OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 06:56:45 AM *
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 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Relationships between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy  (Read 6993 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« on: August 27, 2009, 12:21:36 AM »

Liz, if being devoted to the Anglican Communion is very important to you, promptly ending the relationship will serve both of you in the long run.

You know that no one on this board can determine what is in your best interests.  As they say, breaking up is hard to do.   angel  Cry  angel


I have split this topic off of the original Convert Issues Forum Topic Mixed Relationships. Opinions as it has turned into a discussion of the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church and shoul be in the  Proetstant Orthodox Discussion Forum, wher I am moving it. It is a good discussion please continue it there.

Thomas
Convert Issues Forum Moderator
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 03:48:57 PM by Thomas » Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2009, 06:02:56 AM »


I have researched the Church of England, and would have to agree that it is made up, regardless of its traditions.  I consider it one of the "twice removed" churches, no different than the Lutherans or the Calvinists.  It is correct that the Baptists are not like the Anglicans, since they are regarded (at least as a whole) as themselves being spawned by the Church of England, making them a "thrice removed" denomination . . . at best.

The point I was trying to make (and, if I may presume, I suspect it's the same one HandmaidenofGod was trying to make) is that, regardless of what you believe to be the truth, it's not respectful to suggest that a vocation to the Anglican priesthood is a matter of 'whim' or playacting. However misguided you think these people are, you should accept that they are acting in good faith and with sincerity.

... You see, if we start mudslinging, it gets us nowhere - what's to stop someone coming onto the forum and saying, 'ah, well, I see that Punch here is an oldcalendarist/ newcalendarist heretic (delete as appropriate) and laying into you for that?
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2009, 06:08:57 AM »

It occurs to me, also, to observe that some of the men you consider to be leaders of the Church spent a great deal of time and effort in the early part of the last century trying to effect union between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. Do you think they thought the Anglican Church was 'made up'?
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2009, 10:07:07 AM »

It occurs to me, also, to observe that some of the men you consider to be leaders of the Church spent a great deal of time and effort in the early part of the last century trying to effect union between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. Do you think they thought the Anglican Church was 'made up'?

Well... actually, it was the Anglican Church which approached the Orthodox Church seeking union. Sadly that was not achieved. Since that time, the Anglican Church has wandered increasingly far from authentic Christianity. One has only to look at the turmoil brought about by the ordination of women, the ordination of gay/lesbian individuals, the recognition of same-sex marriage, the inclusive language changes in its book of common prayer and the increasing mythologizing of the Gospel stories. The Anglican Church today is not the Anglican Church of C.S. Lewis' day.

I would agree, however, that it is wrong to suggest that Anglican priests are play-acting. We should not presume to question the sincerity of their calling. Nevertheless, as Orthodox Christians we believe them to be sincerely wrong.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 10:07:55 AM by Douglas » Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2009, 10:21:43 AM »



Well... actually, it was the Anglican Church which approached the Orthodox Church seeking union.

I didn't say they didn't. I don't believe that leaders of the Orthodox Church would have spent so much time and effort on the question of union, had they not thought there was more to the Anglican Church than 'made up' beliefs. My understanding of that episode was that the Orthodox party were of the opinion that the Anglicans were misguided in many ways, but that they were hopeful of guiding the Anglicans away from these 'errors'. Neither side really understood where the other hand sticking points, and so the effort failed.

I can see your point about the significant changes to the Church in the intervening period, though.
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2009, 11:14:03 AM »

I should hasten to add, Liz, that I did not mean to imply that there aren't true Christians within the Anglican Church. We Orthodox believe that not all the sheep are within the fold, not all the wolves without, if you get my drift.  Wink
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,983


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2009, 11:18:12 AM »

Liz, if being devoted to the Anglican Communion is very important to you, promptly ending the relationship will serve both of you in the long run.

You know that no one on this board can determine what is in your best interests. 

SolEX01, I believe, has it right in a sense.  If both of you are seriously dedicated to your own faith (i.e. rank high up on the 'devout-o-meter' [I love that btw..]) , then it will require more verb for this particular condition in addition to all the other problems that arise in a marriage.  What I mean by 'verb' is 'love', which really is more of a verb than simply a feeling of some sort.  And while Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are not as different as, say, Anglicanism and Islam, there are differences, some of which are quite severe.  And seeing that the both of you will (as we all do) lean on our faith more when difficult times occur, if you're leaning in opposite directions rather than on each other a shared faith, it has the potential to create more friction.  Since it is clear that you already realize this, I believe that you're in much better position to deal with it than, say, someone with a "love conquers all" approach.  Going off of your own description, your partner, it seems, might have such an outlook.  I know that if the both of you are very honest, clear and transparent with each other about your needs, desires, wants, future plans, children, sex, in-laws, religion etc... you'll both be in a much better position to address problems as they arise.

