in Calvin's reading of John 6.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on March 30, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
That's not really an accurate summary of Calvin's views. There is a certain sacramental union, whereby worthy partakers are some how brought up to feed on Christ's body in heaven. The Anglican article is basically Calvinist.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: rakovsky on March 30, 2016, 12:49:59 PM
That's not really an accurate summary of Calvin's views. There is a certain sacramental union, whereby worthy partakers are some how brought up to feed on Christ's body in heaven. The Anglican article is basically Calvinist.
Thanks.
The "feeding" they see as a metaphor for communing / spiritual uniting, not actual eating.

The Calvinist/Anglican position is forced to and does read "eat my flesh" in John 6 as referring to "believing" in Jesus' real, literal "flesh". But it sounds weird to speak of "believing in Jesus' flesh", as opposed to believing in Jesus himself.
And then the Calvinist/Anglican position is forced to turned around and read "Take eat, this is my body" as referring to real, physical eating, but then read the verb "is" as "signifies".

And then when you go back to the Articles, things get really incongruous with the gospels' words of Institution, because the articles say: "The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner." The Anglican understanding is that the Words of Institution in the gospels say "taken and eaten" literally, but here in the Anglican articles, "taken, eaten" is not meant literally.

It's a very jumbled use of the words of Institution. And on top of it, Bishop Guest in the 16th century wrote that he intentionally introduced the word "given" into the articles in order to make the Articles support Jesus' real, direct presence in the food itself (ie. not the Calvinist view). But the second of those two articles I cited was intended to support the Calvinist view.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: Iconodule on March 30, 2016, 01:12:42 PM
That's not really an accurate summary of Calvin's views. There is a certain sacramental union, whereby worthy partakers are some how brought up to feed on Christ's body in heaven. The Anglican article is basically Calvinist.
Thanks.
The "feeding" they see as a metaphor for communing / spiritual uniting, not actual eating.

The Calvinist Eucharistic theology is clunky and tortured but I wouldn't say "metaphor" quite describes their view.
Title: Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
Post by: rakovsky on March 30, 2016, 03:02:40 PM
That's not really an accurate summary of Calvin's views. There is a certain sacramental union, whereby worthy partakers are some how brought up to feed on Christ's body in heaven. The Anglican article is basically Calvinist.
Thanks.
The "feeding" they see as a metaphor for communing / spiritual uniting, not actual eating.

The Calvinist Eucharistic theology is clunky and tortured but I wouldn't say "metaphor" quite describes their view.
The Calvinist Eucharistic theology says that believers have communion with Jesus during the ritual, but that when it comes to "eating Jesus' flesh/body", then either "eating" is a metaphor for believing and communing (see Calvin's commentary on John 6), or else eating is physical, but the bread only "signifies" Jesus' "flesh/body".

I realize that this is "clunky and tortured" reasoning.

Here is where the articles imply to many readers that they use "eating" as a metaphor for something else and not actual "chewing" (John 6 says both "eating" and "chewing", BTW):
"And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."