OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 08:38:06 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 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Episcopal Church ousts 61 clergy  (Read 5739 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #45 on: June 01, 2009, 03:35:37 PM »

Vladimir Moss appears to be the originator of the deathbed prophesy nonsense, so I cannot accept him as an authority.
Logged
SbdcnDavid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 65


« Reply #46 on: June 01, 2009, 07:54:09 PM »

Odd, the thread you link provides citations to the New Advent encyclopedia published by the Latins as quoting the prophecy.  The report of a deathbed prophecy by Edward the Confessor doesn't seem to have originated with Moss, even if he might have been the first to give it an Orthodox interpretation in seeing the calamity to befall England not as protestantism, but the imposition of papal rule. 

Of course, as one of the modern fathers (I think St. Justin Popovich) pointed out, the Pope was the first protestant, so maybe the two interpretations aren't that different (if you're Orthodox  Smiley ).

Both Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition and Moss's The Fall of Orthodox England have footnotes.  The argument either holds or it doesn't whoever is making it.  (If one dismisses something because its author gave a controversial interpretation of a prophecy, do you think we should throw the writings of Evagarius of Pontus out of The Philokalia?  After all he was condemned as an Origenist.  Or should we stop reading Tertullian?)

Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #47 on: June 01, 2009, 08:00:58 PM »

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.
Do you have any sources for this? I'd definitely like read more about Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia.

That would be interesting
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #48 on: June 01, 2009, 09:04:29 PM »

Moss does quote the prophecy more or less accurately, but the spin he puts on it is completely insupportable. In reality the prophecy was put to various uses, mostly political, culminating in Aelred's interpretation of Matilda of Scotland's marriage to Henry I as a legitimization of the royal line. The mere presence of footnotes doesn't amount to much either.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #49 on: June 02, 2009, 02:26:33 AM »


Both Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition and Moss's The Fall of Orthodox England have footnotes.  The argument either holds or it doesn't whoever is making it. 

Just because it has footnotes doesn't make it authoritative or even trustworthy. The author has an agenda, and he seeks out whatever footnotes he can find to make his fairy tale look more like real history. With his creatively interpreted sources and with sources which challenge his interpretation conveniently left out, he has built a case which appears much stronger than it really is.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 02:29:33 AM by lubeltri » Logged
SDMPNS
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: raised in Metropolia which became the OCA now I belong to a GOA parish..
Posts: 540


Praise God for the beauty of Creation


« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2009, 07:12:53 AM »

One thing I have always wondered about is why isn't the Orthodox Church seen as a viable alternative when Episcopalians leave? A Episcopalian Church split off here in Pensacola,Florida and I visited them for a open house one saturday and I was amazed that they hadn't even considered Orthodoxy and , Lord have Mercy!, many had no idea of what Orthodoxy is!
What can/should we do? I know many people are in deep pain over what their Church has done..I remember how heartsick my father was when he quit going to his episcopal church...I think he didn't convert because of his deep sense of identification with his anglo/scottish heritage...phyletism with kilts!  oot man!
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2009, 10:30:36 AM »

Since Ebor insists, I would point him to the site http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/hp.php, which posts extensive excerpts from the book Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition.

Thank you for posting the sites/views you had in mind.  I know of that site and of Mr. Moss' work.  I did not mean to upset you by asking for you to provide the information.  I did not want to make assumptions that would be incorrect and would be unfair to you.  I apologize for any offense.

Quote
For Alpo, the only source I can point to is very thin:  in his book Saints of England's Golden Age, Vladimir Moss, proposes a calendar of Western Orthodox saints with a focus on Britain.  Besides proposing the veneration of Ethelric, Bishop of Durham as a hieromartyr with the preculiar title "Last English Orthodox Hierarch", he proposes the veneration as hieromartyrs of several bishops in Scandinavia who reposed after the conventional date of the Western schism:  Eskil, Bishop of Strangnas (in Sweden) and David of Munkthorp who both of whom reposed in 1080.