P.S. I'm far from being an expert on these matters, but as a divorcee, I have more than just 'textbook' knowledge.  
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2009, 11:25:14 AM »

Thanks Douglas. That's a good way of putting it.

And thanks GabrieltheCelt (more than 'textbook' knowledge is usually the most useful - and tricky - kind to access).
« Last Edit: August 27, 2009, 11:25:59 AM by Liz » Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2009, 01:46:03 PM »

Neither side really understood where the other had sticking points, and so the effort failed.


You know, it struck me that this could be applicable for your future marriage, which I hope and pray it is not. But a similar dynamic could be at work.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,004


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2009, 02:31:45 PM »

Thanks Douglas. That's a good way of putting it.

And thanks GabrieltheCelt (more than 'textbook' knowledge is usually the most useful - and tricky - kind to access).

Simpler is better.  Thanks Gabriel for expounding on a simple explanation.   Smiley

Liz, what I said is blunt and forgive me for any offense.   angel  Sometimes, acting decisively is better than living years in misery.   Smiley

In Christ,
SolEX01
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #10 on: August 27, 2009, 03:16:13 PM »

Liz, if being devoted to the Anglican Communion is very important to you, promptly ending the relationship will serve both of you in the long run.

You know that no one on this board can determine what is in your best interests. 

while Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are not as different as, say, Anglicanism and Islam, there are differences, some of which are quite severe.  

I mentioned it before, but Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are not simply two "flavors" of Christianity, and so it doesn't really matter if you prefer strawberry while your future husband like mint chocolate chip. While the two may have been making approaches toward one another at some time in the past, there is no question now of any rapprochement - there are simply too many differences.

As a matter of fact, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA recently addressed a convention of "conservative" Episcopalians and basically called upon them to renounce their heresies.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #11 on: August 27, 2009, 03:44:50 PM »



I mentioned it before, but Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are not simply two "flavors" of Christianity, and so it doesn't really matter if you prefer strawberry while your future husband like mint chocolate chip. While the two may have been making approaches toward one another at some time in the past, there is no question now of any rapprochement - there are simply too many differences.

As a matter of fact, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA recently addressed a convention of "conservative" Episcopalians and basically called upon them to renounce their heresies.

I'm confused: the second paragraph seems to contradict the first. Was the Metropolitan calling on his Episcopalian audience to 'renounce their heresies' because he thought they could become like the Orthodox, or because he thought they couldn't?

But yes, I can't see much likelihood of the Anglican Church as a whole declaring union with the Orthodox Church now! We're not holding out hope for that, anyway.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #12 on: August 27, 2009, 04:33:04 PM »



I mentioned it before, but Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are not simply two "flavors" of Christianity, and so it doesn't really matter if you prefer strawberry while your future husband like mint chocolate chip. While the two may have been making approaches toward one another at some time in the past, there is no question now of any rapprochement - there are simply too many differences.

As a matter of fact, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA recently addressed a convention of "conservative" Episcopalians and basically called upon them to renounce their heresies.

I'm confused: the second paragraph seems to contradict the first. Was the Metropolitan calling on his Episcopalian audience to 'renounce their heresies' because he thought they could become like the Orthodox, or because he thought they couldn't?

But yes, I can't see much likelihood of the Anglican Church as a whole declaring union with the Orthodox Church now! We're not holding out hope for that, anyway.

“What would it take for this reconciliation to occur? The Metropolitan was explicit:.

Full affirmation of the orthodox Faith of the Apostles and Church Fathers, the seven Ecumenical Councils, the Nicene Creed in its original form (without the filioque clause inserted at the Council of Toledo, 589 A.D.), all seven Sacraments and a rejection of 'the heresies of the Reformation."

His Beatitude listed these in a series of 'isms'; Calvinism, anti-sacramentalism, iconoclasm and Gnosticism. The ordination of women to the Presbyterate and their consecration as Bishops has to end if intercommunion is to occur.”


http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=10693

Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2009, 04:50:52 PM »

Yes, I agree and understand that reconciliation isn't likely to happen. I was actually asking what you meant by your two paragraphs. Did the Metropolitan think that, if the Episcopalians 'renounced their heresies', then they'd Orthodox? Or did he mean to suggest that there was no core of correct belief and practice within the Episcopalian Church, and that they were 'merely' heretics? If the latter, I guess he would believe that his audience needed not only to renounce 'heresies', but also to build faith from the bricks up, as it were.

