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

[Amdetsion]

And what of Catholics?

Papist

I edited my post while you were posting this.

Please re-read my post.

Also I failed to include Roman Catholics in my point.

The RC, EO and OO are actually one faith which needs to learn to behave like Christians.

God help us...Amen

[Veniamin]

Papist

I edited my post while you were posting this.

Please re-read my post.

Also I failed to include Roman Catholics in my point.

The RC, EO and OO are actually one faith which needs to learn to behave like Christians.

God help us...Amen

So Christ then has three bodies?

[ialmisry]

So Christ then has three bodies?

Multiple personalities.

EO and OO are suffering from some dimentia now, which is why we don't recognize fully that we are One.

[Amdetsion]

So Christ then has three bodies?

You can not believe that RC EO and OO are three bodies?

These are the three stooges if anything more than one.

Christ and His Holy Church and His people are one body with one faith, one baptism.

NO Division, NO divorce.

Divisions and divorces are the acts of man. God has not provided this for us.

We do these things to each other because we can not understand love.

And we never will....

Remember Adam failed twice; first by disobeying God and and second for not embracing the love of his wife. If he loved Eve why would he immediately defend himself over her? He cared not what would happen to her? He should have sacraficed himself for her and taken full responsibility for everything that happened. God may have shown some mercy. But Adam did not know love. He only new "self".

We are all just the same as Adam today.

The Lord answered Adams mistake and did sacrafice Himself for Adam and Eve and the whole world.

Christ taught love.

It unfortunately keeps falling on deaf ears; generation after wicked generation.

Love comes with a price. We must give up ourselves; and we are not going to do that.

The idea of EO OO RC or whatever else is uselessness....not Christianity

Vicars of Christ? Let me see one man on earth today allow himself to suffer like Christ did for all mankind. Then we can talk about Vicars of Christ. Up to now Christ has NO Vicar but the Holy Spirit. He died on the cross and nobody helped Him or stood by as His Vicar. Even St Peter ran away and abandoned Him.

Two natures? One Nature? Let me see a church that holds true to Christ commandments which is of many things first to love one another than we can talk about Christ' nature. We can't figure out how to pray together and respect each other.
We will know His nature by BEING who He made us to be; "a chosen nation". "The salt of the earth", "a royal priesthood" etc.

And we are none of the above; not that we ever were. You can't tell a christian form a pagan or heathen today. And we orthodox should be ashamed to say that we are the early church.

WE are too busy scratching each others eyes out and keeping up with "life".

Just read some the posts on this forum as proof.

Our 4th and 5th century fathers were no better; allowing emnity to rear its ugly head among Gods flock; The Flock they were to be protecting even with there very lives..this was (is) God order to the Sheppards of the Church.

They failed the primary function of their offices.....Amazing!

Can we help them (our Fathers)  who were too weak to lead us not in temptation then in our time by forgiving each other...now.

Can we say to each other "I love you my brother"?

Can we pray together and worship together?

Can we take Holy Communion together?

no!

Why?

Of course Christ is going to answer this in His second advent.

[Veniamin]

You can not believe that RC EO and OO are three bodies?

These are the three stooges if anything more than one.

Christ and His Holy Church and His people are one body with one faith, one baptism.

NO Division, NO divorce.

Divisions and divorces are the acts of man. God has not provided this for us.

We do these things to each other because we can not understand love.

And we never will....

Remember Adam failed twice; first by disobeying God and and second for not embracing the love of his wife. If he loved Eve why would he immediately defend himself over her? He cared not what would happen to her? He should have sacraficed himself for her and taken full responsibility for everything that happened. God may have shown some mercy. But Adam did not know love. He only new "self".

We are all just the same as Adam today.

The Lord answered Adams mistake and did sacrafice Himself for Adam and Eve and the whole world.

Christ taught love.

It unfortunately keeps falling on deaf ears; generation after wicked generation.

Love comes with a price. We must give up ourselves; and we are not going to do that.

The idea of EO OO RC or whatever else is uselessness....not Christianity

Vicars of Christ? Let me see one man on earth today allow himself to suffer like Christ did for all mankind. Then we can talk about Vicars of Christ. Up to now Christ has NO Vicar but the Holy Spirit. He died on the cross and nobody helped Him or stood by as His Vicar. Even St Peter ran away and abandoned Him.

Two natures? One Nature? Let me see a church that holds true to Christ commandments which is of many things first to love one another than we can talk about Christ' nature. We can't figure out how to pray together and respect each other.
We will know His nature by BEING who He made us to be; "a chosen nation". "The salt of the earth", "a royal priesthood" etc.