It is, as far as I have found, Mr. Moss' own idea that Eskil and David are "Orthodox" though they passed away 26 years after the Great Schism. These saints may be found listed in RC source materials as well. I also found "Butler's Lives of the Saints" available on Google books and that has an entry for St. Eskil  on page 97.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WjpZkzfQRQwC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=Eskil,+Bishop+of+Strangnas&source=bl&ots=8ofZVZ90_a&sig=Icd8eu8MOrhfkJi92hOYFToT3kQ&hl=en&ei=cjElSpDiII6ElAeT0vjYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

David of Munkthorp may also be found in other sources. He founded a Benedictine monastery and died of old age http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0715.shtml 
a bit over half way down the page.

Quote
Moss also authored a small book The Fall of Orthodox England, which can be downloaded from his website (Okay Ebor, do a Google search, I'm not going back to find you that URL) which has as its twin purposes the setting down of the history of the Norman Conquest from the point of view of ecclesiastical and spiritual history, and the making of the case for the sanctity of various figures (notably Harold Godwinson) on the Saxon side.  It has footnotes.

Again, I did not intend to give you any offense in asking you to give some idea of your sources.  Here on OC.net it has been common behaviour to give links or titles to back up assertions of fact.  I have been asked to do so by moderators or others in the past and that is only fair, since if I am making a statement the onus is on me to support my claim with information other then standing on my own authority. 



Quote
Ebor asks if I regard the argumentation as 'true'.  Historical interpretation is always a mix of fact and opinion.  I am inclined to be of the opinion that England (and Britain in general) remained Orthodox until the Norman conquest.  I have given the reasons why:  on the live issues theological and ecclesiological that provoked the Latin schism from the Church, Saxon England stood with the Orthodox. 

To try and clarify what you have written and please correct any errors I make as I am trying to understand your viewpoint.  When you say the "live issues theological and ecclesiological" you are referring to the English Church not using the 'filioque' and that they were more umm connected with Constantinople then with Rome?   

Quote
Ebor's contrary position seems to be based on the misdefinition of the division between Orthodox and Latin based solely on jurisdiction of patriarchates, and a different opinion about the import of various medieval sources about connections between England and the Roman Empire.

You see me as using a "misdefinition". You seem to have another definition.  After the Great Schism, Christendom was divided into "West" and "East".  It is a matter of primary sources, that is records and writing of the time, that the  Patriarch in Rome was the one that England and the British Isles was connected to.   When you write that I have a "different opinion about the import of various medieval sources" I am not sure what you mean.  Primary sources are the most important for giving information about what was happening in a particular time and place.  I have mentioned the Anglo Saxon Chronicle as one.  I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your opinion is in this case.  Could you please state it more plainly?

Quote
  (By your leave, the Empire with its capital at Constantinople was the Roman Empire, that's what they called themselves, and the refusal by Charlemagne or later-day Western scholares to recognize that St. Constantine move the capital doesn't change the fact and make it a different "Greek" or "Byzantine" Empire.)

I know that.  I don't know why you say that 'scholares" refuse to recognize that the capitol was moved to Constantinople; that can be found in reputable history texts by good historians.  But that did not make the city of Rome, in what is now Italy disappear, nor remove it's significance in Christendom particularly in the western areas of Europe.  How do you see strong historical connections politically between the rulers of England and the Emperor in Constantinople? 

Respectfully,

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: 6,432



« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2009, 11:28:59 AM »

Odd, the thread you link provides citations to the New Advent encyclopedia published by the Latins as quoting the prophecy.  The report of a deathbed prophecy by Edward the Confessor doesn't seem to have originated with Moss, even if he might have been the first to give it an Orthodox interpretation in seeing the calamity to befall England not as protestantism, but the imposition of papal rule. 