Basically, are you using this example to suggest that the Anglican Church is a deformation of Orthodoxy, with heresies added in, or are you suggesting that Anglicanism is a totally different thing from Orthodoxy, such that you could never find elements of the one in the other?
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2009, 11:09:52 AM »

are you suggesting that Anglicanism is a totally different thing from Orthodoxy, such that you could never find elements of the one in the other?

Obviously I'm no expert on Anglican theology, but I would have to say that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are totally different, as I've mentioned before: they are not simply different flavors of Christianity. Anglicans and Orthodox may use the same words when discussing faith/theology/beliefs, but the spirit and understanding are almost diametrically opposed.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2009, 11:22:07 AM »



Obviously I'm no expert on Anglican theology, but I would have to say that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are totally different, as I've mentioned before: they are not simply different flavors of Christianity. Anglicans and Orthodox may use the same words when discussing faith/theology/beliefs, but the spirit and understanding are almost diametrically opposed.

I don't agree. I'm not sure how to discuss the 'spirit' of either Church, but I don't see how they could be described as diametrically opposed when they agree on so many things (for starters, we both use the Nicene Creed, don't we?)
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2009, 01:30:37 PM »



Obviously I'm no expert on Anglican theology, but I would have to say that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are totally different, as I've mentioned before: they are not simply different flavors of Christianity. Anglicans and Orthodox may use the same words when discussing faith/theology/beliefs, but the spirit and understanding are almost diametrically opposed.

I don't agree. I'm not sure how to discuss the 'spirit' of either Church, but I don't see how they could be described as diametrically opposed when they agree on so many things (for starters, we both use the Nicene Creed, don't we?)

Actually, no, we don't. I believe that that Anglicans use the filioque, i.e. "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
This may seem a mere quibble but it is actually a vitally important theological point, and understanding.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 01:33:08 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2009, 01:44:47 PM »



Obviously I'm no expert on Anglican theology, but I would have to say that Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are totally different, as I've mentioned before: they are not simply different flavors of Christianity. Anglicans and Orthodox may use the same words when discussing faith/theology/beliefs, but the spirit and understanding are almost diametrically opposed.

I don't agree. I'm not sure how to discuss the 'spirit' of either Church, but I don't see how they could be described as diametrically opposed when they agree on so many things (for starters, we both use the Nicene Creed, don't we?)

Actually, no, we don't. I believe that that Anglicans use the filioque, i.e. "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."
This may seem a mere quibble but it is actually a vitally important theological point, and understanding.

True, but it is nevertheless the Nicene Creed.

From where I'm standing, the Anglican and Orthodox Churches are not by any means 'the same' or 'equivalent' - but there are numerous issues on which the two have no quarrel.
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2009, 01:47:46 PM »


From where I'm standing, the Anglican and Orthodox Churches are not by any means 'the same' or 'equivalent' - but there are numerous issues on which the two have no quarrel.

Sadly, those "numerous issues" are decreasing with a rapidity that makes many Orthodox wonder where exactly the Anglican Church is headed.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2009, 01:50:05 PM »


Sadly, those "numerous issues" are decreasing with a rapidity that makes many Orthodox wonder where exactly the Anglican Church is headed.

This is true too. It really worries me. Actually, my partner and I were discussing the problems the Anglican Church is having only the other day. I can only hope that Rowan Williams either a) grows a backbone or b) lets someone else capable in on the job!
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2009, 02:01:48 PM »



I mentioned it before, but Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are not simply two "flavors" of Christianity, and so it doesn't really matter if you prefer strawberry while your future husband like mint chocolate chip. While the two may have been making approaches toward one another at some time in the past, there is no question now of any rapprochement - there are simply too many differences.

As a matter of fact, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA recently addressed a convention of "conservative" Episcopalians and basically called upon them to renounce their heresies.

I'm confused: the second paragraph seems to contradict the first. Was the Metropolitan calling on his Episcopalian audience to 'renounce their heresies' because he thought they could become like the Orthodox, or because he thought they couldn't?

But yes, I can't see much likelihood of the Anglican Church as a whole declaring union with the Orthodox Church now! We're not holding out hope for that, anyway.


http://embedr.com/playlist/acna-assembly watch video 6 (by the way, the new leader(Archbishop) of the newly found ACNA denomination is my old /former ECUSA bishop of the diocese of Pittsburgh. He is a good man. I like him alot)

I use to be Episcopal for a number of years.....well an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian.


But what you are looking for by the Metropolitan is found on video # 6





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/
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2009, 02:38:31 PM »


True, but it is nevertheless the Nicene Creed.