And we are none of the above; not that we ever were. You can't tell a christian form a pagan or heathen today. And we orthodox should be ashamed to say that we are the early church.

WE are too busy scratching each others eyes out and keeping up with "life".

Just read some the posts on this forum as proof.

Our 4th and 5th century fathers were no better; allowing emnity to rear its ugly head among Gods flock; The Flock they were to be protecting even with there very lives..this was (is) God order to the Sheppards of the Church.

They failed the primary function of their offices.....Amazing!

Can we help them (our Fathers)  who were too weak to lead us not in temptation then in our time by forgiving each other...now.

Can we say to each other "I love you my brother"?

Can we pray together and worship together?

Can we take Holy Communion together?

no!

Why?

Of course Christ is going to answer this in His second advent.

So you're subscribing to the Branch Theory, then?

[Peter J]

So you're subscribing to the Branch Theory, then?

Veniamin,

Until recently, the Russian Orthodox Church and the ROCOR weren't in full communion with each other.

And yet both were considered Orthodox. Was that the Branch Theory?

[Amdetsion]

So you're subscribing to the Branch Theory, then?

I do not know anything about what you call "the branch theory".

Sounds like more 'pontificatiousness' to me. In such case knowing the meaning would not help me at all.

I subscribe to the commands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And I can assure you that what he commands cannot have anything to do with any kind of theory.

[lubeltri]

So Christ then has three bodies?

It's a mystical body, is it not?

[lubeltri]

Veniamin,

Until recently, the Russian Orthodox Church and the ROCOR weren't in full communion with each other.

And yet both were considered Orthodox. Was that the Branch Theory?

Good point. And think of the many other times where Orthodox bodies broke communion with each other. Which were out of the Church (with no Holy Mysteries, of course) and which were in? How about the masses of humble, ordinary pious people who were denied the sacraments because their bishops may or may have not have taken them out of the Church (who can tell)?

[Gabriel]

So Christ then has three bodies?

Is God three distinct persons of one essence?

How? 

Well... thats a mystery. 

Something eastern folk harp on about quite a bit.

[ialmisry]

Is God three distinct persons of one essence?

How? 

Well... thats a mystery. 

Something eastern folk harp on about quite a bit.

The Apostles taught Three Persons One in Essence.

They didn't teach Tritheism.  they called it heathenism.

They taught One Church.

They didn't teach demonationalism.  They called it heresy.

We eastern folk harp on no development of dogma quite a bit.

[Jetavan]

The Apostles taught Three Persons One in Essence.

Tripersonalistic mono-essentialism.

[Papist]

We eastern folk harp on no development of dogma quite a bit.

And yet the councils, your own hesychast monks, and Gregory Palamas himself developed dogma quite a bit.

[ialmisry]

And yet the councils, your own hesychast monks, and Gregory Palamas himself developed dogma quite a bit.

Actually no, the councils didn't develop dogma (e.g. Ephesus condemned the INNOVATION of refusing the title Theotokos, Chalcedon the INNOVATION of Eutyches, Constantinople II the INNOVATION of the Three Chapters, C III the INNOVATION of monotheletism, etc.).

Palamas' teaching is repleate with the Cappadocians and other ECF, which is why the OO also agree with the position.

[Νεκτάριος]

We eastern folk harp on no development of dogma quite a bit.

You also harp on fairy tales, mythology and wishful thinking quite a bit. 

[ialmisry]

You also harp on fairy tales, mythology and wishful thinking quite a bit. 

Specifics?

[Doubting Thomas]

It's been over a year since I've posted on this message board, but after reading comments on this thread in particular, I thought I'd chime in....

First, although I too am a traditional Anglican (in the ACC) I'm not as gung-ho about a reunion with Rome as is the TAC apparently is.  Don't get me wrong--Christ's great prayer is for all of us to be one and I pray that will be a reality one day.  However, I simply can't accept certain Roman dogmas as necessary to salvation, particularly those in regards to the papal infallibility.  (I do admire the current Pope, though).  If some of these dogmas were somehow modified (or "clarified") in a way that's more in keeping with how the entire Church has viewed the Roman bishop throughout time and space, then I'd be more enthused about the prospects of a genuine reunion.

Second, for what it's worth, I ultimately chose to become a traditional Anglican (3 creeds, 7 councils, etc) after exploring Eastern Orthodoxy for a couple of years (and briefly becoming a catechumen) because I just couldn't believe based on history that the Holy Ghost went <poof!> and just vanished from the Western Church in 1054 (or any other year).  And since I wasn't convinced historically about the validity of modern day papal claims/dogmas either, I landed where I am today rather than in Rome.  Plus, I find much beauty in the classical Anglican hymns, KJV Bible, and BCP, and I admired the efforts (however awkward and fumbling at times) of the classical Anglican divines in attempting to reform the Church based on the orthodox catholic consensus of the ancient Church (rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater as many Continental Reformers seemed to have done in various ways).

