OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 12:46:57 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why, Keble, are Well grounded and studied Anglicans on the list of non-converts  (Read 3529 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
afanasiy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69



WWW
« on: June 11, 2003, 11:13:24 PM »

There isn't enuff room to say it your way:  "checklist of non-potential converts."

1) Why does Orthodoxy win no few Anglicans over so often--are these simply the not well-grounded ones?

2) Have you ever tried showing the the well-grounded ones how un-Apostolic the axioms of their paradigms are?  They don't even understand the energetic Assimilation to God in Gen. 1:26--so far as I've ever heard!

http://orlapubs.com/AR/R265.htm gives a list of pages dealing with the East's paradigm vs. the West's.

Afanasy
Logged

afanasiy
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2003, 05:10:51 PM »

I'm sorry.  I can barely make heads or tales out of this.  "Axiom's of their paradigms"?!?

I clicked on the link and got a "File not found".  

 Huh Huh

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2003, 07:12:09 PM »

I didn't understand it either but assumed some of it was highfalutin academic 'let's be super-Eastern to try to prove how different we are from Western Catholicism' stuff I'm not interested in anyway.

First of all, there aren't that many Anglicans in the US from whom one could convert, anyway - there simply never were.

Second, the logical, historical home for catholic-minded 'well-grounded' Anglicans is of course the Roman Catholic Church, so that's where a lot of converts go.

Third, ISTM such 'well-grounded' converts are a significant part of what I call the recent convert 'boomlet' to Eastern Orthodoxy - ex-Episcopalians make up most of the small Western Rite experimental congregations in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch's archdiocese in America.
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2003, 12:14:17 AM »

I agree with Serge's remark about knowledgeable Anglicans converting to Orthodoxy, at least to some extent. One of them is a very close friend of mine, a native Rhode Islander who went from Anglican to Roman Catholic to Orthodox. He is currently a seminarian and is one of the sharpest guys I know.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2003, 10:18:11 AM »

I didn't understand it either but assumed some of it was highfalutin academic 'let's be super-Eastern to try to prove how different we are from Western Catholicism' stuff I'm not interested in anyway.


I managed to get a page that Afanasiy has posted as a answer in several threads.  It is confusing, difficult to read and unclear as to how it pertains to the threads.  I'm sorry, but  it's not "highfalutin academic".  

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,369



« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2003, 10:19:10 AM »

I agree with Serge's remark about knowledgeable Anglicans converting to Orthodoxy, at least to some extent.

Which part?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2003, 12:31:46 AM »

I agree with Serge's remark about knowledgeable Anglicans converting to Orthodoxy, at least to some extent.

Which part?

Ebor

This part:

Quote
Third, ISTM such 'well-grounded' converts are a significant part of what I call the recent convert 'boomlet' to Eastern Orthodoxy

I have met several other Orthodox who are converts from Anglicanism, but, since I don't know them well, I cannot comment on how "well-grounded" they were as Anglicans.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Skipper
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


Kyrie Eleison


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2003, 08:36:38 PM »

Quote
I have met several other Orthodox who are converts from Anglicanism, but, since I don't know them well, I cannot comment on how "well-grounded" they were as Anglicans.

Hi.  Although I am not even yet a catechumen,  I was introduced into the sacramental, catholic church through Anglicanism.  I attended a small parish in Orange County for about 7 months, which was afflilated with the Episcopal Church of America, but is very Anglo-Catholic in celebration of Mass.  I assure you, I am well grounded in Anglicanism; I have read the saints and know many of the doctrines of the church.  I have been going to an Orthodox church for about a 6 weeks now, and the reasons are simple.  I want to be sacramentally baptised, and enter communion with a "high" church; I was a catechumen in my Anglican church, but then I realized that when I take the Eucharist there, I am declaring communion with all the...uh...interesting characters...of the church.  The small parish I went to was very conservative, many of the parish being familiar with Orthodoxy also (there were even ikons in the church!), but the ECA is very liberal, condoning perversion of all sorts.  In good conscience, I cannot be part of a church like that.  So I started going to an Orthodox church.  I have done much reading, and spoke with an Orthodox priest (who was a former Episcopal priest) about the differences.  Although I was offended with his bluntness, upon speaking with educated people about the differences, even this hard-nosed Anglican could see that there were many problems...Once you study the history and apostolicity (?) of the church, a well-grounded Anglican will see the problems.  Now as far as Orthodoxy being right... Wink That's another story!
Logged

