Relationships between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy

[SolEX01]

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.      


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

[Liz]

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?

[Liz]

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'?

[Douglas]

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.

[Liz]

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.

[Douglas]

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. 

[GabrieltheCelt]

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.  

[Liz]

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).

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[SolEX01]

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.   

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

In Christ,
SolEX01

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[Liz]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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

[Liz]

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?

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[Liz]

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?)

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[Liz]

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.

[Douglas]

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.

[Liz]

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!

[jnorm888]

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

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[Thomas]

 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

[Alveus Lacuna]

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!"

[Liz]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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)

*Both believe in the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

But what holy catholic and apostolic Church? What is the Anglican definition?

*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.

[Liz]

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! 

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.

*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.

*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.

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

[Heorhij]

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?

[Liz]

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.

[Heorhij]

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!

[Liz]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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"?

[Liz]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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

Judge what?

[Liz]

[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.

[katherineofdixie]

[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.

[Liz]

[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.

[katherineofdixie]

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?

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?

[Liz]

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?

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.

[Liz]

,
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.

[Marc1152]

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.

[Liz]

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 ... 

[Douglas]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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.

[katherineofdixie]

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!

[Liz]

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.

You're misremembering what I said, I think. I don't think the Orthodox Church is the oxne, single Church. This should be obvious, since I am Anglican. However, I totally disagree that 'We're not the same by a country mile'. I have tried to demonstrate that there are many beliefs that we both hold in common - in fact, most of the Creed. However, this is not - and should not be taken as - a sign that I want my 'errors' to be corrected, or that I wish to become Orthodox.

[Douglas]

I don't think the Orthodox Church is the oxne, single Church. This should be obvious, since I am Anglican. However, I totally disagree that 'We're not the same by a country mile'.

We recite in the Creed that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our Lord did not establishes churches. Rather He established One Church. Only the Orthodox Church can demonstrate historically that it IS that Church. A church established by Henry Tudor some 1500 years later and holding to different beliefs, cannot make such claims. Of course, there are going to be similarities in all Christian churches and depending upon how far from the tree the apple has rolled, some will be closer to Holy Orthodoxy than others. As Katherine has been pointing out, the filioque is a fundamental difference between our churches. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the Holy Trinity... a re-ordering of it, if you will.

[Liz]

I don't think the Orthodox Church is the oxne, single Church. This should be obvious, since I am Anglican. However, I totally disagree that 'We're not the same by a country mile'.

We recite in the Creed that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Our Lord did not establishes churches. Rather He established One Church. Only the Orthodox Church can demonstrate historically that it IS that Church. A church established by Henry Tudor some 1500 years later and holding to different beliefs, cannot make such claims. Of course, there are going to be similarities in all Christian churches and depending upon how far from the tree the apple has rolled, some will be closer to Holy Orthodoxy than others. As Katherine has been pointing out, the filioque is a fundamental difference between our churches. It demonstrates a misunderstanding of the nature of the Holy Trinity... a re-ordering of it, if you will.

That's interesting: you're using One to mean 'single'; I was using it to mean 'Unified'. This perhaps explains why we differ.

As I have said elsewhere, I'm not sure the Orthodox Church can demonstrate that it is, theologically, the Church Christ founded. The historical argument cannot really help here.

[ozgeorge]

That's interesting: you're using One to mean 'single'; I was using it to mean 'Unified'. This perhaps explains why we differ.

From an Orthodox perspective, I think "single" and "unified" mean the same thing. On a practical level of administration, the "single" Orthodox Church is composed of a multiplicity of local, self-governing Churches which are visibly "unified" in Faith and Communion. This "visible unity" is the only unity we can be sure of, so its the only one we can reliably count. We can only be certain where the Church is, the rest is guesswork, supposition and possibility as far as we can know- God, of course, knows more.

As I have said elsewhere, I'm not sure the Orthodox Church can demonstrate that it is, theologically, the Church Christ founded. The historical argument cannot really help here.

The historical argument is the only possible argument which any Church can call on to claim authenticity, including the Anglican Communion which depends on Apostolic succession (Thirty Sixth Article of Religion of the Anglican Church).

[Marc1152]

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 ... 

Well..That would be a convert who may well become head of the Church of England.. But you already knew that I bet.

[Liz]

From an Orthodox perspective, I think "single" and "unified" mean the same thing. On a practical level of administration, the "single" Orthodox Church is composed of a multiplicity of local, self-governing Churches which are visibly "unified" in Faith and Communion. This "visible unity" is the only unity we can be sure of, so its the only one we can reliably count. We can only be certain where the Church is, the rest is guesswork, supposition and possibility as far as we can know- God, of course, knows more.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. I was remarking on it because the different ways we use 'one' are quite telling.

As I have said elsewhere, I'm not sure the Orthodox Church can demonstrate that it is, theologically, the Church Christ founded. The historical argument cannot really help here.