The "Deathbed Prophecy" is found in a document from the time the Vita Aedwardi which was written in Latin by an anonymous author and is available (though scarce) in an excellent English translation by Frank Barlow a historian and Emeritus Professor at the University of Exeter in England. I have a copy along with his biography of Edward the Confessor.    It was never said that Mr. Moss "originated" it, but that he first did not provide a source for it in the short form in which it may be found on the 'net such as in the OP of the linked thread here on OC.net.  The second problem is with the added paragraph which in not in the original, would seem therefore to be Mr. Moss interpretation and is, in historical fact simply wrong.  There is an simple and easily checked error in his claim that the "year and a day" of the prophecy came true.  The exact quote from that is

"King Edward died on January 5, 1066. One year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, the Roman Catholic William the Conqueror was crowned king of England in Westminster Abbey."

That is not true.  Edward the Confessor did die on January 5th and this is attested to in the primary sources including the Vita.  But William of Normandy was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066.

Furthermore, the "calamity" that would come to England mentioned in the Prophecy was because the clerics and rulers in that country were not righteous but "servants of the devil"
and it was taken to be by those writing in the ensuing years about the live of Edward the Confessor to be the Normans not anything about a different religion.
 
Quote
Both Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition and Moss's The Fall of Orthodox England have footnotes.  The argument either holds or it doesn't whoever is making it.  (If one dismisses something because its author gave a controversial interpretation of a prophecy, do you think we should throw the writings of Evagarius of Pontus out of The Philokalia?  After all he was condemned as an Origenist.  Or should we stop reading Tertullian?)

Yes, he gives footnotes in those works but in some cases, such as those on the "Orthodox" saints in Scandinavia he cites his own work. Mr. Moss is claiming his own authority to support his argument. I have put out an inter-library loan for three other books that he cites, all by Frank Barlow interestingly enough, so that I can check his references.

He may make a "controversial interpretation" as much as he likes, but that does not mean that he is either unbiased or correct.  Given a choice in the presenting and interpretation of history Frank Barlow and Sir Steven Runciman (an well-known scholar of the middle ages with works on Constantinople and the EO Church as well) among others are much more to be preferred.


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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2009, 11:35:19 AM »

One thing I have always wondered about is why isn't the Orthodox Church seen as a viable alternative when Episcopalians leave? A Episcopalian Church split off here in Pensacola,Florida and I visited them for a open house one saturday and I was amazed that they hadn't even considered Orthodoxy and , Lord have Mercy!, many had no idea of what Orthodoxy is!
What can/should we do? I know many people are in deep pain over what their Church has done..I remember how heartsick my father was when he quit going to his episcopal church...I think he didn't convert because of his deep sense of identification with his anglo/scottish heritage...phyletism with kilts!  oot man!
This is a reason why I am a firm supporter of WRO: the Eastern in EO is an unnecessary block for some.

On the Episcopalian side, there are those who resent the WRO assertion that some things have to be changed to be in conformity with the Ancient Faith.  For those, there's not much we can do but pray.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2009, 03:13:07 PM »

I see here that once again one of our beloved Episcopal members has objected somewhat to the fact that many of us do consider pre-Norman Britain to have been Orthodox. Whenever a call, wish, or prayer that those of the Anglican communion "come home" (to Orthodoxy) they take issue with the contention that Britain was Orthodox - usually seemingly denying that a time of Byzantine chant and ornate iconostasios existed there. In that they are correct. Britain received Christianity from the African monastic traditions and the active evangelization efforts of the Church of Hippo long before the Norman invasion.
But the Norman invasion was every bit a papal crusade fomented by the pope, supported by him, encouraged by offers of indulgences to the Normans all with the stated goal of replacing the existing English bishops with Latin ones. I've often made reference to Sally McKee's book, Uncommon Dominion which details this conquest. The use of Latin matters not. (The influential Church of Hippo always used Latin and was the main force which caused Rome earlier to cease using Greek and use Latin).
Despite the closeness in date of 1066 to 1054 - the nominal date of the final break, nowhere do I read that the Church in England broke communion with ANY church. All this begs the question, what would have made the pre-Norman Church in Britain NOT Orthodox? - looking at it from the other end of the historical microscope. Nothing that I can find. Exactly what church was being replaced by the pope? The one subservient to him which theretofore Britain had not been?
To me, the Anglican church created by King Henry indeed has Rome as it's mother. Home for that church is with the pope, sorry to say. To me, when the bishops of a church are replaced the church has been replaced and it to the replaced church that we wish the British to return home.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
SbdcnDavid
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 65


« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2009, 11:45:36 PM »

One thing I have always wondered about is why isn't the Orthodox Church seen as a viable alternative when Episcopalians leave? A Episcopalian Church split off here in Pensacola,Florida and I visited them for a open house one saturday and I was amazed that they hadn't even considered Orthodoxy and , Lord have Mercy!, many had no idea of what Orthodoxy is!
What can/should we do? I know many people are in deep pain over what their Church has done..I remember how heartsick my father was when he quit going to his episcopal church...I think he didn't convert because of his deep sense of identification with his anglo/scottish heritage...phyletism with kilts!  oot man!

I think the reason is that the Episcopalians who are now leaving are largely Low Church evangelicals.

Back when it was the serious Oxford Movement types leaving, most of us became Orthodox.  But we're all gone now, to Holy Orthodoxy, or the Latins, or the Continuing Anglican movement.  (Fr. Andrew of St. Michael's Skete has expressed the view that the only Western confession worth having ecumenical dialogs with was the splinter Anglican group that had dropped the filioque.)

Bishop Basil was given an honorary degree by Nashotah House, the main Anglo-Catholic seminary in the U.S. and thanked the seminary for sending him so many good and holy priests. 

Fr. Chad Hatfield, Fr. Patrick Reardon, Fr. Gregory Matthews-Green, Fr. Daniel Griffith, . . . and that's just the notable ex-Anglican Orthodox clergy who spring readily to mind.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2009, 05:31:51 AM »

I think the reason is that the Episcopalians who are now leaving are largely Low Church evangelicals.

Well, not exactly. After all, of the four departing dioceses, three are the traditional A-C dioceses.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2009, 07:36:30 AM »

A similar, but weaker, case can be made for a lingering of Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia into the 1070's on the basis that the filioque was not used in the Creed there until then.
Do you have any sources for this? I'd definitely like read more about Western Orthodoxy in Scandinavia.

I think I'm going to open a thread on this, it deserves it.

The answer may be found in "History of the archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen" By Adam of Bremen (trans. Timothy Reuter, Francis Joseph Tschan)
http://books.google.com/books?id=QsS-fAVrUgIC&dq=adam+of+bremen+history+of+the+archbishops+of+hamburg-bremen&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=F2sGwhx80i&sig=LFT6AuXJNKuQ7bf-9IuEy5f6-SE&hl=en&ei=Vl0mSoiTB5ixtgf0itjgBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPP1,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=InQSBFrXoHwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=History+of+the+archbishops+of+Hamburg-bremen

in which he chronicles Adalbert of Bremen's attempt to create a Patriarchate of the North (the Scandinavians kings, however, sought bishops from England).  He was a supporter of Henry in the Investiture Controversy, so not a friend of Rome's.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 07:39:39 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2009, 10:23:35 AM »

One thing I have always wondered about is why isn't the Orthodox Church seen as a viable alternative when Episcopalians leave? A Episcopalian Church split off here in Pensacola,Florida and I visited them for a open house one saturday and I was amazed that they hadn't even considered Orthodoxy and , Lord have Mercy!, many had no idea of what Orthodoxy is!

Well, I can think of a couple of reasons why.  As you yourself wrote, some EO parishes could come across as 'for members of ethnicity X" only.  Another reason could be that in many parts of the US/world there is little or no EO presence at all.  How can one expect people to know about something that they don't even know exists?  I have written before about what things are like in my home state of Montana.  The last I saw there were two functioning EO parishes in the entire state, one in Butte and one in Billings.  The GOA church in Great Falls has to import a priest a few times a year.  A couple of other towns have had missions, but that means not a regular priest either and the last it was reported here on the forum Missoula's priest had retired some time ago.   Similar patterns may be found in other parts of the west like Wyoming and Idaho where if there is an EO parish at all, it will most likely be in one of the cities.   So how is a person in a small town with no EO for hundreds of road miles supposed to know about, let alone consider that as a "viable alternative"?