Lord, enlighten me; help me to know Thy will.  Bring light to my darkened heart and mind.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2003, 09:04:22 AM »

At the moment, it doesn't look as if I'm going to have time soon to tell my story, so I shall have to cinfine myself to a few remarks here.

Why should a well-grounded Anglican go to Orthodoxy? Could it not be complained that he is, in fact, not well-grounded-- in Anglicanism-- if he should abandon it so easily?

Conversion is not one simple thing. It isn't just assent to theological propositions-- at least, it shouldn't be. Most people are more whole than that.

Episcopalians should feel more akin to Catholicism than to Orthodoxy, as Serge says. We are from the same tradition, after all. But in practice it doesn't work that way, at least not in the USA. In practice, Episcopalians tend to find Roman Catholic worship repellent and juvenile. Episcopalians are more likely to sing the ancient music of Catholicism than Catholics are, and the great works of the Catholic organists are unlikely to be heard in Catholic churches, but rather in Episcopal churches. Ironically, the only element of the Episcopal Church that has taken to Catholic music as it exists now is an evangelical element that was exposed to that music through Cursillo.

It seems to me that some elements of Orthodox theology and advice are quite close to Anglicanism. It is common enough for an Episcopal priest to recommend Christian Proficiency (the most classically anglican of manuals) in one breath and Beginning to Pray in the next. In this age there is not the same similarity to Catholicism.

But the real answer lies elsewhere. It lies in distress. It's trying to get away from Spong and Pike and any number of other bad bishops. Well-groundedness may or may not have any input in this, and well-groundedness may or may not lay out the same solution.
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2003, 01:49:50 PM »

This is turning out to be a good thread.

I've been hesitating about replying, as self-disclosure online is usually a mistake (a little English reserve is a good thing), but here goes.

First, welcome, Skipper!

Quote
Although I am not even yet a catechumen,  I was introduced into the sacramental, catholic church through Anglicanism.
 

I'm sure you were - have you seen my Anglo-Catholicism page?

Quote
I attended a small parish in Orange County for about 7 months, which was afflilated with the Episcopal Church of America, but is very Anglo-Catholic in celebration of Mass.
 

Glad you seem to have found some sincere ones - some still exist in the Episcopal Church (the acronym for which is ECUSA, BTW, not ECA, FYI Smiley ). Regrettably, some other places that have Mass like that are really liberal underneath.

Quote
I have been going to an Orthodox church for about 6 weeks now, and the reasons are simple.  I want to be sacramentally baptised, and enter communion with a "high" church; I was a catechumen in my Anglican church, but then I realized that when I take the Eucharist there, I am declaring communion with all the...uh...interesting characters...of the [that] church.


I think I understand what you're getting at and at least partly agree. The trouble with even an orthodox, sincere Anglo-Catholic congregation is that in my POV (with all due respect to Ebor and Keble) it is not part of the larger church - it is part of a liberal Protestant denomination.

But what you write also seems a little confusing. Were you never baptized? How could you receive communion if you were not? Were you preparing for baptism at the Episcopal church or simply taking instruction to be confirmed there? Or do you mean what hardline Eastern Orthodox mean and are now considering/seeking (re)baptism by the Orthodox? (I understand the logic of these people but still don't like rebaptism.)

Quote
The small parish I went to was very conservative, many of the parish being familiar with Orthodoxy also (there were even ikons in the church!), but the EC[US]A is very liberal, condoning perversion of all sorts.