The historical argument is the only possible argument which any Church can call on to claim authenticity, including the Anglican Communion which depends on Apostolic succession (Thirty Sixth Article of Religion of the Anglican Church).
[/quote]

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I suspect I agree, if you're saying what I think you're saying. You're certainly right that there is no way (other than history, perhaps) of measuring the authenticity of a Church. All I'm saying is, that although you can demonstrate historical authenticity, this doesn't automatically connote theological authenticity (which is something else, and which - I agree - can't easily be proven).

[Liz]

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 ... 

Well..That would be a convert who may well become head of the Church of England.. But you already knew that I bet.

My implication, really, was that Prince Charles's defection to Orthodoxy would likely encourage a certain kind of person towards Anglicanism, rather than away from it. As you'll know, the role is entirely ceremonial these days.

[rakovsky]

Would someone happen to know what are the biggest developments for Anglican-Orthodox relations? I think we have been having dialogue with them for some time.

Second, can you please tell me if there is a way to find where the polls are in the forum? when I type in Polls in a search, way too many posts come up just using the word "poll".

[Aindriú]

Would someone happen to know what are the biggest developments for Anglican-Orthodox relations? I think we have been having dialogue with them for some time.

Recently we have the OCA Metropolitan talk with the ACNA. Which, while not a definite move to unity, demonstrates a more realistic approach to anglican assimilation (if you will). Efforts I hope will prove fruitful, if ever realized, for both sides.

The Continuing Anglican churches are, in reality, a dead end, ecclesiastically. They are however, the best chance the Orthodox have a converting Anglican churches. They are, in majority, the most conservative of the Anglican tradition. Any anglican churches that then did join orthodoxy, would be received into a larger family. In turn, their assimilation, I'm convinced, is vital to the expansion of the orthodox faith into the west. There are plenty, Anglican and not, who feel connected to Orthodoxy spiritually, but are alienated culturally. This is felt both in practice of worship, as well as in positions held by prominent and less prominent orthodox that feel it necessary to accept not only he faith, but also the eastern culture. In addition, they attempt to equate a rejection of parts of eastern culture as identical to rejecting the faith. This can and does have a large impact on the final decision to convert.

The larger anglican communion will never be converted in masse, for the very reason stated by Bishop Basil. He said the Orthodox can't convert the Anglican Communion, when they don't agree on what they believe. You see, earlier in the thread it was stated that Anglicans don't believe in the real presence of the Eucharist. This is false. The official Anglican belief holds to this doctrine, however many low churches do not prescribe to this faith. Bringing it together, those of the Continuing Anglican churches, typically hold to the seven sacrements.

As you can see, it is very complicated.   

[Liz]

You see, earlier in the thread it was stated that Anglicans don't believe in the real presence of the Eucharist. This is false. The official Anglican belief holds to this doctrine, however many low churches do not prescribe to this faith. Bringing it together, those of the Continuing Anglican churches, typically hold to the seven sacrements.

As you can see, it is very complicated.   

I believe this is not right. I've found that many Anglicans do believe in the real presence, but it is not a requirement. I think often Orthodox people interpret words and phrases differently from Anglicans, so perhaps this is the reason for misunderstanding? For example, I've been asked by an Orthodox person why we say during the Eucharist, 'blessed is he who cometh in the name of the Lord' - they thought this phrase was basically a statement of belief in the real presence, whereas I have generally heard Anglican clergy set it in the context of the Eucharist as a memorial of Christ's sacrifice.

[Cymbyz]

There are plenty, Anglican and not, who feel connected to Orthodoxy spiritually, but are alienated culturally. This is felt both in practice of worship, as well as in positions held by prominent and less prominent orthodox that feel it necessary to accept not only he faith, but also the eastern culture.

I converted from the Episcopal Church some 18 years ago.  The only distinctively cultural things I noticed in the Eastern worship were (1) the use of Greek/Slavonic/Arabic in some or nearly all parts of the Liturgy and (2) the "excessive" laudation heaped on the bishop whenever he visited the parish.

Perhaps I am naive, being neither a bred-&-born Brit nor a Greek, Slav, or Arab.  And I was fortunate enough to have a M.A. in Classics from long before I converted, so that the Greek wasn't all that strange when I encountered it.  I was also fortunate that my parish uses relatively little Greek in the services--only on those portions where one finds repeated refrains.

I was also fortunate because the parish I joined was already nearing a majority-convert population, and the West Coast Greeks don't seem to be quite as clannish as the East Coast Greeks.

To sum up, I suppose it's a matter of how much of a church's peripherals (ilcluding majority national culture) you inbibe, consciously or otherwise, that determins how difficult a conversion is.

[deusveritasest]

This should be obvious, since I am Anglican. However, I totally disagree that 'We're not the same by a country mile'. I have tried to demonstrate that there are many beliefs that we both hold in common - in fact, most of the Creed.

I guess I'll be the first to say that I agree with you Liz. As much as I do not think that we are entirely one in faith (you might), I certainly do not think that the degree of difference that is being asserted by others in this thread is accurate.

