Topic: Why does the Traditional Anglican Communion want to drown in the Tiber?

[ialmisry]

A lot of noise is being made about the TAC officially petitioning to be accepted by Rome, evidently as a special rite (sui juris doesn't seem to be a possibility, although they may be requesting it).

Any reason why they aren't seeking to be received as Western Rite Orthodox?

[The Iambic Pen]

Probably because they are Western (with Western rite Orthodoxy still being seen as an extension of the Eastern I suppose), would be my guess.  Plus, Rome is their mother Church from the old days (before Henry VIII and all that).

[Reader KevinAndrew]

A lot of noise is being made about the TAC officially petitioning to be accepted by Rome, evidently as a special rite (sui juris doesn't seem to be a possibility, although they may be requesting it).

Any reason why they aren't seeking to be received as Western Rite Orthodox?

I agree with Iambic Pen. I'd also like to add that the Western Rite Vicariate has done a lousy job of letting the world know they are out there. In spite of that, we've had a decent number of new parishes/missions in the past year or so, with two new ones in VA, one in TX, OK, AR and MI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have more parishes and missions than the Anglican-use RC parishes and missions. In any case, I think alot of people in TAC just don't know enough about us or that we are even out there. If they did, they would see the AWRV as a better fit, for may reasons.

In Christ,
Reader Kevin

[stanley123]

A lot of noise is being made about the TAC officially petitioning to be accepted by Rome, evidently as a special rite (sui juris doesn't seem to be a possibility, although they may be requesting it).

Any reason why they aren't seeking to be received as Western Rite Orthodox?

OK. I was happy to hear about the Orthodox Western rite, as I thought that it might indicate that the Western rite (at least as it was either before Vatican II or as it was with the Anglicans)  with a few Orthodox modifications, such as extended epiclesis and no filioque was fully acceptable to the Orthodox Churches. However, I came across a pamphlet, written by an Orthodox priest, according to which he writes that the Western rite must be understood as a concession to those people who desire it, but should not be considered to be fully acceptable. And there have been discussions here on this board, that many Western devotions are problematic in light of Orthodox theology. Some people say they don't like them.
If that is the case, then perhaps the  Anglicans thought that they might be better received by Rome.

[lubeltri]

The Bishop of Rome was their lawful patriarch. When were their fathers ever under Antioch?

And Stanley is right---it is hard to be fully Western in the EO church. I'd have considered joining it more when I was seeking if I didn't feel like I would have to give up a great deal of my and my forefathers' heritage to do it.

[stanley123]

And Stanley is right---it is hard to be fully Western in the EO church.

Yes, because there are objections from the East concerning some Western Catholic devotions and the Western mindset. But in some sense it goes both ways. According to the pamphlet I read, the implication was that it is hard to be fully Eastern in a Western rite Church. 

[ialmisry]

OK. I was happy to hear about the Orthodox Western rite, as I thought that it might indicate that the Western rite (at least as it was either before Vatican II or as it was with the Anglicans)  with a few Orthodox modifications, such as extended epiclesis and no filioque was fully acceptable to the Orthodox Churches. However, I came across a pamphlet, written by an Orthodox priest, according to which he writes that the Western rite must be understood as a concession to those people who desire it, but should not be considered to be fully acceptable. And there have been discussions here on this board, that many Western devotions are problematic in light of Orthodox theology. Some people say they don't like them.
If that is the case, then perhaps the  Anglicans thought that they might be better received by Rome.

Yes, there are those who are against the Western Rite, thus proving that the Orthodox can be as dogmatic on externals as they accuse the proponents f Latinizations.  Sort of like the Old/New Calendar thing.

If they believe Vatican I, then by all means go to Rome.  If not, then they're making a mistake.

The Bishop of Rome was their lawful patriarch. When were their fathers ever under Antioch?

When they returned to Orthodoxy.

And Stanley is right---it is hard to be fully Western in the EO church. I'd have considered joining it more when I was seeking if I didn't feel like I would have to give up a great deal of my and my forefathers' heritage to do it.