See above. That's the rub. Anglo-Catholicism only makes sense if one is convinced that 1) Anglicanism is part of the larger Church Catholic and 2) the Anglo-Catholics have the true understanding of Anglicanism and it's a matter of enlightening other churchmen about this fact. The reality, however, is the Broad Churchmen (liberals, modernists), not the High, won and are in charge.

Quote
In good conscience, I cannot be part of a church like that.


Precisamente. If you're honest with yourself and with God, you can't live in a fantasy world in one congregation and ignore the larger body it belongs to.

Quote
So I started going to an Orthodox church.  I have done much reading, and spoke with an Orthodox priest (who is a former Episcopal priest) about the differences.  Although I was offended with his bluntness, upon speaking with educated people about the differences, even this hard-nosed Anglican could see that there were many problems...Once you study the history and apostolicity (?) of the church, a well-grounded Anglican will see the problems.  Now as far as Orthodoxy being right...  That's another story!

One basic difference between me and some here and some in Eastern Orthodoxy in general is I see things a lot like Fr Lev (Gillet) did: I see the same light, only clearer. You see, to me, EOxy has every essential I believed in all along* as a would-be RC (they confirmed me and taught me how to go to Confession) and a would-be Anglo-Catholic (disclosures: I was baptized Anglican when I was a month old and in my 20s spent a term at a theological college in England - not that I learnt or retained enough to be a theologian!). This is what I mean by 'I believe EOxy is right' or 'I believe everything EOxy teaches', because all of its positive doctrinal statements are simply statements of those fundamental beliefs. 'Mere Christianity' with icons and a liturgy. Or as I like to say, Orthodoxy IS Catholicism in 11th-century Greek theological form.

The reason I like Russian culture (the language, the rite) isn't to stick it to Western Catholicism, for example, but because, just like the rest of medieval Christendom East and West, it tried to live out those fundamentals, to incarnate them, however very imperfectly. And as you can see from reading The Way of a Pilgrim and other 19th-century Russian books, it often did so beautifully.

Another way of putting it is while everything I believe as essential is contained in EOxy, I don’t think I believe any opinion peculiar to EOxy, or to RCism for that matter, as necessary for salvation.

Some of you probably are going to jump on that as relativistic, denying the one true church, etc. I don’t care.

I don’t claim I can back myself up academically either, but that’s what I really believe.

And I see the risks in what I wrote, ecclesiologically speaking — authority and communion ecclesiology (which, IMO, EOxy has a bead on) keep it from flying away into vagante fantasyland.

I do believe in EOxy’s Churchness and consequently that it has grace — speculation about everybody else is nondogmatic in EOxy and is wide-open space where people like me have lots of breathing room.

Where the difference comes in is that IMO I don't hold, like some 'blunt' (rude) EOs, that these fundamentals are the exclusive property or invention of Eastern Orthodoxy.

(I'm not dogmatizing or claiming to proclaim EO dogma, simply stating opinion that happens to be in the range of EO opinion.)

This strain among at least some EOs comes off to me and I dare say to people like Keble and Ebor, and to Catholics of good will, as simply arrogance. Ignorance and ethnocentrism/chauvinism, even more repellent (hateful, ungrateful, dishonest) coming from converts. (You usually don't get this from ethnics because they've got nothing to prove to themselves - they're happy with their received form of religion and don't care about anything else.)

To use two of my favorite illustrations, this is as ridiculous as Mr Portokalos claiming the word kimono is Greek or Mr Chekov on 'Star Trek' claiming every scientific discovery for the Russians. And perhaps born out of the same defensiveness and inferiority complex.

My russophilia as described above, I dare say, is different to this, which I would agree is ‘playing Russian’, etc., in an obnoxious way. (I see fixations with certain jurisdictions the same way.)

Quote
Episcopalians should feel more akin to Catholicism than to Orthodoxy, as Serge says. We are from the same tradition, after all. But in practice it doesn't work that way, at least not in the USA. In practice, Episcopalians tend to find Roman Catholic worship repellent and juvenile.

Because it is.

Quote
Episcopalians are more likely to sing the ancient music of Catholicism than Catholics are, and the great works of the Catholic organists are unlikely to be heard in Catholic churches, but rather in Episcopal churches.