[deusveritasest]

Only the Orthodox Church can demonstrate historically that it IS that Church.

The "Eastern Orthodox Church"? I really don't think that's true. From where I'm looking, Rome, the Byzantines, the Orientals, and the Assyrians could all very well make a claim to be the One historical Church depending on whose side you take in their schisms.

[deusveritasest]

That's interesting: you're using One to mean 'single'; I was using it to mean 'Unified'. This perhaps explains why we differ.

They're not distinct. Many people use the term "unified" today to mean something along the lines of "conjoint" and it's entirely inaccurate to do so. Unified means to make, in some sense, two or more things to be singular.

[ialmisry]

Would someone happen to know what are the biggest developments for Anglican-Orthodox relations? I think we have been having dialogue with them for some time.

Recently we have the OCA Metropolitan talk with the ACNA. Which, while not a definite move to unity, demonstrates a more realistic approach to anglican assimilation (if you will). Efforts I hope will prove fruitful, if ever realized, for both sides.

The Continuing Anglican churches are, in reality, a dead end, ecclesiastically. They are however, the best chance the Orthodox have a converting Anglican churches. They are, in majority, the most conservative of the Anglican tradition. Any anglican churches that then did join orthodoxy, would be received into a larger family. In turn, their assimilation, I'm convinced, is vital to the expansion of the orthodox faith into the west. There are plenty, Anglican and not, who feel connected to Orthodoxy spiritually, but are alienated culturally. This is felt both in practice of worship, as well as in positions held by prominent and less prominent orthodox that feel it necessary to accept not only he faith, but also the eastern culture. In addition, they attempt to equate a rejection of parts of eastern culture as identical to rejecting the faith. This can and does have a large impact on the final decision to convert.

The larger anglican communion will never be converted in masse, for the very reason stated by Bishop Basil. He said the Orthodox can't convert the Anglican Communion, when they don't agree on what they believe. You see, earlier in the thread it was stated that Anglicans don't believe in the real presence of the Eucharist. This is false. The official Anglican belief holds to this doctrine, however many low churches do not prescribe to this faith. Bringing it together, those of the Continuing Anglican churches, typically hold to the seven sacrements.

As you can see, it is very complicated.   

HB Met. Jonah has reversed the OCA's long stand against the Western Rite Orthodox.  I hope the many conservative Anglicans can see that they are Orthodox in almost everything but name, and are in communion with the liberal Episcopalians in name only.  TAC would have been better off, but then again a number of their bishops (like their primate) came with a considerable amount of baggage.

[augustin717]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

[Irish Hermit]

There was a time when several of the Orthodox Churches spoke of the possibility of uniting with the Anglican Church.

Alas, that possibility, although never truly a realistic one,  has definitely disappeared over the horizon with the changes in Anglicanism.

Here is an essay from that happier time from Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

"Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders"

http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html

[Liz]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

[ialmisry]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.

That would be the conservative Episcopalians.

Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Some of them can be. Comes with nominalism.

[ialmisry]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

[ialmisry]

There was a time when several of the Orthodox Churches spoke of the possibility of uniting with the Anglican Church.

Alas, that possibility, although never truly a realistic one,  has definitely disappeared over the horizon with the changes in Anglicanism.

Here is an essay from that happier time from Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky)

"Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders"

http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html

Yes, alas, I see the day fast approaching when we won't be able to accept their baptisms even by economy, and the rest will be indistinquishable from the rest of the Protestants.

[Liz]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

Not sure what you mean? Edward comes before the Anglican Church got going. Now, he was Protestant!

[ialmisry]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

Not sure what you mean? Edward comes before the Anglican Church got going. Now, he was Protestant!

Look at your Book of Common Prayer.

[Cymbyz]

The first Book of Common Prayer was published during the reign of Edward VI.  His successor "Bloody" Mary I was Roman Catholic.  Her successor was Elizabeth I, and not till the accession of Elizabeth was the Church of England secure to thrive.

[Liz]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

Not sure what you mean? Edward comes before the Anglican Church got going. Now, he was Protestant!

Look at your Book of Common Prayer.

What about it? The BCP is Cranmer's work, but most elements of the Anglican Church pre-date the formation of said Church - that's what happens when the intention is to create a unifying form of worship. I would say that Edward was a committed Protestant, and he clearly aligned himself with what was happening in Europe. I don't think Elizabeth continued in the same vein, though.

[Liz]

The first Book of Common Prayer was published during the reign of Edward VI.  His successor "Bloody" Mary I was Roman Catholic.  Her successor was Elizabeth I, and not till the accession of Elizabeth was the Church of England secure to thrive.

Though, I remember reading a great book for children set in an alternate reality where James I/VI restored the Catholic faith - it re-wrote all that stuff about Northern England being full of secret Catholics. It's interesting thinking how differently everything could have turned out.