Just heterodoxy.

I don't remember Jesus promoting the easy way.

And for the EASTERN Orthodox who make it unnecessarily hard, read Matthew 23 and replace "pharisee" with "ethnic"

[Navigator]

It looks like there are some in the Vatican who are opposed to receiving them:

One of the Vatican’s most senior cardinals has dismissed the idea that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse – despite Benedict XVI’s personal support for such a move.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: “It’s not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome.”

[...]

The cardinal said on Monday: “We are on good terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury and as much as we can we are helping him to keep the Anglican community together.”

Source:  The Catholic Herald (UK) - http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/news_2.html

[Schultz]

His Grace Cardinal Kaspar's comment doesn't make sense, because, as far as I know, the Anglicans in question are already out of communion with Canterbury and have no interest in renewing that tie.

[Veniamin]

His Grace Cardinal Kaspar's comment doesn't make sense, because, as far as I know, the Anglicans in question are already out of communion with Canterbury and have no interest in renewing that tie.

But he probably knew that the reporter likely wouldn't know the difference, which allowed for an appropriately cordial sound-bite while the Vatican considers how to handle the situation.

[Ebor]

Just heterodoxy.

That is rather simplistic.   There are other threads that have looked at some of this.  For many to 'swim the Bosporus' would be to leave more then the 'filoque' and a a few other bits.  When there is no WR or if it is denigrated or looked on as second-class so that there is no encouragement to keep it going, then it would mean leaving behind much that is good, that has meaning to them but that their new Church has no place for. 


With respect,

Ebor

[Ebor]

A lot of noise is being made about the TAC officially petitioning to be accepted by Rome, evidently as a special rite (sui juris doesn't seem to be a possibility, although they may be requesting it).

Any reason why they aren't seeking to be received as Western Rite Orthodox?

They may not know about it, there being large areas of the US where there are few or no EO parishes let along WRO ones.  Or it could be that they have been told things like "WRO is only until you're strong enough be become Byzantine in liturgy and custom." or "Western practices aren't part of being Orthodox".  Or there could be other reasons.

Ebor

[collin_nunis]

Well, the Catholic Church just prefers that these en masse communities be absorbed into existing parish and diocesan structures (according to geographical proximity). Undeniably, this is a weakness which has existed since the Episcopal Church went downhill and has not been rectified, until now.

I cannot say if the Western Rite Vicariate has not been doing a good job, but the growth must be congratulated. Nevertheless, more attempts must be made to reach out and understand what the Anglicans feel about Orthodoxy and the Western Rite. There are fears and gossip being spread about the Western Rite (especially by those who disagree with the Western Rite) like "it will die a slow death", "it's just temporary" etc, and that is what we need to address.

Also, I don't get the idea of why the Anglicans must go back only to Rome. What is wrong with being under Moscow or Antioch? Eventually, the head of the Church is still Christ and even the Patriarchs will attest to that. I'll bet top dollar for that.

[Navigator]

His Grace Cardinal Kaspar's comment doesn't make sense, because, as far as I know, the Anglicans in question are already out of communion with Canterbury and have no interest in renewing that tie.

I think it does makes sense but it has to be read with an understanding of the politics involved.

• Regardless of whether or not the TAC is interested in renewing the tie with Canterbury, Cardinal Kaspar is a true believer when it comes to ecumenism and he probably views it as poaching.  It's irrelevant how the TAC views itself - all that matters is how Canterbury views them.
  

• I take Cardinal Kaspar at his word and I have no doubt that he truly believes what he's said. Pope Benedict seems to be in favor of receiving them but no decision has been made. By commenting in a conservative Catholic newspaper, Cardinal Kaspar can telegraph his true feelings to the Pope while maintaining some wiggle room when the Pope rules the opposite way.  It also allows him to hold his head up the next time he takes tea at Lambeth Palace.
  