True and true. Bitterly ironic, innit?

Quote
It seems to me that some elements of Orthodox theology and advice are quite close to Anglicanism.

True, because sound Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox often use the same source material, the Church Fathers.

Quote
But the real answer lies elsewhere. It lies in distress. It's trying to get away from Spong and Pike and any number of other bad bishops. Well-groundedness may or may not have any input in this, and well-groundedness may or may not lay out the same solution.

Of course the converts to whom you refer hold, and I agree, that Spong, Bennison, Ingham, Harries (two of whom I've met) et al. aren't aberrations from a system grounded in Catholic Christianity but rather are the logical result of a system grounded in Protestantism. One can read Newman and not be a bit surprised to find out later that the Broad Churchmen are in charge of Anglicanism today. He saw it coming, which was why he left.

*See my blog, May 16, 'What I believe'.
Logged

neoconwarmonger
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2003, 02:31:40 PM »

Why the secrecy Sergius? SECTION DELETED FOR FOCUSING ON PERONSAL INFO INSTEAD OF SERGE'S STATED OPINIONS We all know these things. We all know you think the Roman Catholic Church has valid mysteries even though they are in heresy.

It sounds like you'd be happier being a Roman Catholic in many of your postings here and at your ever-plugged blog and peacenik site. But then maybe you would rather be a protestant again since you say all that Orthodoxy is to you is "mere christianity with icons and liturgy". What a minimalist misunderstanding of the faith!

Orthodoxy is maximalist for maximalists. If you do not get that in your ever claim to hate converts (even thought you are one) and trying to play Russian cradle, maybe you should reconsider your course.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2003, 05:08:44 PM by anastasios » Logged
the slave
intolerant of intolerance
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: UGCC
Posts: 810



« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2003, 04:28:11 PM »

neoconwarmonger,

I'll leave Serge to deal with your comments to/about him - me I would consider them , if applied to me, as not worthy of comment.

Frankly I think it's time you learnt some manners.
Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."
- St. John Maximovitch
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2003, 04:34:37 PM »

Quote
It seems to me that some elements of Orthodox theology and advice are quite close to Anglicanism.

True, because sound Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox often use the same source material, the Church Fathers.

Actually, I don't agree. It seems to me that they are both tapping into a common reservoir of true spirituality which includes some of the fathers, but also excludes some of them, and which includes plenty of people outside the East.

Quote
Quote
But the real answer lies elsewhere. It lies in distress. It's trying to get away from Spong and Pike and any number of other bad bishops. Well-groundedness may or may not have any input in this, and well-groundedness may or may not lay out the same solution.

Of course the converts to whom you refer hold, and I agree, that Spong, Bennison, Ingham, Harries (two of whom I've met) et al. aren't aberrations from a system grounded in Catholic Christianity but rather are the logical result of a system grounded in Protestantism. One can read Newman and not be a bit surprised to find out later that the Broad Churchmen are in charge of Anglicanism today. He saw it coming, which was why he left.

Hmmmmmmmm....... I don't think so. I think Newman got caught up in a romance with the English Roman Catholic Church-- or maybe with a fantasy RC church.

The thing is that Spong in particular is responding to things that were never Anglican. Tillich, I am told, was fond of referring to the Incarnation as "the Anglican heresy". (I've never been able to verify this quote, however.) And thus the problem is whether you are willing to trade Orthodoxy's problems, and the knowledge that you will never be rid of them, for Spong, knowing that he can't live forever and that there is some hope of changing Anglicanism to exclude Spong in the future.
Logged
Jonathan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 794


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2003, 04:45:34 PM »

Conversion is not one simple thing. It isn't just assent to theological propositions-- at least, it shouldn't be. Most people are more whole than that.