[Aindriú]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Ignoring the blanket antagonizing statement, your understanding of what Anglican is lacking.

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time). Before King Henry, England had never been truly loyal to the Pope. In fact, after the great schism, it took war on Englad to secure it as part of the Catholic west. Prior to which, it maintained communion with the eastern churches.

My point is, Anglican "conservative" Protestantism is purely "protesting the pope". Which is distinct from the liberal Anglican churches that portray the American Protestant movement. This is exactly the reason why the Episcopal church originally tried to distance itself from that word... that is before that kind of Protestant became more prominent.

That's why I disagree with your first statement. Your second one is pure venom and not worth addressing.

[Liz]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Ignoring the blanket antagonizing statement, your understanding of what Anglican is lacking.

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time). Before King Henry, England had never been truly loyal to the Pope. In fact, after the great schism, it took war on Englad to secure it as part of the Catholic west. Prior to which, it maintained communion with the eastern churches.

My point is, Anglican "conservative" Protestantism is purely "protesting the pope". Which is distinct from the liberal Anglican churches that portray the American Protestant movement. This is exactly the reason why the Episcopal church originally tried to distance itself from that word... that is before that kind of Protestant became more prominent.

That's why I disagree with your first statement. Your second one is pure venom and not worth addressing.

Oh, Azure, have a sense of humour ... I am quite enjoying being 'the most pretentious of Protestants'. It has a ring to it, no?

 

[deusveritasest]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.

There's really little to nothing "Protestant" about a conservative Anglo-Catholic.

Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

How is that?

[deusveritasest]

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

I guess it really depends on what you mean by "Protestant". The Thirty Nine Articles seem pretty Protestant to me, and they are without a doubt the most historically foundational doctrinal confession of the Anglican Communion.

[deusveritasest]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

Not sure what you mean? Edward comes before the Anglican Church got going. Now, he was Protestant!

Look at your Book of Common Prayer.

What about it? The BCP is Cranmer's work,

What in the blazes are you two talking about? The standard BCP of the Anglican church is that of 1662, not the 1549 one of Cranmer.

[deusveritasest]

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time).

Unfortunately the faith that England had inherited from Rome wasn't really Catholic in the first place.

[Aindriú]

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time).

Unfortunately the faith that England had inherited from Rome wasn't really Catholic in the first place.

I don't follow, but I'm curious to learn.

However, I will say, I think it's telling of a sort that few changes were necessary by St. Tikhon to make the BCP orthodox.

EDIT: the RC made little changes as well to incorporate the Anglican-Use liturgy

[ICXCNIKA]

I must confess that I do not know much about Anglicanism...I have met several Anglo Catholics and they seemed to be very traditional people. So if I may ask those of you that are more familiar with Anglicanism, Anglo Catholics, and those of a more Protestant bend... what do you think is closer to EO: Anglo Catholicism or Roman Catholicism?

[FormerReformer]

I must confess that I do not know much about Anglicanism...I have met several Anglo Catholics and they seemed to be very traditional people. So if I may ask those of you that are more familiar with Anglicanism, Anglo Catholics, and those of a more Protestant bend... what do you think is closer to EO: Anglo Catholicism or Roman Catholicism?

Before 1979: Anglo Catholicism.

After 1979: Tough call.  I guess it depends on whether you consider the Roman innovations to be worse than female ordination.  

In the 21st century so far: Rome, sad to say.  The Anglican Communion has reached a point where those with any sort of Catholic orthodox theology have left for either Rome or the Orthodox church.  Those left in the Communion have a very skewed viewpoint on scriptural interpretation, Church Tradition, and any sense of ecclesiology.  Anyone still in communion with Canterbury have gone so far over to the "liberal Catholic" "The Holy Spirit is doing a New Thing (TM)" camp ("reappraisers", we called them) as to not even be worth lampooning, or are so "conservative evangelical Protestant" in their viewpoints that they wouldn't know Catholicity if it bit them in the (collective) rump.  Not to say that there is no hope for the Anglican Communion, but I would put money on the New/Old Calendar controversy being sorted out before the AC returns to anything resembling a Catholic church.

[ICXCNIKA]

Thanks for your response FormerReformer. Do all the Anglican Provinces/dioceses have women priests? While I do have a problem with women "priests" there are other things that seem to concern me more such as open communion... I don't know if this concept/practice is found throughout anglicanism but it seems very dangerous/irreverent to me.

[FormerReformer]

While not all Anglican provinces have priestesses (there's a nice English word to denote both priesthood and female gender, so much less clumsy than "women priests"), the fact that they exist not only in the American and Canadian churches but in the church of England as well is a problem.  The presence of women bishops (no nice single English word for that one that I'm aware of) in the American and (coming soon!) English churches is certainly very problematic.