But he probably knew that the reporter likely wouldn't know the difference, which allowed for an appropriately cordial sound-bite while the Vatican considers how to handle the situation.

I think a Roman Cardinal would know the orientation of the Catholic Herald and, certainly, he would consider his words carefully before commenting.  That said, I agree with the second part of your analysis. I think he's setting himself up as the good cop (as far as Canterbury is concerned) in the classic good cop/bad cop scenario.

[lubeltri]

What would St. Paul say to a group of Corinthians who didn't like their bishop in Corinth and asked to go under the authority of Galatia instead?

In this case, of course, the TAC does like their bishop in Rome. It describes itself as "an Anglican Church actually seeking full communion with the See of Peter because it believes that such unity is of the essence of the Church."

http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=106

They see this proposed union as a re-union following the tragic events of the Reformation. I don't understand the negative comments ("drown in the Tiber").

[arimethea]

It is much easier on an administrative level for this group to go under Rome. The only place in Orthodoxy that the WR exist in any numbers is in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. This group has parishes in places where you need to bring in the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch in order to bring this group in as a whole.

[Veniamin]

It is much easier on an administrative level for this group to go under Rome. The only place in Orthodoxy that the WR exist in any numbers is in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. This group has parishes in places where you need to bring in the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch in order to bring this group in as a whole.

Sounds like we've got our work cut out for us if we want to keep the sheep from offering themselves up to the wolves.

[ozgeorge]

If they want to be Roman Catholics, let 'em go.
I'd prefer one Anglican convert to Orthodoxy by informed choice than a whole group convert simply because they suddenly think it might make a nice "alternative" to being under the Pope.

[The Iambic Pen]

They see this proposed union as a re-union following the tragic events of the Reformation. I don't understand the negative comments ("drown in the Tiber").

I quite agree with this.  Unless a Protestant holds some strong anti-Catholic bias (which, admittedly, many do), he or she is likely to look Rome-ward when looking for the ancient Church.  That is where the Protestant churches broke away from, and a Protestant who comes to realize the errors of the Reformation may come to believe the Catholic Church was right all along.

[Jetavan]

....and a Protestant who comes to realize the errors of the Reformation may come to believe the Catholic Church was right all along.

Or, if not "right all along" (for who can deny the abuses back then?), then at least "not as bad as previously thought".

[Heracleides]

Or, if not "right all along" (for who can deny the abuses back then?), then at least "not as bad as previously thought".

Or: 'Still bad, but not as bad as it used to be...' (to which I would reply: 'Check again!'). 

[stanley123]

...who can deny the abuses back then?...

And judging from today's newspapers,  who can deny the abuses today?

[lubeltri]

 

What?! The Church is full of sinners?!

[pathofsolitude]

A lot of noise is being made about the TAC officially petitioning to be accepted by Rome, evidently as a special rite (sui juris doesn't seem to be a possibility, although they may be requesting it).

Any reason why they aren't seeking to be received as Western Rite Orthodox?

I know a good bit about this group.

The reason is that they believe in the the Roman Catholic magisterium, they believe in the divinely established primacy of the Pope, and they believe in his infallibility. Only a minority of people in the TAC view these things as mere theologumena. Basically they think its sinful [though, somehow historically justifiable!] to be out of communion with Rome. Thats why.

Note: What I said here is strictly facts that I heard from TAC members themselves online. It is not meant to be derogatory to the TAC in any way.

[ialmisry]

What would St. Paul say to a group of Corinthians who didn't like their bishop in Corinth and asked to go under the authority of Galatia instead?

In this case, of course, the TAC does like their bishop in Rome. It describes itself as "an Anglican Church actually seeking full communion with the See of Peter because it believes that such unity is of the essence of the Church."

http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=106

They see this proposed union as a re-union following the tragic events of the Reformation. I don't understand the negative comments ("drown in the Tiber").

IF they like the bishop in Rome (how is he THEIR bishop?), and truly 'believe that such unity is of the essence of the Church,' then what's the hold up?  Why aren't they submittin'?