Quote
What can/should we do? I know many people are in deep pain over what their Church has done..I remember how heartsick my father was when he quit going to his episcopal church...I think he didn't convert because of his deep sense of identification with his anglo/scottish heritage...phyletism with kilts!  oot man!

Is it really fair to call it "phyletism"? Did he say that Episcopal/Anglican churches were only for anglo/scots?  That's not what makes the Anglican Communion. Could it have been that his faith that he grew up with and the worship that he knew was a part of what made him a Christian?  Why would one think that a person who has been part of a particular Church for (I gather) many decades could easily switch to a very different pattern/practice?

Ebor
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:26:27 AM by 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.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #59 on: June 03, 2009, 01:11:12 PM »

One thing I have always wondered about is why isn't the Orthodox Church seen as a viable alternative when Episcopalians leave? A Episcopalian Church split off here in Pensacola,Florida and I visited them for a open house one saturday and I was amazed that they hadn't even considered Orthodoxy and , Lord have Mercy!, many had no idea of what Orthodoxy is!

Well, I can think of a couple of reasons why.  As you yourself wrote, some EO parishes could come across as 'for members of ethnicity X" only.  Another reason could be that in many parts of the US/world there is little or no EO presence at all.  How can one expect people to know about something that they don't even know exists?  I have written before about what things are like in my home state of Montana.  The last I saw there were two functioning EO parishes in the entire state, one in Butte and one in Billings.  The GOA church in Great Falls has to import a priest a few times a year.  A couple of other towns have had missions, but that means not a regular priest either and the last it was reported here on the forum Missoula's priest had retired some time ago.   Similar patterns may be found in other parts of the west like Wyoming and Idaho where if there is an EO parish at all, it will most likely be in one of the cities.   So how is a person in a small town with no EO for hundreds of road miles supposed to know about, let alone consider that as a "viable alternative"?

I don't. Those isolated Christians in the midst of a sea of Muslims didn't go to the mosque as a viable alternative.  And what did they do in Alaska, with the shortage of priests?  Or during communism?

What can/should we do? I know many people are in deep pain over what their Church has done..I remember how heartsick my father was when he quit going to his episcopal church...I think he didn't convert because of his deep sense of identification with his anglo/scottish heritage...phyletism with kilts!  oot man!

Is it really fair to call it "phyletism"?

Yes.

Quote
Did he say that Episcopal/Anglican churches were only for anglo/scots?  That's not what makes the Anglican Communion.

What "makes teh Anglican Communion" is quite a question now, isn't it?

Quote
Could it have been that his faith that he grew up with and the worship that he knew was a part of what made him a Christian?  Why would one think that a person who has been part of a particular Church for (I gather) many decades could easily switch to a very different pattern/practice?

Whether you stay in the "Anglican Communion," or go 'Doxing or submit to the Vatican, it seems switching to a different pattern/practice is involved no matter what you choose.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,436



« Reply #60 on: June 03, 2009, 02:08:57 PM »

I don't. Those isolated Christians in the midst of a sea of Muslims didn't go to the mosque as a viable alternative.  And what did they do in Alaska, with the shortage of priests?  Or during communism?

Surely it is beyond the pale to imply that Orthodox worshiping with other Christians is essentially like Christians worshiping with Muslims.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #61 on: June 03, 2009, 03:34:26 PM »

I don't. Those isolated Christians in the midst of a sea of Muslims didn't go to the mosque as a viable alternative.  And what did they do in Alaska, with the shortage of priests?  Or during communism?

Surely it is beyond the pale to imply that Orthodox worshiping with other Christians is essentially like Christians worshiping with Muslims.

Since there have been Epsicopalians worshipping with Muslims (saying the shahadah for instance as an ecumenical gesture and other strange things: there was a church that advertised studying the Quran as a "faith document," but I don't recall off hand if it was Episcopal), I guess not.