As for open communion... Well, my own view on this has changed much since I was an ex-Baptist going to Episcopalian churches.  Were I still inclined to a more Protestant ecclesiology I would say that the practice of offering communion to all baptized Christians makes sense.  Were the Anglican Provinces more discerning in their practice of open communion I might even find the idea acceptable still.  The main problem is that there is really no basic standard of Christianity for the Anglican community to judge against, even the Creeds being open to revision and rewriting to fit each individual bishop's (or even priest's) whim.

[Liz]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

Not sure what you mean? Edward comes before the Anglican Church got going. Now, he was Protestant!

Look at your Book of Common Prayer.

What about it? The BCP is Cranmer's work,

What in the blazes are you two talking about? The standard BCP of the Anglican church is that of 1662, not the 1549 one of Cranmer.

The idea of having a 'book of common prayer' originates with Cranmer's people (no idea if he's the eureka man, but he did most of the work compiling it). He's the one who's responsible for a lot of the beautiful language - the 1662 is just  a revision, isn't it? It's a while since I've looked at the two side-by-side, I could be wrong.

[Liz]

Thanks for your response FormerReformer. Do all the Anglican Provinces/dioceses have women priests? While I do have a problem with women "priests" there are other things that seem to concern me more such as open communion... I don't know if this concept/practice is found throughout anglicanism but it seems very dangerous/irreverent to me.

I'd never thought of communion that way before. That's very sobering.

[Liz]

I must confess that I do not know much about Anglicanism...I have met several Anglo Catholics and they seemed to be very traditional people. So if I may ask those of you that are more familiar with Anglicanism, Anglo Catholics, and those of a more Protestant bend... what do you think is closer to EO: Anglo Catholicism or Roman Catholicism?

This is just a very personal view, but I think there is a closeness of spirit between High Anglicans (not the same thing as Anglo-Catholics, it's the more liturgically traditional, but more liberal, wing of the Church), and some of the EO. We don't agree on doctrine but I've noticed it's often easy to find common ground, or to see people approaching things in the same way day-to-day.

The problem with Catholicism, I suppose, is that they are as convinced you're wrong, as you are that they are wrong.

[jnorm888]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

True! Also, didn't John Calvin have something to do with the 39(41) articles of religion? I could be wrong about the articles of religion, but I thought I read about his influence in that area.






ICXC NIKA

[jnorm888]

I must confess that I do not know much about Anglicanism...I have met several Anglo Catholics and they seemed to be very traditional people. So if I may ask those of you that are more familiar with Anglicanism, Anglo Catholics, and those of a more Protestant bend... what do you think is closer to EO: Anglo Catholicism or Roman Catholicism?

This is just a very personal view, but I think there is a closeness of spirit between High Anglicans (not the same thing as Anglo-Catholics, it's the more liturgically traditional, but more liberal, wing of the Church), and some of the EO. We don't agree on doctrine but I've noticed it's often easy to find common ground, or to see people approaching things in the same way day-to-day.

The problem with Catholicism, I suppose, is that they are as convinced you're wrong, as you are that they are wrong.

I see you don't like Anglo-Catholics. The Anglo-Catholics I knew were alot closer to Orthodoxy than the non-Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians I personally knew. I don't know......maybe it's the UK. They could be different over there.






ICXC NIKA

[Liz]

I must confess that I do not know much about Anglicanism...I have met several Anglo Catholics and they seemed to be very traditional people. So if I may ask those of you that are more familiar with Anglicanism, Anglo Catholics, and those of a more Protestant bend... what do you think is closer to EO: Anglo Catholicism or Roman Catholicism?

This is just a very personal view, but I think there is a closeness of spirit between High Anglicans (not the same thing as Anglo-Catholics, it's the more liturgically traditional, but more liberal, wing of the Church), and some of the EO. We don't agree on doctrine but I've noticed it's often easy to find common ground, or to see people approaching things in the same way day-to-day.

The problem with Catholicism, I suppose, is that they are as convinced you're wrong, as you are that they are wrong.

I see you don't like Anglo-Catholics. The Anglo-Catholics I knew were alot closer to Orthodoxy than the non-Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians I personally knew. I don't know......maybe it's the UK. They could be different over there.

ICXC NIKA

No, I like Anglo-Catholics, it's just that I'm not one, and I know people often mistakenly think that 'High Anglican' and 'Anglo-Catholic' are the same thing. Anglo-Catholics would be more likely to be upset about that than I, I imagine. I expect it's different in the UK, there's some odd attitudes to Catholicism still kicking around, which complicate the issues. A wild generalization, but I've met loads of 'cradle Catholics' who are less familiar with theology than with liturgy and tradition, and they seem very different from Orthodoxy as I hear it explained here, and as I've seen in in my partner's church. That may just be to do with the fact that everyone on this forum self-selects as a  person interested in theology, and so do the converts to Orthodoxy, who I understand make up quite a large proportion of the Orthodox congregation in my city.

[augustin717]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Ignoring the blanket antagonizing statement, your understanding of what Anglican is lacking.