I don't understand the negative comments ("drown in the Tiber").

I quite agree with this.  Unless a Protestant holds some strong anti-Catholic bias (which, admittedly, many do), he or she is likely to look Rome-ward when looking for the ancient Church.  That is where the Protestant churches broke away from, and a Protestant who comes to realize the errors of the Reformation may come to believe the Catholic Church was right all along.

Well, if that's so, then there should be no hold up.  If they like Rome's errors, why hold off?  They could always continue as another Protestant denomination (as long as that lasts), but since they seem intent on joining some Church, why the hesitation, if Rome is the only answer?

As far as drowning, I don't see them getting sui juris status, whatever that entitles you to, and at best only a rite.  So it would seem they would be destined to be absorbed into the Latin rite.  If they like that fate, go ahead for the swim.

If they want to be Roman Catholics, let 'em go.
I'd prefer one Anglican convert to Orthodoxy by informed choice than a whole group convert simply because they suddenly think it might make a nice "alternative" to being under the Pope.

Oh, yes.  By all means: if they think that submission to the pope of Rome, no matter what he teaches, is necessary for salvation, then Rome is where they belong. 

And if they think we're just the Catholic Church without a Pope, then we are not the place for them.

But an informed choice means that they know that not all roads back to the Apostolic Church go through Rome.

Btw the primate John Hepworth might have problems: he was ordained a priest by a bishop of the pope of Rome, then became Anglican, married, and then was ordained a bishop.

[ialmisry]

That is rather simplistic.   There are other threads that have looked at some of this.  For many to 'swim the Bosporus' would be to leave more then the 'filoque' and a a few other bits.  When there is no WR or if it is denigrated or looked on as second-class so that there is no encouragement to keep it going, then it would mean leaving behind much that is good, that has meaning to them but that their new Church has no place for. 


With respect,

Ebor

Hence my reference to Matthew.  Rome is NOT the only ethnocentric patriarchate.

[JoeS]

What?! The Church is full of sinners?!

Cant think of a better place to be as a sinner than church.

[stanley123]

Cant think of a better place to be as a sinner than church.

I think it depends on the type of sin and the position in the Church.
For example, I don't think that the priesthood or any religious order is a good place in Church for those who are committing sin with young boys. And I don't agree that a serial killer or kleptomaniac should have any position of authority in Church. Etc.

[JoeS]

I think it depends on the type of sin and the position in the Church.
For example, I don't think that the priesthood or any religious order is a good place in Church for those who are committing sin with young boys. And I don't agree that a serial killer or kleptomaniac should have any position of authority in Church. Etc.

My commment meant the normal run-of-mill sinners.  Sometimes Church wont turn around the most extreme of sinners.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

I think it depends on the type of sin and the position in the Church.
For example, I don't think that the priesthood or any religious order is a good place in Church for those who are committing sin with young boys. And I don't agree that a serial killer or kleptomaniac should have any position of authority in Church. Etc.

Yes, I agree that those who have committed a particular sin should not hold a position that would foster that sin, but I would never argue that those people be ousted from the Church entirely. The Church is a wonderful place for healing, and while at times we unfortunately must remove people from positions of authority because of sin, we must still help them to recover from sin's effects.

[frmichangel]

It is much easier on an administrative level for this group to go under Rome. The only place in Orthodoxy that the WR exist in any numbers is in the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. This group has parishes in places where you need to bring in the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch in order to bring this group in as a whole.

It's not numbers that count.  Orthodoxy has in the past/present had Western Rite dioceses in Czeckoslowakia, Poland and France, and other forms of WRITE jurisdictions/parishes in Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand.  So Constantinople doesn't have to be involved.  Alexandria? Well other Orthodox jurisdictions operate in Africa.  All they need to cover their spread is Antioch and ROCOR.

As I understand the TAC position: Their present bishops expect to be priests after the union.