From where I'm standing, the Anglican and Orthodox Churches are not by any means 'the same' or 'equivalent' - but there are numerous issues on which the two have no quarrel.

No, it's not the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not contain the filioque. That you think it's the same seems to prove my point.
Again, I'm no expert, but I can't think of many (any) issues that the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church would agree on.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,759



« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2009, 03:53:40 PM »

 Re: Mixed relationships. Opinions?
« on: August 26, 2009, 07:26:23 PM » Quote Modify Remove Warn Split Topic 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: HandmaidenofGod on August 25, 2009, 02:22:25 PM
Quote from: calligraphqueen on August 25, 2009, 10:12:16 AM
Liz it is refreshing to read through this thread. I admire your commitment to 'make sure' of some things before entering marriage.

I would definitely enter into a time of talking with your fiance's priest so that your questions can be answered and you aren't relying only on your love's ideas and beliefs. Any issues, present or future can be addressed. Obviously since I am a convert myself I would have to favor the Chrismation, and blessing of a priest under apostolic tradition versus those appointed by their own desire/whim/dream. And as far as chrismation, baptism and blessing go, again I would favor the original tradition for my children over a later invention of protestant origin. But that's me and I had more than three decades of the protestant version to string me along. I can't speak for you or what you will decide in the future, but I would not put off talking to a priest over any and all issues. Your man remaining in communion with his Orthodox roots is paramount for him, and adding the strain of children would be a matter difficult for any marriage to withstand. You aren't always going to agree on seemingly simple things in your marriage, children or other matters, and its not simply "LOVE" that sees you through those disagreements. Love may be the catalyst for attempting to get through those difficulties and misunderstandings, but its blood sweat and tears to be married. To my mind, setting up a marriage firmly and decidedly rooted right off the bat is incredibly important.  I have been married only 17 years, but with this man pretty much since I was 14. That is basically 24 of my 38 years of life! Despite the incredible effort to bring us together, more than once, and quite a bit of divine interference, this does not mean we have had an easy road to hoe at all. So to anyone entering into marriage at all I suggest making things as clear and simply defined ahead of time as possible!!


Um, you might want to read up on the history of Angicanism before you make such pronouncements. The Anglican Church is not like your mainstream Baptist Church, and is quite sacramentel in nature, and has traditions going back to the 4th Century. You may disagree with Anglicanism, but your statement about it being made up is patently false.


I have researched the Church of England, and would have to agree that it is made up, regardless of its traditions.  I consider it one of the "twice removed" churches, no different than the Lutherans or the Calvinists.  It is correct that the Baptists are not like the Anglicans, since they are regarded (at least as a whole) as themselves being spawned by the Church of England, making them a "thrice removed" denomination . . . at best.

I have moved this from the Convert Issues Forum to join it back into this topic.

Thomas
Convert Issues Forum Moderator

Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Old Calendar)
Posts: 6,789



« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2009, 04:10:15 PM »

I have researched the Church of England, and would have to agree that it is made up, regardless of its traditions.  I consider it one of the "twice removed" churches, no different than the Lutherans or the Calvinists.  It is correct that the Baptists are not like the Anglicans, since they are regarded (at least as a whole) as themselves being spawned by the Church of England, making them a "thrice removed" denomination . . . at best.

I don't know what kind of research you did, but honestly, the history of the English Church is quite complicated, and I think with even a cursory look at history will show you that they are not a 'mere' Protestant group in the same way that the other groups are.  It is an ancient church with a turbulent history for certain, but it deserves a bit more consideration than "Not Orthodox; DONE!"
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2009, 04:13:45 PM »



No, it's not the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed does not contain the filioque. That you think it's the same seems to prove my point.
Again, I'm no expert, but I can't think of many (any) issues that the Orthodox Church and the Anglican Church would agree on.

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I was referring to the Creed commonly referred to as 'the Nicene Creed' by Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans. It might interest (or even please) you to know that in many Anglican churches the 'filioque' is omitted.

The point you make gives me some insight as to why you think Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are very different, while I don't. To me, the Creed is substantially the same in both Churches, and I find much to celebrate in this. To you, the old disagreement with the Catholic Church looms large, and I can see that this makes you feel that the rest of the Creed is somehow 'changed' when it is adopted by non-Orthodox.