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time). Before King Henry, England had never been truly loyal to the Pope. In fact, after the great schism, it took war on Englad to secure it as part of the Catholic west. Prior to which, it maintained communion with the eastern churches.

My point is, Anglican "conservative" Protestantism is purely "protesting the pope". Which is distinct from the liberal Anglican churches that portray the American Protestant movement. This is exactly the reason why the Episcopal church originally tried to distance itself from that word... that is before that kind of Protestant became more prominent.

That's why I disagree with your first statement. Your second one is pure venom and not worth addressing.

Anglicans are supposed (historically, at least, before the logical acrobatics of the tractarians) to assent to the 39 articles, which are protestant.
They did away with the sacrifice of the Liturgy, the prayer to the saints, the prayer for the dead, the cult of images etc.
it is true that starting in the 19th century they started to reinvent themselves into something they had never been.
Unfortunately a few of these clever children of the reformation fooled some Orthodox into thinking that Anglicanism was what they said it was. They also came up with the branch theory.
Had the synod of my church which signed a paper whereby it recognized the "Anglican orders" about the reality of the Anglicanism on the field, that worthless pice of paper had never been signed.
I really doubt that in the twenties and thirties there was any English speaker in the synod.
They probably communicated in French.
 

[Aindriú]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Ignoring the blanket antagonizing statement, your understanding of what Anglican is lacking.

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time). Before King Henry, England had never been truly loyal to the Pope. In fact, after the great schism, it took war on Englad to secure it as part of the Catholic west. Prior to which, it maintained communion with the eastern churches.

My point is, Anglican "conservative" Protestantism is purely "protesting the pope". Which is distinct from the liberal Anglican churches that portray the American Protestant movement. This is exactly the reason why the Episcopal church originally tried to distance itself from that word... that is before that kind of Protestant became more prominent.

That's why I disagree with your first statement. Your second one is pure venom and not worth addressing.

Anglicans are supposed (historically, at least, before the logical acrobatics of the tractarians) to assent to the 39 articles, which are protestant.
They did away with the sacrifice of the Liturgy, the prayer to the saints, the prayer for the dead, the cult of images etc.
it is true that starting in the 19th century they started to reinvent themselves into something they had never been.
Unfortunately a few of these clever children of the reformation fooled some Orthodox into thinking that Anglicanism was what they said it was. They also came up with the branch theory.
Had the synod of my church which signed a paper whereby it recognized the "Anglican orders" about the reality of the Anglicanism on the field, that worthless pice of paper had never been signed.
I really doubt that in the twenties and thirties there was any English speaker in the synod.
They probably communicated in French.
 

The Thirty Nine Articles are concise statements of fundamental truths of doctrine, and, to a lesser extent, statements of church practice. They were used as a statement of belief, like a creed, for a new separate church. Saying that they are a peculiarly protestant phenomenon is a simplistic analysis. They have a similar position to some of the statements of the great councils of the early Church.  

[augustin717]

The 39 articles are not Orthodox. Neither are they Catholic, that's the point.

[Aindriú]

The 39 articles are not Orthodox. Neither are they Catholic, that's the point.

I'm saying the point is moot, because the articles don't necessarily disagree with said churches. Which is a contrast to Luther. Therefore, making them still very close to their roots.

[ialmisry]

The 39 articles are not Orthodox. Neither are they Catholic, that's the point.

I'm saying the point is moot, because the articles don't necessarily disagree with said churches. Which is a contrast to Luther. Therefore, making them still very close to their roots.

The committee, after reviewing these "Observations," allowed in general the possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in America, they might be allowed, at their desire, to perform their worship according to the "Book of Common Prayer," but only on condition that the following corrections were made in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. On the one hand everything must be removed from the Book that bears a clearly non-Orthodox character—the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Confession, the Catechism with its protestant teaching about the sacraments, the Filioque, the idea of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the sole source of the teaching of the Faith, etc. On the other hand, there must be inserted into the text of the prayers and rites contained in the Book those Orthodox beliefs which it is essentially necessary to profess in Orthodox worship—into the rite of the Liturgy, the profession of belief in the change of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, and of belief in the sacrificial significance of the Eucharist; into the rite of ordination ([khirotonii]), the belief in the divine establishment of the ministry with its distinction of degrees, and the recognition of the distinctive right of the priest to offer the bloodless sacrifice. Into all the services in general prayers must be inserted addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service). There must be included in liturgical practice, and put into the Book, the missing rites for the sacraments of penance, oil-anointing and unction, and the rite of consecration of churches (as distinct from the consecration of a house of prayer); and finally there must be introduced the cult of sacred images. But since the detailed changes in the "Book of Prayers," and, generally speaking, in Anglican liturgical practice together with the compilation of new prayers and even of entire rites can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions, it is found desirable to send the "Observations" themselves to the Right Rev. Tikhon, the American Bishop. They will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received. As regards the reception of clergy from Anglicanism the committee has proposed (pending a final judgment of the question by the Church) to offer those who join a new conditional ordination.

http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html

[augustin717]

The 39 articles are not Orthodox. Neither are they Catholic, that's the point.