As I understand it from some of their clergy/people, Hepworth will be lucky to get much more that 60% of his people and clergy to follow him.

What really makes me curious is that they are still consecrating bishops .... why would one want to be consecrated for a five minute episcopate - or -  are they setting up some episcopal care for those who have indicated that they will not follow?

[lubeltri]

I still insist that it seems very hard to remain Western while going under EO. This was also a huge obstacle for me and other Catholic converts I know who considered the EO Church. There's a lot of anti-Western feeling there (not just historical grievances or animus but a common belief that Western traditions are generally suspect)---I wondered how much at home a devotee of St. Augustine like me would feel there. I was concerned that I would be made to feel un-Orthodox for being Western (I had gotten a lot of this already before I became a Catholic). I admire and respect the Eastern tradition, but it isn't me. The TAC are also Western---it just seems natural to go under the Roman pontiff, the patriarch of their ancestors.

[stanley123]

I still insist that it seems very hard to remain Western while going under EO. This was also a huge obstacle for me and other Catholic converts I know who considered the EO Church. There's a lot of anti-Western feeling there (not just historical grievances or animus but a common belief that Western traditions are generally suspect)---I wondered how much at home a devotee of St. Augustine like me would feel there. I was concerned that I would be made to feel un-Orthodox for being Western (I had gotten a lot of this already before I became a Catholic). I admire and respect the Eastern tradition, but it isn't me. The TAC are also Western---it just seems natural to go under the Roman pontiff, the patriarch of their ancestors.

I don't deny that there are some things which are deplorable in the Roman Church today. However,  I was  distressed to read about the severe criticism of Western devotions, such as the First Friday devotions. I see a lot of value and Christian virtue in practicing these Roman devotions and it is difficult for me to  understand a  criticism of them.

[Amdetsion]

His Grace Cardinal Kaspar's comment doesn't make sense, because, as far as I know, the Anglicans in question are already out of communion with Canterbury and have no interest in renewing that tie.

Excuse me for intrrupting; but ....

How is it that these two groups even consider themsleves "communions" in the first place?

The historical facts regarding the formation of these two groups indicate that they are really heretic groups and thus are not really 'supporting' REAL communions.

I think both groups are dellusional...

I think time has allowed these people to forget who they really are. I would be embarrassed to even say I was connected to either of these unfortunate circumstances of history; the anglican in particular.

Nice church looking buildings and ornate holy looking vestments does not change anything.

Both groups should disband and repent and come back to the Holy Church.

[AMM]

I still insist that it seems very hard to remain Western while going under EO. This was also a huge obstacle for me and other Catholic converts I know who considered the EO Church. There's a lot of anti-Western feeling there (not just historical grievances or animus but a common belief that Western traditions are generally suspect)---I wondered how much at home a devotee of St. Augustine like me would feel there. I was concerned that I would be made to feel un-Orthodox for being Western (I had gotten a lot of this already before I became a Catholic). I admire and respect the Eastern tradition, but it isn't me. The TAC are also Western---it just seems natural to go under the Roman pontiff, the patriarch of their ancestors.

lubeltri, I think this depends what you mean.  One can easily be a from and live in a western society and feel at home in Orthodoxy in its Byzantine expression.  In many ways ironically there is actually something very western, or you could say American, about the immigrant experience of the Orthodox churches in North America.  One must also look past the polemics when assessing the true nature of a church.

Now, if you mean your primary outlook and liturgical praxis is grounded in the organic religious civilization of the West, then I would agree with your statement.  Orthodoxy is not for you.

Regarding the TAC, they should return to Rome because it is where they came from.  What I think will hold them back is the issue of married clergy and a lack of support for provisions allowing Anglican practice to continue as they desire (i.e. not the current allowance, which even then probably has tepid support).  Most likely in my opinion is that they will remain independent, and some individuals will likely be unable to live with the inherent tensions and contradictions of sectarian catholicism and will themselves convert on their own.

[Schultz]

Excuse me for intrrupting; but ....