Issues the Anglican and Orthodox Church agree on (I may not be correct on all of these)

*Both Churches believe in one God, the Almighty, who created all.
*Both believe in Jesus Christ, only begotten Son of the Father, the true God.
*Both believe that Christ was begotten, not created: He is of one Being with the Father.
*Both believe that Christ was made Man for the sins of men; that He came to earth and was made Incarnate of the Virgin Mary, through the Holy Spirit.
*Both believe that Christ was crucified for our sake under Pontius Pilate, suffered death, and was buried.
*Both believe that He rose again on the third day, and that this accords with the Scriptures.
*Both believe that He ascended into heaven and sits in majesty.
*Both believe that He will come again, in glory, to judge the living and the dead, and that his kingdom will have no end.
*Both believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son.
*Both believe that He spoke through the prophets.
*Both believe in the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
*Both believe in baptism for the remission of sins.
*Both hope and trust in the resurrection of the dead, and new life hereafter.

*Both believe in sharing in Christ's Body, which He sacrificed for us.

Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2009, 04:39:09 PM »

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I was referring to the Creed commonly referred to as 'the Nicene Creed' by Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans. It might interest (or even please) you to know that in many Anglican churches the 'filioque' is omitted.

The point you make gives me some insight as to why you think Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are very different, while I don't. To me, the Creed is substantially the same in both Churches, and I find much to celebrate in this. To you, the old disagreement with the Catholic Church looms large, and I can see that this makes you feel that the rest of the Creed is somehow 'changed' when it is adopted by non-Orthodox.
Nope. The "old disagreement" (I assume you are referring to the Great Schism?) resulted in a fundamental theological change in understanding the nature of the Trinity. This was accomplished not by a council, which had been the model of church governance for centuries but by the decision of one man. So in one little addition, the ancient understanding of the Trinity and the conciliar nature of the Church was changed.

I'm glad to hear that some Anglicans (why not all, I wonder?) are not using the filioque.
Issues the Anglican and Orthodox Church agree on (I may not be correct on all of these)

Quote
*Both believe in the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
But what holy catholic and apostolic Church? What is the Anglican definition?

Quote
*Both believe in sharing in Christ's Body, which He sacrificed for us.
But I think you have shared before, and please forgive me if I've gotten it wrong, that the Anglican Church does not believe that the bread and wine and truly His Body and Blood of Christ, the Real Presence. Which is one reason why we don't commune together.

And of course, the various reasons (heresies) brought up by Met. Jonah in his address to a conservative Episcopalian group.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 04:41:14 PM by katherineofdixie » Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #26 on: August 31, 2009, 04:56:03 PM »

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I was referring to the Creed commonly referred to as 'the Nicene Creed' by Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans. It might interest (or even please) you to know that in many Anglican churches the 'filioque' is omitted.

The point you make gives me some insight as to why you think Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are very different, while I don't. To me, the Creed is substantially the same in both Churches, and I find much to celebrate in this. To you, the old disagreement with the Catholic Church looms large, and I can see that this makes you feel that the rest of the Creed is somehow 'changed' when it is adopted by non-Orthodox.
Nope. The "old disagreement" (I assume you are referring to the Great Schism?) resulted in a fundamental theological change in understanding the nature of the Trinity. This was accomplished not by a council, which had been the model of church governance for centuries but by the decision of one man. So in one little addition, the ancient understanding of the Trinity and the conciliar nature of the Church was changed.



I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Sorry - probably my fault. I'm not here to re-hash the filioque debate, but to stress that there is still a great deal of common ground between the two Churches. You have to remember, we're not Catholics!  Wink


Quote
I'm glad to hear that some Anglicans (why not all, I wonder?) are not using the filioque.

I'm not sure why it's not all of us - I think it may have been left up to the individual diocese or something like that. But I will check. My impression (and I'm really treading on shaky ground here, it's another thing I need to check) is that, although this issue was so important for what is now the Catholic Church, it was almost a 'came with the territory' adoption into the Anglican service.

Quote
*Both believe in the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
But what holy catholic and apostolic Church? What is the Anglican definition?
[/quote]

The holy catholic and apostolic Church is the Body of Christ. See below.

Quote
*Both believe in sharing in Christ's Body, which He sacrificed for us.
But I think you have shared before, and please forgive me if I've gotten it wrong, that the Anglican Church does not believe that the bread and wine and truly His Body and Blood of Christ, the Real Presence. Which is one reason why we don't commune together. [/quote]

Yes, I was using a bit of verbal juggling there. We don't believe that the bread and wine literally become the Body and Blood of Christ. We do, however, acknowledge that we, the members of the Church, 'are one Body, because we all share in one bread'. The emphasis in the Anglican service is on the living Church (the Body of Christ), and on the remembrance of Christ's sacrifice. The emphasis in the Orthodox service, if I am correct, is on the Body of Christ as you trust it is really Present in the Bread and Wine.