Episcopalians should feel more akin to Catholicism than to Orthodoxy, as Serge says. We are from the same tradition, after all. But in practice it doesn't work that way, at least not in the USA. In practice, Episcopalians tend to find Roman Catholic worship repellent and juvenile. Episcopalians are more likely to sing the ancient music of Catholicism than Catholics are, and the great works of the Catholic organists are unlikely to be heard in Catholic churches, but rather in Episcopal churches. Ironically, the only element of the Episcopal Church that has taken to Catholic music as it exists now is an evangelical element that was exposed to that music through Cursillo.

But the real answer lies elsewhere. It lies in distress. It's trying to get away from Spong and Pike and any number of other bad bishops. Well-groundedness may or may not have any input in this, and well-groundedness may or may not lay out the same solution.


Does familiarity equate to appeal though?  Sure Catholicism feels more like Anglicanism than Orthodoxy does, the worship is more similar... but does that necissarily imply that Catholicism should be more appealing to Anglicans?  I was used to the Catholic Mass & hours, and my reasons for chosing Orthodox were historical and doctrinal not liturgical... but despite the Catholic Mass being what I was familiar with, after the first month of going to Liturgy when I got to know it enough to appreciate it rather than just be confused, it felt right.  It was very different to what I was used to, and yet the more I went the more it felt like home... I'm not saying that every bit of the way Orthodox Christians worship is superior to all others in every possibly way... but I just don't think that familiarity necessarily indicates where you'll feel at home.  I certainly wasn't trying to escape the sex scandles of the Catholic Church... they didn't make me question the Church in the least, they are the sins of individuals and don't show anything about the validity or spirituality of the Church.
Logged
Skipper
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


Kyrie Eleison


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2003, 03:48:05 PM »

As far as the Eucharist thing goes, the situation at the Anglican church I went to was interesting.  2/3 of the students go to the small honors college I attend.  The college is part of a larger Protestant university, but as for itself, the director is Eastern Orthodox, and many of the students become either Anglican, Orthodox, or Lutheran (the high, conservative type).  I, like most of the students, was baptized Protestant.  Although the church is conservative, they practice a (technical) open table, where all baptized Christians can take the Eucharist (provided they believe it to actually be the Eucharist, not just symbolic).  I am not sure where this stands with the Episcopal communion, but I just know it was how we would do it.  The priest encouraged us to become catechumens and to be confirmed into the church, not as the Episcopal Church, but rather be confirmed into “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  So, I did become a catechumen shortly there, but then realized that I could not in good conscience declare communion or associate myself with the disgusting immorality of the Episcopal church (and I am in California, where the immorality is outstanding).  I would not have been baptized in the Episcopal Church, rather only confirmed and charismated.

Quote
The reality, however, is the Broad Churchmen (liberals, modernists), not the High, won and are in charge.
Oh yes, so unfortunately true!

Quote
Another way of putting it is while everything I believe as essential is contained in EOxy, I don’t think I believe any opinion peculiar to EOxy, or to RCism for that matter, as necessary for salvation.
I won’t jump on this, but I would like a little more explaination.  (I assume you’ll really smart people have really good reasons for such opinions, right?)  Smiley

Quote
Where the difference comes in is that IMO I don't hold, like some 'blunt' (rude) EOs, that these fundamentals are the exclusive property or invention of Eastern Orthodoxy.
With no offense intended to anyone here, aren’t all religions like that?  I mean, all conservative religions believe themselves to be the holders of the truth.  I had to wrestle with this idea the very first time I met an Antiochian priest (about 2 months ago), and I was really offended by his “hate” of the West.  He was very nice, polite, and all that, but he just kept speaking of sacraments/mysteries and graces as being in the property of the EO church alone.  But then (as my friend tried to console me), think of it this way:  Would you go to a church where the priest thought any differently?
Logged

Lord, enlighten me; help me to know Thy will.  Bring light to my darkened heart and mind.
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2003, 04:24:29 PM »