How is it that these two groups even consider themsleves "communions" in the first place?

The historical facts regarding the formation of these two groups indicate that they are really heretic groups and thus are not really 'supporting' REAL communions.

I think both groups are dellusional...

Fr. Deacon,

Well, as a Catholic, I'd have to agree with you on the delusional part, but, that's beside the point .  Much like the recent use of "confession" in another thread to denote different Christian groups, the use of the word "communion" is used in English to denote a certain group or body of confessions who technically share the same theology and praxis, no matter how flawed we as Catholics or EO or OO may think such theology/praxis is.  These confessions are "in communion" with one another.  From what I can see, in the case of the worldwide Anglican confessions, being a part of the "Anglican communion" means nowadays being invited to the Lambeth Conference that the Archbishop of Canterbury has every decade.  If you're invited and go, you're a part of the Anglican communion.  If you're not invited and/or turn down an invite, you're not.

I understand that you perhaps use these words differently, but this is what we mean when using the word communion in the context above.

[Peter J]

Most likely in my opinion is that they will remain independent, and some individuals will likely be unable to live with the inherent tensions and contradictions of sectarian catholicism and will themselves convert on their own.

Another possibility is that they could unite with the PNCC.

[Amdetsion]

Fr. Deacon,

Well, as a Catholic, I'd have to agree with you on the delusional part, but, that's beside the point .  Much like the recent use of "confession" in another thread to denote different Christian groups, the use of the word "communion" is used in English to denote a certain group or body of confessions who technically share the same theology and praxis, no matter how flawed we as Catholics or EO or OO may think such theology/praxis is.  These confessions are "in communion" with one another.  From what I can see, in the case of the worldwide Anglican confessions, being a part of the "Anglican communion" means nowadays being invited to the Lambeth Conference that the Archbishop of Canterbury has every decade.  If you're invited and go, you're a part of the Anglican communion.  If you're not invited and/or turn down an invite, you're not.

I understand that you perhaps use these words differently, but this is what we mean when using the word communion in the context above.

Thanks

[Papist]

Excuse me for intrrupting; but ....

How is it that these two groups even consider themsleves "communions" in the first place?

The historical facts regarding the formation of these two groups indicate that they are really heretic groups and thus are not really 'supporting' REAL communions.

I think both groups are dellusional...

I think time has allowed these people to forget who they really are. I would be embarrassed to even say I was connected to either of these unfortunate circumstances of history; the anglican in particular.

Nice church looking buildings and ornate holy looking vestments does not change anything.

Both groups should disband and repent and come back to the Holy Church.

Some Eastern Orthodox Christians believe your Church is not a true Church.

[Veniamin]

Some Eastern Orthodox Christians believe your Church is not a true Church.

Thanks for sharing.

[ialmisry]

Some Eastern Orthodox Christians believe your Church is not a true Church.

Yes.  They the same ones that believe that your church is not a true Church.

[Amdetsion]

Some Eastern Orthodox Christians believe your Church is not a true Church.

Well said...

What an unfortunate, fact indeed.

Lets us all pray for this kind of person (persons) who are bent on pompus dreams of purity and perfection deluding themselves blind in the midst of their own stubborn and unkind hearts which yearns not for unity, peace and love which are the true fruit of the faith of the fathers and Christ Holy Church; but instead run desperately toward distinction, aggrandizement, classification and pontifical aspirations AND hold on to a sense or real presence of being "virgin", untouched...."Christ true Church", "Gods true people".

Sad!

These are the desires that appeal to man and are the fruit of men.....NOT God!

God loves the humble who forgives without grumbling or remembering his brothers sins.

God has His eye on the man who will not speak ill or guile nor rebuke without cause.

God has His eye on the man who will give his life for his friend.

It is these attributes and desires that are the true nature of Gods people and by thus are the fruit of God found in man. Without these man is fruitless.

The true Church of Christ IS ONE and the holy fathers teach this.