Quote

And of course, the various reasons (heresies) brought up by Met. Jonah in his address to a conservative Episcopalian group.

« Last Edit: August 31, 2009, 04:57:54 PM by Liz » Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2009, 05:36:31 PM »

Well... actually, it was the Anglican Church which approached the Orthodox Church seeking union. Sadly that was not achieved.

That's how I understand it, too. However, for some reason, I have recently heard from two professors of my university who are both Episcopalians that "we (e.g. The Episcopal Church) are in communion (!) with you (i.e. with the Orthodox Church)." It was said during an informal meeting of our faculty where we discussed setting up a new course, REL213, where the goal would be to expose students to various religious traditions. The meeting was short and I did not want to turn it into a debate, so I did not object and just smiled and talked about something else. Yet, I am still wondering, why in the world do these two apparently very intelligent, knowledgeable men believe in this obvious falsehood?
Logged

Love never fails.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2009, 05:47:27 PM »

Well... actually, it was the Anglican Church which approached the Orthodox Church seeking union. Sadly that was not achieved.

That's how I understand it, too. However, for some reason, I have recently heard from two professors of my university who are both Episcopalians that "we (e.g. The Episcopal Church) are in communion (!) with you (i.e. with the Orthodox Church)." It was said during an informal meeting of our faculty where we discussed setting up a new course, REL213, where the goal would be to expose students to various religious traditions. The meeting was short and I did not want to turn it into a debate, so I did not object and just smiled and talked about something else. Yet, I am still wondering, why in the world do these two apparently very intelligent, knowledgeable men believe in this obvious falsehood?


Ah, it's not a falsehood at all - but they should have explained it better!

What they meant was that, if you (an Orthodox Communicant) were to walk into my Anglican church tomorrow, you would be entirely welcome to participate in our service and receive Communion. This is because we acknowledge that your faith is also earnest and Christian.

I wouldn't choose to express that by saying that 'we're in communion with the Orthodox Church', but do you see what is meant?

It's similar, I guess, to the understanding whereby my partner's Orthodox church will recognize my Anglican baptism, should I walk in there tomorrow and start talking to the priest about marriage.

I don't suppose the professors you spoke to meant to offend, btw.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #29 on: August 31, 2009, 06:17:30 PM »

Well... actually, it was the Anglican Church which approached the Orthodox Church seeking union. Sadly that was not achieved.

That's how I understand it, too. However, for some reason, I have recently heard from two professors of my university who are both Episcopalians that "we (e.g. The Episcopal Church) are in communion (!) with you (i.e. with the Orthodox Church)." It was said during an informal meeting of our faculty where we discussed setting up a new course, REL213, where the goal would be to expose students to various religious traditions. The meeting was short and I did not want to turn it into a debate, so I did not object and just smiled and talked about something else. Yet, I am still wondering, why in the world do these two apparently very intelligent, knowledgeable men believe in this obvious falsehood?


Ah, it's not a falsehood at all - but they should have explained it better!

What they meant was that, if you (an Orthodox Communicant) were to walk into my Anglican church tomorrow, you would be entirely welcome to participate in our service and receive Communion. This is because we acknowledge that your faith is also earnest and Christian.

I wouldn't choose to express that by saying that 'we're in communion with the Orthodox Church', but do you see what is meant?

It's similar, I guess, to the understanding whereby my partner's Orthodox church will recognize my Anglican baptism, should I walk in there tomorrow and start talking to the priest about marriage.

I don't suppose the professors you spoke to meant to offend, btw.

Thanks, Liz. I got it now. No, I was not implying that they meant to offend. I was just looking at it from the Orthodox side. So, I would be welcome to receive Communion in an Episcopal Church? And are there those baptised Christians who would not be? (Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentecostals? Roman Catholics?)

Thanks for your clarification!
Logged

Love never fails.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2009, 06:31:15 PM »



Thanks, Liz. I got it now. No, I was not implying that they meant to offend. I was just looking at it from the Orthodox side. So, I would be welcome to receive Communion in an Episcopal Church? And are there those baptised Christians who would not be? (Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentecostals? Roman Catholics?)

Thanks for your clarification!

As far as I'm aware, all Anglican churches have the same invitation, which is, 'if you are a communicant of your own church, feel free to take Communion with us'. It's left up to the individual to decide (and, indeed to be honest - no one is about to ask you for your baptismal certificate!). The Church aims to be catholic, you see.

Whatever your Church, you would always be made welcome. Also, if you were a stranger in an Anglican church at Communion service, it's worth knowing you could always ask for a blessing from the altar.