By the way, I would like to commend Amdetsion on his sound words.  I too hope we can all be one some day.

[Ebor]

It's good to read you again, Doubting Thomas.  I hope that all is well with you.

Ebor

[Peter J]

Doubting Thomas,

Great post.

One thing I would ask you ... You explained why you decided against both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I notice you didn't mention the Polish National Catholic Church. So I'm just wondering, did you ever consider them, and if so what were your conclusions?

Welcome back to the forum!
-Peter.

[Amdetsion]

Don't get me wrong--Christ's great prayer is for all of us to be one and I pray that will be a reality one day. 

Christ's prayer?

Are you sure this is what you want to say?

Christ is God...Amen!

He 'commanded' that His Church IS ONE.

He did not "pray" for His Church "to be" one some day.

His Church is His own undivided Body where he is the Head till eternity.

The true Church embraces the members 'in' His Divine Body.

If then we as the members are divided amongst each other than that is our problem. NOT Christs' nor His undivided Holy and Universal Church.

His Church is still undivided today and will remain as such till the last day.

What 'we' presume to be "churches" are only our own human ideas that are lost; not firmly one with Gods ordinance thus we get corruption or what we call ever-so-nicely "denominations".

Sadly the only suitable word I can think for what we are doing is 'folly'.

This is mans doing NOT Christs'.

The Lord said.."It is finished".

And even if it was Christs' "prayer" that the Church be one it would be exactly that the second before He prayed for such and would still be one no matter how many ways we find to divide ourselves believing we are 'dividing' something we have no control over.

There is only One life, One Church, One faith and One Baptism...Amen.

Christ and His undivided Church is already a 2000 year old "reality".

I think you would agree that man is the dreamer with his delusional nature and arrogant character.

WE really believe that WE can, have, or are dividing or 'have' divided' Gods Salvation (The Holy Church) on doctrinal or dogmatic lines.

These elements (doctrine and or dogma) of concern are very important for the faith BUT they are not the elements which the Holy Church was established on.

The Church was established 'on' the supreme Sacrefice of the Christ on the cross.... the Innocent Blood of the Lamb. Not on the basis or outcome of a synod of bishops and priests who can not agree on earthly matters of doctrine and dogma.  

Let me see one of us nailed to a cross and spill our own innocent blood for the sake of dogma and or doctrine and then I would have to say we can divide the church.

But this is moot since the only Innocent Blood on earth is Christs. All other blood is of no value no matter how holy we may be.

So WE have to pray for the day that WE are one with the undivided Church of Christ which He is heading right now and is coming back for in the day of Judgement.

[Veniamin]

Christ's prayer?

Are you sure this is what you want to say?

Christ is God...Amen!

He 'commanded' that His Church IS ONE.

He did not "pray" for His Church "to be" one some day.

His Church is His own undivided Body where he is the Head till eternity.

The true Church embraces the members 'in' His Divine Body.

If then we as the members are divided amongst each other than that is our problem. NOT Christs' nor His undivided Holy and Universal Church.

His Church is still undivided today and will remain as such till the last day.

What 'we' presume to be "churches" are only our own human ideas that are lost; not firmly one with Gods ordinance thus we get corruption or what we call ever-so-nicely "denominations".

Sadly the only suitable word I can think for what we are doing is 'folly'.

This is mans doing NOT Christs'.

The Lord said.."It is finished".

And even if it was Christs' "prayer" that the Church be one it would be exactly that the second before He prayed for such and would still be one no matter how many ways we find to divide ourselves believing we are 'dividing' something we have no control over.

There is only One life, One Church, One faith and One Baptism...Amen.

Christ and His undivided Church is already a 2000 year old "reality".

I think you would agree that man is the dreamer with his delusional nature and arrogant character.

WE really believe that WE can, have, or are dividing or 'have' divided' Gods Salvation (The Holy Church) on doctrinal or dogmatic lines.

These elements (doctrine and or dogma) of concern are very important for the faith BUT they are not the elements which the Holy Church was established on.

The Church was established 'on' the supreme Sacrefice of the Christ on the cross.... the Innocent Blood of the Lamb. Not on the basis or outcome of a synod of bishops and priests who can not agree on earthly matters of doctrine and dogma.  