The meer nature of the idea that we can even propose that Christ Church is EO and OO is a heresy in the face of the true unity Christ established which is the One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Christ did not make His Church EO and OO. Man did that with his arrogant pontifications and explosive sense of BEING holy and rightious....along side having poor manners, a nature unforgivingness, and lack of compassion which is a concoction of absolute recklessness. The Church suffers to this day from this. To me if either side was ever right that "right" would have enveloped the other NOT make two seperate entities. Truth consumes like light entering darkness; NOT divide.

Division is a sign that truth is NOT present.

What is present in any division is chaos which is the product of confusion and disagreement.

And God does not exist in chaos. It does not matter what is right or wrong in the situation.

And we are ALL going to pay for it no matter which side is right. Since both sides are wrong and are in rebellion against the teachings of God which says: "ABOVE ALL THINGS FIRST LOVE ONE ANOTHER". WE are all failing to see what we must do to be Gods people.

WE have all digressed.

WE are like the Jews of old.

Amazing!

The EO's you speak of I have heard from this type. I do not consider all EO's the same. Their are some OO with this upside down thinking as well.

Let us pray for them and for each other since if WE do not solve this delima I am certain that there will be no winners in the end just as trhere are NO winner right now.

WE are all in the same boat.

Sadly; I know that there are EO's and OO's that may not agree with this fact.

I am for unity.

I see Orthodox as Orthodox. NO EO or OO.

[Papist]

Well said...

What an unfortunate, fact indeed.

Lets us all pray for this kind of person (persons) who are bent on pompus dreams of purity and perfection delluding themselves blind in the midst of their own stubborn and unkind hearts which yearns not for unity, peace and love which are the true fruit of the faith of the fathers and Christ Holy Church; but instead run desperately toward distinction, agrandizement, classification and pontifical aspirations to hold on to a since or real presence of being "virgin", untouched...."Christ true Church", "Gods true people".

Sad!

These are the desires that appeal to man and are the fruit of men.....NOT God!

God loves the humble who forgives without grumbling or remembering his brothers sins.

God has His eye on the man who will not speak ill or guile nor rebuke without cause.

God has His eye on the man who will give his life for his friend.

It is these attributes and desires that are the true nature of Gods people and by thus are the fruit of God found in man. Without these man is fruitless.

The true Church of Christ IS ONE and the holy fathers teach this.

The meer nature of the idea that we can even propose that Christ Church is EO and OO is a heresy in the face of the true unity Christ established which is the One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Christ did not make His Church EO and OO. Man did that.

And we are ALL going to pay for it no matter which side is right. Since both sides are wrong and are in rebellion agianst the teachings of God which says: "ABOVE ALL THINGS FIRST LOVE ONE ANOTHER". WE are all failing to see what we must do to be Gods people.

WE have all digressed.

WE are like the Jews of old.

Amazing!

The EO's you speak of I have heard from this type. I do not consider all EO's the same. Their are some OO with this upside down thinking as well.

Let us pray for them and for each other since if WE do not solve this delima I am certain that there will be no winners in the end.

I am for unity.

I see Orthodox as Orthodox. NO EO or OO.

And what of Catholics?

[prodromas]

Well said...

What an unfortunate, fact indeed.

Lets us all pray for this kind of person (persons) who are bent on pompus dreams of purity and perfection deluding themselves blind in the midst of their own stubborn and unkind hearts which yearns not for unity, peace and love which are the true fruit of the faith of the fathers and Christ Holy Church; but instead run desperately toward distinction, aggrandizement, classification and pontifical aspirations AND hold on to a sense or real presence of being "virgin", untouched...."Christ true Church", "Gods true people".

Sad!

These are the desires that appeal to man and are the fruit of men.....NOT God!

God loves the humble who forgives without grumbling or remembering his brothers sins.

God has His eye on the man who will not speak ill or guile nor rebuke without cause.

God has His eye on the man who will give his life for his friend.

It is these attributes and desires that are the true nature of Gods people and by thus are the fruit of God found in man. Without these man is fruitless.