Glad to be of use in clarifying (if I have been!)

L.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2009, 10:17:34 AM »

although this issue was so important for what is now the Catholic Church, it was almost a 'came with the territory' adoption into the Anglican service.

Okay, but I'm sure you see the problem with that - and with some parishes using it and some using the ancient form of the Nicene Creed. Both forms of the Creed are saying totally different (and important!) things about the nature of God and the Trinity. The method of adoption of the filioque unilaterally changed the ancient conciliar way of how the Church functioned and was governed.

So is using the Creed with the filioque right or not? If wrong, why is anyone using it, and why adopt even more RC heresies and mistakes (which the Reformation was presumably about correcting?)? Why not "do the right thing"?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2009, 10:25:36 AM »

although this issue was so important for what is now the Catholic Church, it was almost a 'came with the territory' adoption into the Anglican service.

Okay, but I'm sure you see the problem with that - and with some parishes using it and some using the ancient form of the Nicene Creed. Both forms of the Creed are saying totally different (and important!) things about the nature of God and the Trinity. The method of adoption of the filioque unilaterally changed the ancient conciliar way of how the Church functioned and was governed.

So is using the Creed with the filioque right or not? If wrong, why is anyone using it, and why adopt even more RC heresies and mistakes (which the Reformation was presumably about correcting?)? Why not "do the right thing"?

It's not something I have a problem with, to be honest. I forget where I read it (somewhere on this forum, I think), but Anglicans are often content open their hearts to God, and let him judge. For me, the nature of the Trinity is a wonderful mystery, which I will never completely understand, even while I bear witness to that Trinity.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #33 on: September 01, 2009, 10:28:52 AM »

[Anglicans are often content open their hearts to God, and let him judge.

Judge what?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #34 on: September 01, 2009, 10:31:47 AM »

[Anglicans are often content open their hearts to God, and let him judge.

Judge what?

Which phrasing is best, and what it might mean to use either. My feeling is that words will always fall short of expressing the nature of the Trinity. I will let God judge whether or not I am sincere in my faith in Him.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #35 on: September 01, 2009, 10:46:20 AM »

[Anglicans are often content open their hearts to God, and let him judge.

Judge what?

Which phrasing is best, and what it might mean to use either. My feeling is that words will always fall short of expressing the nature of the Trinity. I will let God judge whether or not I am sincere in my faith in Him.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Surely, if Anglicans lay claim to being a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, it can't be irrelevant and immaterial what the ancient Church believed, preached and taught? Those beliefs, teachings etc. were Apostolic.
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #36 on: September 01, 2009, 10:54:52 AM »

[Anglicans are often content open their hearts to God, and let him judge.

Judge what?

Which phrasing is best, and what it might mean to use either. My feeling is that words will always fall short of expressing the nature of the Trinity. I will let God judge whether or not I am sincere in my faith in Him.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Surely, if Anglicans lay claim to being a part of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, it can't be irrelevant and immaterial what the ancient Church believed, preached and taught? Those beliefs, teachings etc. were Apostolic.

Two points.

Firstly, you're working on the premise that the Anglican Church doesn't believe the early Church ever became corrupt, until the Schism with Rome, and that the Orthodox Church has never deviated from the first Church which Christ founded and in which the Apostles preached. The Anglican Church does not quite agree.

Secondly, the teachings of the early Church are by no means irrelevant. You will often hear Anglican theologians considering the teachings of the Fathers with great care, for example.
Logged
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #37 on: September 01, 2009, 11:48:21 AM »

Firstly, you're working on the premise that the Anglican Church doesn't believe the early Church ever became corrupt, until the Schism with Rome, and that the Orthodox Church has never deviated from the first Church which Christ founded and in which the Apostles preached. The Anglican Church does not quite agree.
I know that this is a huge subject, but perhaps you could give me an example of where the early Church (as a whole) departed from Apostolic teachings and became corrupt? And perhaps an example of how the Orthodox Church has deviated?

Quote
Secondly, the teachings of the early Church are by no means irrelevant.

Then if the teachings of the early Church are by no means irrelevant, why is the Nicene Creed irrelevant?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #38 on: September 01, 2009, 11:56:04 AM »

Firstly, you're working on the premise that the Anglican Church doesn't believe the early Church ever became corrupt, until the Schism with Rome, and that the Orthodox Church has never deviated from the first Church which Christ founded and in which the Apostles preached. The Anglican Church does not quite agree.
I know that this is a huge subject, but perhaps you could give me an example of where the early Church (as a whole) departed from Apostolic teachings and became corrupt? And perhaps an example of how the Orthodox Church has deviated?