Let me see one of us nailed to a cross and spill our own innocent blood for the sake of dogma and or doctrine and then I would have to say we can divide the church.

But this is moot since the only Innocent Blood on earth is Christs. All other blood is of no value no matter how holy we may be.

So WE have to pray for the day that WE are one with the undivided Church of Christ which He is heading right now and is coming back for in the day of Judgement.

Great...preaching the Branch Theory again.

[Doubting Thomas]

It's good to read you again, Doubting Thomas.  I hope that all is well with you.

Ebor

Thanks--hope all is well with you as well

[Doubting Thomas]

Doubting Thomas,

Great post.

One thing I would ask you ... You explained why you decided against both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I notice you didn't mention the Polish National Catholic Church. So I'm just wondering, did you ever consider them, and if so what were your conclusions?

Welcome back to the forum!
-Peter.

Peter,

Though I was aware of the PNCC I never really considered them because I'm not as familiar with them and because I'm unaware of any congregations within an hour's driving distance.  I'm not denying the "catholicity" of that body; I was just more familar with Anglicanism

[Doubting Thomas]

Christ's prayer?

Are you sure this is what you want to say?

Christ is God...Amen!

He 'commanded' that His Church IS ONE.

He did not "pray" for His Church "to be" one some day.

Amdetsion,

Yes I'm sure that's what I wanted to say.  Take a look at John 17, especially verses 20-21.  Christ prayed to the Father that they may be one.

DT

[NihilNominis]

Perhaps Bishop Ware said it best, when he insisted that the Orthodox Christian may claim to know where the true Church is, not where it is not.

We know where the True Faith is not being taught, certainly, and we can condemn such errors; we can never claim, however, to know that one is not of Christ without judging him, as we are enjoined not to do by our Lord.

I pray for visible unity, however, between all those claiming to be Christians. 

Glory to Jesus Christ!

[Suaiden]

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

Me too. And I am Western Orthodox. And the Church is Conciliar, full acceptance of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and the Local Councils they blessed) being a prerequisite for membership in the Orthodox Church.

I am glad we agree.

And I presume you also accept those councils.

[Amdetsion]

Me too. And I am Western Orthodox. And the Church is Conciliar, full acceptance of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (and the Local Councils they blessed) being a prerequisite for membership in the Orthodox Church.

I am glad we agree.

And I presume you also accept those councils.

I can tell you this:

I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of the world.

I presume you do to...

I accept the fact that I am a sinner and that no matter what I do or anyone does or says will not and cannot change that. Thus I accept that only the saving grace of Jesus Christ can remit sin.

I presume you do to....

I have been hoping and praying that I live as God commands his faithful people and that where I fail He will have mercy on me because I want to go to heaven with the saints.

I presume you do to......

I pray that you and I and all true believer and followers of Christ (inside and outside His Holy Church) will recieve mercy from the Lord and be freed from our bondage in this corrupted world and be accepted into the enternal grace with Him. I want and pray that all of us succeed at this no mattrer how many council we accept or not, or which pope leads because Christ is the "finisher and Author" of our faith alone. He does not need our help. WE are to follow Him.

I assure you that if our fathers (all of us) had only a small precentage of the humility, patience and long suffering that Christ exhibited and 'admonished' us to also have many of these "councils" if not all of them would not have been necessary to have in the first place. Where there is unity of the spirit than this is evidence of the providence of God. God is not party with confusion, diivision, lovelessness, emnity etc. Its thus clear that anything that acts to 'divide' in this age of mercy which started on earth upon Christs ascension to the right hand of God and will end at Christs return to earth for the 'judgement' of mandkind is not for the people of God.

WE (Christians) are a merciful nation having all patience, love and care for and with all matters and all people; particularly and unyeildingly where the body of Christ (the Holy Church) is concerned.

My hope is that Christ will in the end accept all people into the enternal kingdom no matter what they are doing or believing right now and not crush us for not following His true faith. It seems rather unfair since as orthodox we lead such rigorous lives of prayer and fasting and dwelling in the word of God and than all others who could care less end up reaping the same reward. This is a hard thing. It is easier to believe we are (you are) better because of the fact that we (you) are orthodox and follow so many councils etc; AND THEY DO NOT. WE are the TRUE CHURCH. But the Holy Church teaches that we are to be ready for this...'universiality'. WE must start with each other with mercy and passion toward each other for everything. Mercy and compassion prevents fear and thus without the chain and bondage of fear love grows to full grown being uninhibited with our weaknesess.

So I want the baptist, methodist, evangelical etc to succeed at obtaining eternal grace. I believe the scripture teaches that "every knee shall bow". What or who would "every" not include?