Quote
As far as the Eucharist thing goes, the situation at the Anglican church I went to was interesting.  2/3 of the students go to the small honors college I attend.  The college is part of a larger Protestant university, but as for itself, the director is Eastern Orthodox, and many of the students become either Anglican, Orthodox, or Lutheran (the high, conservative type).  I, like most of the students, was baptized Protestant.  Although the church is conservative, they practice a (technical) open table, where all baptized Christians can take the Eucharist (provided they believe it to actually be the Eucharist, not just symbolic).  I am not sure where this stands with the Episcopal communion, but I just know it was how we would do it.  The priest encouraged us to become catechumens and to be confirmed into the church, not as the Episcopal Church, but rather be confirmed into “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

AFAIK that's standard operating procedure throughout the Episcopal Church now, even in the conservative high churches. My favorite local Anglo-Catholic church does exactly this, which surprised me (no, I don't receive there). It used to be more like the Catholic and Orthodox churches with 'closed communion' - only people who had been confirmed or, if already confirmed by an apostolic church, formally received into the Episcopal Church could receive.

Quote
I won’t jump on this, but I would like a little more explaination.  (I assume you’ll really smart people have really good reasons for such opinions, right?)  

OK, I'll have a go. The basic orthodoxy I believe in, and that is dogmatically believed by the EOs, is also believed in by Catholics and, so the experts now say, the Oriental and Assyrian Churches. (Classical Protestants believe in a pared-down subset of this orthodoxy - basically the first four councils but not the one about icons. They are trinitarians - Christians.) I think I can safely say postschism opinions of EOs aren't necessary for salvation because EOxy hasn't dogmatized anything since the split. How grace works is speculation. The Trinity is not - it is dogma.

See recent entries on my blog for more.
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2003, 01:10:03 AM »

Quote
With no offense intended to anyone here, aren’t all religions like that?  I mean, all conservative religions believe themselves to be the holders of the truth.  I had to wrestle with this idea the very first time I met an Antiochian priest (about 2 months ago), and I was really offended by his “hate” of the West.  He was very nice, polite, and all that, but he just kept speaking of sacraments/mysteries and graces as being in the property of the EO church alone.  But then (as my friend tried to console me), think of it this way:  Would you go to a church where the priest thought any differently?

Within Christianity this is part of the problem of ecclesiology: just what is the Church and who is in it?

I won't deny that it is a thorny issue, even for a convinced Orthodox Catholic like me.

The Church is visible as well as spiritual; she is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic; she is the Body of Christ.

But when we look at Christendom - the crowd of people who are known as Christians - we see that it has few of those qualities. Particularly conspicuous by its absence is oneness or unity.

Protestant sects have histories that do not extend beyond the Reformation. Some emerged from other Protestant groups, and all of the first Protestant groups came out of the RCC. They were founded upon Jesus (so they say), but, historically speaking, not by Jesus.

What of the groups that are of genuine, historical, apostolic foundation?

Although not as divided as the Protestants, the ancient Christian churches are nonetheless plagued by divisions. There is a great deal of common ground among Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, but the things that separate us are nevertheless very real obstacles to unity.

I accept by faith that the Holy Orthodox Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Yet I wrestle in my mind and spirit with the issue of Christian unity.

How should I regard the Roman Catholic Church?

I have many RC friends. There is little difference, as far as I can tell, in the things we believe.

I am aware of our actual doctrinal differences and that some EOs regard the RCC as not only schismatic but heretical, even diabolical.

But man, I just don't know . . . we have differences, but diabolical?

The Oriental Orthodox I have encountered deny the charge of monophysitism, and I believe them. So what's the problem? History, and the place of the Council of Chalcedon in Orthodox doctrine. Sounds petty, but those things go right to the heart of our notion of authority and the infallibility of the Church in her ecumenical councils.

We may have reunion with the OOs by simply looking the other way for awhile and reestablishing communion. That seems to have started already, at least with the Antiochians.

But that seems to leave an unreduced fortress in our rear.

I cannot buy the "phantom church" ecclesiology of Evangelicalism or the "Branch Theory"; but ecclesiology is not a simple subject, especially in its soteriological ramifications.

My brain hurts from it. My heart and spirit trust in my Savior and the Church He founded. My prayers are with the rest of Christendom.

Some things are too difficult for me.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2003, 01:21:24 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 43 queries.