Quote
Secondly, the teachings of the early Church are by no means irrelevant.

Then if the teachings of the early Church are by no means irrelevant, why is the Nicene Creed irrelevant?

What makes you think the Nicene Creed is irrelevant? It is hugely important.

I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable, on an Orthodox forum, with answering your question about the deviancy of the Orthodox Church, and I suspect it would simply offend a lot of people. It's enough to say that, evidently, the Anglican Church does not believe that the Orthodox Church as it is today is the one Church of Christ, or we would long ago have converted en masse to Orthodoxy.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #39 on: September 01, 2009, 11:58:22 AM »

,
Then if the teachings of the early Church are by no means irrelevant, why is the Nicene Creed irrelevant?

Sorry to double-post, I just realized what you meant there. Oops.

I didn't mean to imply that the Creed was irrelevant at all. But, there are still things about God, and perhaps in particular about the nature of the Trinity, which are beyond my understanding. The Creed is a statement of beliefs, not a theological discussion.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,520


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2009, 12:03:06 PM »

It occurs to me, also, to observe that some of the men you consider to be leaders of the Church spent a great deal of time and effort in the early part of the last century trying to effect union between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. Do you think they thought the Anglican Church was 'made up'?

Well... actually, it was the Anglican Church which approached the Orthodox Church seeking union. Sadly that was not achieved. Since that time, the Anglican Church has wandered increasingly far from authentic Christianity. One has only to look at the turmoil brought about by the ordination of women, the ordination of gay/lesbian individuals, the recognition of same-sex marriage, the inclusive language changes in its book of common prayer and the increasing mythologizing of the Gospel stories. The Anglican Church today is not the Anglican Church of C.S. Lewis' day.

I would agree, however, that it is wrong to suggest that Anglican priests are play-acting. We should not presume to question the sincerity of their calling. Nevertheless, as Orthodox Christians we believe them to be sincerely wrong.

One very interesting development though, is the love Prince Charles has for the Orthodox Church. He offers a ray of hope, slim as it is.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2009, 12:04:57 PM »


One very interesting development though, is the love Prince Charles has for the Orthodox Church. He offers a ray of hope, slim as it is.

Gosh! Well, I suppose any convert is good news, but ...  Huh
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #42 on: September 01, 2009, 12:12:14 PM »

It's enough to say that, evidently, the Anglican Church does not believe that the Orthodox Church as it is today is the one Church of Christ, or we would long ago have converted en masse to Orthodoxy.

Bingo. A while back you were assuring us that the Anglican Church was in agreement with most of what the Orthodox Church teaches. Now you're saying that it does not believe the Orthodox Church as it is today IS the one Church of Christ. This is essentially what we've been trying to say all along. We're not the same by a country mile. We never were the same (although a hundred years ago we were certainly closer than we are today). We are not moving in parallel paths but rather divergent ones. That's not good news for the Anglican Church and it is in particular not good news for folks who want to marry and raise a family.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #43 on: September 01, 2009, 12:17:50 PM »

I didn't mean to imply that the Creed was irrelevant at all. But, there are still things about God, and perhaps in particular about the nature of the Trinity, which are beyond my understanding. The Creed is a statement of beliefs, not a theological discussion.

As you so rightly point out, and I certainly agree, there are things about God and especially the Trinity which are beyond anyone's understanding. The Creed, however, is not simply a statement of beliefs, but of particular beliefs and those beliefs are theological in nature. The Nicene Creed says important thelogical things about God and the nature of the Trinity. To change it means to change what we believe. Or at least what we say we believe.

So if some people are saying it one way and other people are saying it another, then some people are saying that they believe certain things about God and other people are saying that they believe different things about God - fundamental things, not details. And then both sets of people say it doesn't matter if they believe (or say they believe) different things about God.







Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #44 on: September 01, 2009, 12:19:17 PM »

It's enough to say that, evidently, the Anglican Church does not believe that the Orthodox Church as it is today is the one Church of Christ, or we would long ago have converted en masse to Orthodoxy.

A while back you were assuring us that the Anglican Church was in agreement with most of what the Orthodox Church teaches. Now you're saying that it does not believe the Orthodox Church as it is today IS the one Church of Christ. This is essentially what we've been trying to say all along. We're not the same by a country mile. We never were the same...We are not moving in parallel paths but rather divergent ones. That's not good news for the Anglican Church and it is in particular not good news for folks who want to marry and raise a family.
Thank you, you've said it much more succinctly and better than I!
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  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 0.155 seconds with 72 queries.