If one thinks the 39 articles are Orthodox, they should just stay orthodox Anglicans.

[Aindriú]

The 39 articles are not Orthodox. Neither are they Catholic, that's the point.

I'm saying the point is moot, because the articles don't necessarily disagree with said churches. Which is a contrast to Luther. Therefore, making them still very close to their roots.

The committee, after reviewing these "Observations," allowed in general the possibility that if Orthodox parishes, composed of former Anglicans, were organized in America, they might be allowed, at their desire, to perform their worship according to the "Book of Common Prayer," but only on condition that the following corrections were made in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. On the one hand everything must be removed from the Book that bears a clearly non-Orthodox character—the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Confession, the Catechism with its protestant teaching about the sacraments, the Filioque, the idea of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures as the sole source of the teaching of the Faith, etc. On the other hand, there must be inserted into the text of the prayers and rites contained in the Book those Orthodox beliefs which it is essentially necessary to profess in Orthodox worship—into the rite of the Liturgy, the profession of belief in the change of the Holy Gifts into the Body and Blood of Christ, and of belief in the sacrificial significance of the Eucharist; into the rite of ordination ([khirotonii]), the belief in the divine establishment of the ministry with its distinction of degrees, and the recognition of the distinctive right of the priest to offer the bloodless sacrifice. Into all the services in general prayers must be inserted addressed [sic] to the Blessed Mother of God, to Angels and Saints, with the glorification and invocation of them (direct), also prayers for the dead (especially in the Liturgy and the Burial Service). There must be included in liturgical practice, and put into the Book, the missing rites for the sacraments of penance, oil-anointing and unction, and the rite of consecration of churches (as distinct from the consecration of a house of prayer); and finally there must be introduced the cult of sacred images. But since the detailed changes in the "Book of Prayers," and, generally speaking, in Anglican liturgical practice together with the compilation of new prayers and even of entire rites can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions, it is found desirable to send the "Observations" themselves to the Right Rev. Tikhon, the American Bishop. They will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received. As regards the reception of clergy from Anglicanism the committee has proposed (pending a final judgment of the question by the Church) to offer those who join a new conditional ordination.

http://anglicanhistory.org/alcuin/tract12.html

Fair enough.

[Aindriú]

The 39 articles are not Orthodox. Neither are they Catholic, that's the point.

If one thinks the 39 articles are Orthodox, they should just stay orthodox Anglicans.

BOOM, headshot. So much for substantial debate...

[Liz]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Ignoring the blanket antagonizing statement, your understanding of what Anglican is lacking.

The protestant of the Anglican faith was purely a political rejection of the Bishop of Rome, while keeping the Catholic faith(as it was known at the time). Before King Henry, England had never been truly loyal to the Pope. In fact, after the great schism, it took war on Englad to secure it as part of the Catholic west. Prior to which, it maintained communion with the eastern churches.

My point is, Anglican "conservative" Protestantism is purely "protesting the pope". Which is distinct from the liberal Anglican churches that portray the American Protestant movement. This is exactly the reason why the Episcopal church originally tried to distance itself from that word... that is before that kind of Protestant became more prominent.

That's why I disagree with your first statement. Your second one is pure venom and not worth addressing.

Anglicans are supposed (historically, at least, before the logical acrobatics of the tractarians) to assent to the 39 articles, which are protestant.
They did away with the sacrifice of the Liturgy, the prayer to the saints, the prayer for the dead, the cult of images etc.
it is true that starting in the 19th century they started to reinvent themselves into something they had never been.
Unfortunately a few of these clever children of the reformation fooled some Orthodox into thinking that Anglicanism was what they said it was. They also came up with the branch theory.
Had the synod of my church which signed a paper whereby it recognized the "Anglican orders" about the reality of the Anglicanism on the field, that worthless pice of paper had never been signed.
I really doubt that in the twenties and thirties there was any English speaker in the synod.
They probably communicated in French.
 

The Thirty Nine Articles are concise statements of fundamental truths of doctrine, and, to a lesser extent, statements of church practice. They were used as a statement of belief, like a creed, for a new separate church. Saying that they are a peculiarly protestant phenomenon is a simplistic analysis. They have a similar position to some of the statements of the great councils of the early Church.  

In addition to this, it's worth thinking of Elizabeth I's statement on the new established Church, after she succeeded her Catholic sister.

'I do not make windows into men's souls'.

Bloody persecution of Catholics was quite common in Elizabeth's reign, but she wasn't about to enforce the extremities of Calvin or of the 39 articles, either. I suspect she herself was one of the first true 'Anglicans'.

[Cymbyz]

It was Elizabeth I who also made this little verse to explain her opinion of what Holy Communion is:

The Word of God, He spake it;
He took the bread, and brake it.
And what the Word did make it,
That I believe, and take it.