It seems that Anglicanism has lost the idea that going to the lowest common denominator makes poor ecclesiology.  No, as St. Maximus said "If the whole universe were to commun with you, I alone would not commun with you," not "As long as there is no convenient Orthodox Church around, and you love people and say Jesus, so pass the paten."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 03, 2009, 10:37:27 PM »

"FRESNO, Calif. - National leaders of the Episcopal Church have ousted 61 clergy who aligned with a former bishop in California when he broke with the national church in a dispute over the Bible and homosexuality"...
Full story:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30970998/


I am a former Anglo-Catholic. I was raised Baptist, but joined the ECUSA when I couldn't find any Charismatic Episcopal or C.E.E.C. parishes around pittsburgh.....since then the Pittsburgh diocese left the ECUSA or should I say that the ECUSA left the pittsburgh episcopal diocese. I am no longer Anglo-Catholic(from 2002 to 2007) I became E.O. in 2007 and if you ask me, what's keeping alot of high Anglicans away from E.O......at least from my limited experience, is that some of them care alot about their culture....more than they do "proper Christianity". They are use to certain customs and a certain british culture. Many of them feel that to become Orthodox means to stop being "british" or "english". Many of them are scared of becoming "greek" or "russian".

So there is a fear that they will loose their unique culture if they become Orthodox. I too once had the same fear......which is weird because I am African American, and shouldn't have that fear.....because I'm not british...I'm not scottish.....I'm not english.......ect.

But I took that leap of faith because The Faith is more important than ethnic culture. It is bigger than that.

And now that I made that leap, I know that the fear I once had was irrational. I feel more at home here than I did in all my protestant years elsewhere. When I started reading the works of the church fathers, I no longer felt at home as a Baptist, I never felt at home among the many Pentecostals, Charismatics, and Prespyterians. My conscience just wouldn't allow me to partake of communion with them.....and many of them were lovely people. I felt a little at home when I was Anglo-Catholic, for some shared my interests in patristics, and my conscience didn't bother me there. But as an Orthodox, I am no longer weird for reading patristics......for I found alot of Orthodox converts and young adult cradles that do the samething. They read what I read and I read what they read. And more importantly, I can partake of the mysteries without worrying about a priest/pastor minister or confession of faith saying that it isn't what I know it to be.

Orthodoxy is home. It was home for the first 1,000 years, and it's home now some 1,000 plus years later.




JNORM888
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:52:44 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,432



« Reply #63 on: June 06, 2009, 08:56:38 PM »

I'm sorry that I apparently didn't write clearly enough for some to understand my point.  I shall try to be more plain.  SDMPNS asked why some Episcopalians/Anglicans did not see EO as a "viable alternative" and I gave the example of my home state where there are few EO.  My point was that if a person has never met another who is EO, has never lived in a place where there is an EO presence be it parish or mission, where they do not know that there is such a thing as EO, where the majority of churches are RC, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist etc., how are they to have it as a "viable alternative"?  SDMPNS wrote of living in Florida, many other people here live in cities or areas with larger populations.  Living is such places is quite different then living in a small town on the High Plains or up in the Rockies.  There are counties in the west where the population is less then 1000.  Why would it be assumed that they would know anything at all about EO?

I hope that that is more clear now, SDMPNS.  Smiley

On another note, I have looked for "Uncommon Dominion" and there is apparently not a single copy in the state interlibrary loan system, so getting this book to read could take some time.  I looked it up, though, and I'm not sure how a book on the Venetians in Crete from 1211 to 1669 will address Anglo-Saxon England, but perhaps one of the colleges has a copy.  Here's a blurb about it for information's sake  http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/13422.html  On the other hand, I've gotten the notice that one of Barlow's books used by Mr. Moss is waiting for me at the library and I'll try to pick it up in the next couple of days.

Finally it would hardly seem fair to say that those who do not join one's chosen Church are "afraid".  I am not "afraid".  I do not believe that one has to be EO, or RC to be a Christian.



With respect,

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.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.127 seconds with 46 queries.