I am hoping and praying that Jesus Christ has mercy on us all (all people)!.....This (mercy) is the fount of the faith of the Universal Apostolic Orthodox Church.

The councils of the church are called for order and unity of Apostolic belief. 'for unity' thus to adhere to Gods command that "we are to be of one mind". So if unity prevailed from a council (or councils) than they (the councils) are of course fruitful and as such are the keepers of Gods commandments for His Holy Church. If the councils (council) divides (it does not matter why or by whose cause) than it is clearly outside of Gods commandments and therefore can not bear fruit until unity is regained. Thus a council in this condition (resulting in division) is 'not yet finished' and is 'still in session' and has been and will remain in session 'until UNITY prevails'.

Gods house can not be divided. "A house divided among itself cannot and wil not stand. This is contrary to Gods word which teaches that His Church (HIs house) will not fall. Thus such idioms as 'eastern orthodox', 'western orthodox' and 'oriental orthodox' are by nature heretical within the absolute adherence to what the Holy Orthodox Church actually is.

There is only One Church, One baptism, One faith and it is neither eastern, or western or oriental or protestant or black or white....God teaches this not councils!

The Church is One body and One word...UNI-VERSE-al

The rest we made up ourselves which serves as a bonafide testament, a totem; symbolic of our unjust, unruly and adulturous age.

Christ is coming back for His Church.

Lord have mercy on us!

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

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?

Way back when the ECF was still "Eastern Christianity" I had a chance to talk/e-mail one of the TAC members at CAF, and asked him if he considered Orthodoxy.  I remember he stated that the current ecclesiological position of Orthodoxy is the same as Anglicanism, which did not offer the protection that the papacy offered, and this was exactly what the TAC was looking for.  I offered him the possibility that Orthodoxy has also not given in to the innovations that the Anglican Church had amassed.  He responded by stating that Orthodoxy has mostly been insulated from the intellectual fervor that the papacy has had to fight against, but the Catholic Church has remained solid despite that.  He did not feel confident that the Orthodox Church could, in the same situation as the Catholic Church in the West, be able to face the same cultural/liberal pressures and remain true to the Faith.  In his view, since the ecclesiology of the EO and the Anglicans are pretty much the same, in the same cultural milieu as the Anglicans, the Orthodox would go down the same road.  Something more was needed, in his opinion, which was the papacy.

I have communicated with exactly three other TAC members who feel the same way.  The party line seems to be that Newman's predictions about the lack of the papacy in Anglicanism leading to innovations has come true.  I guess coming from that cultural background where Newman was so prominent, the choice of the TAC is rather logical.

Blessings,
Marduk

[ialmisry]

Dear brother Isa,
Way back when the ECF was still "Eastern Christianity" I had a chance to talk/e-mail one of the TAC members at CAF, and asked him if he considered Orthodoxy.  I remember he stated that the current ecclesiological position of Orthodoxy is the same as Anglicanism, which did not offer the protection that the papacy offered, and this was exactly what the TAC was looking for.  I offered him the possibility that Orthodoxy has also not given in to the innovations that the Anglican Church had amassed.  He responded by stating that Orthodoxy has mostly been insulated from the intellectual fervor that the papacy has had to fight against, but the Catholic Church has remained solid despite that.  He did not feel confident that the Orthodox Church could, in the same situation as the Catholic Church in the West, be able to face the same cultural/liberal pressures and remain true to the Faith.  In his view, since the ecclesiology of the EO and the Anglicans are pretty much the same, in the same cultural milieu as the Anglicans, the Orthodox would go down the same road.  Something more was needed, in his opinion, which was the papacy.

I have communicated with exactly three other TAC members who feel the same way.  The party line seems to be that Newman's predictions about the lack of the papacy in Anglicanism leading to innovations has come true.  I guess coming from that cultural background where Newman was so prominent, the choice of the TAC is rather logical.

Blessings,
Marduk

Just missed your post.  Was in jail for a while (contempt), and then other matters.

Interesting. I don't know what it is with that culture.  British understatement? 

I don't know what will become of the TAC (I think we discussed the problems of their head bishop, that he is a married (post ordination) priest ordained by the Vatican).  It seems these various bodies are sitting on the fence.  Members get off individually when they can't wait any longer.  That trickle part is the reason why I don't think the Anglican Usage will get off the ground as a rite or a "sui juris church."  The stream is low enough that they are destined to dilute in the vast sea under the Vatican.

As for not challenged, did he every read a Russian novel?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Topic: Why does the Traditional Anglican Communion want to drown in the Tiber?