The true Church of Christ IS ONE and the holy fathers teach this.

The meer nature of the idea that we can even propose that Christ Church is EO and OO is a heresy in the face of the true unity Christ established which is the One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Christ did not make His Church EO and OO. Man did that with his arrogant pontifications and explosive sense of BEING holy and rightious....along side having poor manners, a nature unforgivingness, and lack of compassion which is a concoction of absolute recklessness. The Church suffers to this day from this. To me if either side was ever right that "right" would have enveloped the other NOT make two seperate entities. Truth consumes like light entering darkness; NOT divide.

Division is a sign that truth is NOT present.

What is present in any division is chaos which is the product of confusion and disagreement.

And God does not exist in chaos. It does not matter what is right or wrong in the situation.

And we are ALL going to pay for it no matter which side is right. Since both sides are wrong and are in rebellion against the teachings of God which says: "ABOVE ALL THINGS FIRST LOVE ONE ANOTHER". WE are all failing to see what we must do to be Gods people.

WE have all digressed.

WE are like the Jews of old.

Amazing!

The EO's you speak of I have heard from this type. I do not consider all EO's the same. Their are some OO with this upside down thinking as well.

Let us pray for them and for each other since if WE do not solve this delima I am certain that there will be no winners in the end just as trhere are NO winner right now.

WE are all in the same boat.

Sadly; I know that there are EO's and OO's that may not agree with this fact.

I am for unity.

I see Orthodox as Orthodox. NO EO or OO.

Beautifully said Amdetsion

[Veniamin]

Well said...

What an unfortunate, fact indeed.

Lets us all pray for this kind of person (persons) who are bent on pompus dreams of purity and perfection deluding themselves blind in the midst of their own stubborn and unkind hearts which yearns not for unity, peace and love which are the true fruit of the faith of the fathers and Christ Holy Church; but instead run desperately toward distinction, aggrandizement, classification and pontifical aspirations AND hold on to a sense or real presence of being "virgin", untouched...."Christ true Church", "Gods true people".

Sad!

These are the desires that appeal to man and are the fruit of men.....NOT God!

God loves the humble who forgives without grumbling or remembering his brothers sins.

God has His eye on the man who will not speak ill or guile nor rebuke without cause.

God has His eye on the man who will give his life for his friend.

It is these attributes and desires that are the true nature of Gods people and by thus are the fruit of God found in man. Without these man is fruitless.

The true Church of Christ IS ONE and the holy fathers teach this.

The meer nature of the idea that we can even propose that Christ Church is EO and OO is a heresy in the face of the true unity Christ established which is the One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church.

Christ did not make His Church EO and OO. Man did that with his arrogant pontifications and explosive sense of BEING holy and rightious....along side having poor manners, a nature unforgivingness, and lack of compassion which is a concoction of absolute recklessness. The Church suffers to this day from this. To me if either side was ever right that "right" would have enveloped the other NOT make two seperate entities. Truth consumes like light entering darkness; NOT divide.

Division is a sign that truth is NOT present.

What is present in any division is chaos which is the product of confusion and disagreement.

And God does not exist in chaos. It does not matter what is right or wrong in the situation.

And we are ALL going to pay for it no matter which side is right. Since both sides are wrong and are in rebellion against the teachings of God which says: "ABOVE ALL THINGS FIRST LOVE ONE ANOTHER". WE are all failing to see what we must do to be Gods people.

WE have all digressed.

WE are like the Jews of old.

Amazing!

The EO's you speak of I have heard from this type. I do not consider all EO's the same. Their are some OO with this upside down thinking as well.

Let us pray for them and for each other since if WE do not solve this delima I am certain that there will be no winners in the end just as trhere are NO winner right now.

WE are all in the same boat.

Sadly; I know that there are EO's and OO's that may not agree with this fact.

I am for unity.

I see Orthodox as Orthodox. NO EO or OO.

So Christ does have two bodies?