Remarkably Byzantine for someone who betrayed no knowledge of the Eastern Church.

[Liz]

It was Elizabeth I who also made this little verse to explain her opinion of what Holy Communion is:

The Word of God, He spake it;
He took the bread, and brake it.
And what the Word did make it,
That I believe, and take it.

Remarkably Byzantine for someone who betrayed no knowledge of the Eastern Church.

Yes! I'm so glad you quoted that. My partner has often said how very 'Orthodox' that statement is. I love how she expresses total faith and trust in God and in the sacrament, yet makes it very clear that it is a mystery. I think that's utterly Anglican, and beautifully expressed. We participate; we trust; we sense the mystery. We do not presume to know more about the mystery than God has shared with us.

[deusveritasest]

I don't follow, but I'm curious to learn.

What I mean is that it is clear either from a Byzantine ("Eastern Orthodox) or Oriental Orthodox perspective that by the time the Anglicans broke from what what is commonly called the "Roman Catholic Church" that neither of them had held the whole, complete, and universal faith of the Undivided Church for quite some time. You were trying to point out that the Anglicans essentially kept the faith that Rome had taught them. I pointed out that that does not matter to us as the faith of Rome was also deficient in our eyes.

[deusveritasest]

Anglo Catholicism or Roman Catholicism?

Anglo-Catholicism is really more variant in the sorts of particulars that divine us from the Romans, but it is the case that there are significant amounts of Anglo-Catholics who are closer to us in faith than the standard Roman belief. Among those who tend more so to hold to orthodox particulars, the real common dividing point is Branch Theory. I don't think I have yet run across an Anglican who does not believe in some form of Branch Theory.

[deusveritasest]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

Not sure what you mean? Edward comes before the Anglican Church got going. Now, he was Protestant!

Look at your Book of Common Prayer.

What about it? The BCP is Cranmer's work,

What in the blazes are you two talking about? The standard BCP of the Anglican church is that of 1662, not the 1549 one of Cranmer.

The idea of having a 'book of common prayer' originates with Cranmer's people (no idea if he's the eureka man, but he did most of the work compiling it). He's the one who's responsible for a lot of the beautiful language - the 1662 is just  a revision, isn't it? It's a while since I've looked at the two side-by-side, I could be wrong.

I don't know. It had a significant number of changes. Anyway, I think it's clear that the BCP you were talking about is not really Cranmer's work; the only 2 BCP's that were directly his authorship were 1549 and 1552.

[deusveritasest]

Thanks for your response FormerReformer. Do all the Anglican Provinces/dioceses have women priests? While I do have a problem with women "priests" there are other things that seem to concern me more such as open communion... I don't know if this concept/practice is found throughout anglicanism but it seems very dangerous/irreverent to me.

I'd never thought of communion that way before. That's very sobering.

Yes, open communion is a very disturbing practice from a more conservative ecclesiological mindset. In this area there are 4 main communion policies (among Episcopal churches): "all are welcome", "all who seek Christ all welcome", all Christians, and all baptized Christians. These are all disturbing (in descending order of severity) because they all involve sacramental oneness without oneness in faith.

[deusveritasest]

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Why, thanks.

I wouldn't say Anglicans were Protestants, historically.

Edward and Cramner took care of that.

True! Also, didn't John Calvin have something to do with the 39(41) articles of religion? I could be wrong about the articles of religion, but I thought I read about his influence in that area.






ICXC NIKA

There certainly were Calvinists who had influence on them, but John Calvin had remained restricted to Geneva for more than 20 years by the time the Articles were produced, so I doubt he had direct influence on them.

[deusveritasest]

Saying that they are a peculiarly protestant phenomenon is a simplistic analysis.

Not really. They establish a number of points that are peculiarly Protestant and in contrast to those doctrines that are held in common between the "Apostolic" churches.

They have a similar position to some of the statements of the great councils of the early Church.  

Yes, some of what they say is sound and Patristic. But some of it is not.

[Liz]

I don't follow, but I'm curious to learn.

What I mean is that it is clear either from a Byzantine ("Eastern Orthodox) or Oriental Orthodox perspective that by the time the Anglicans broke from what what is commonly called the "Roman Catholic Church" that neither of them had held the whole, complete, and universal faith of the Undivided Church for quite some time. You were trying to point out that the Anglicans essentially kept the faith that Rome had taught them. I pointed out that that does not matter to us as the faith of Rome was also deficient in our eyes.

Yes, this is an important point. I don't agree about who was 'wrong', but it's important to acknowledge what the Orthodox Church thought.

[Liz]

I don't know. It had a significant number of changes. Anyway, I think it's clear that the BCP you were talking about is not really Cranmer's work; the only 2 BCP's that were directly his authorship were 1549 and 1552.

Well, I am not a scholar in theology. I simply compared the versions and to me, they looked very similar. Certianly much of the beautiful and important language that is familiar to Anglicans, derives either from Cranmer or from the KJB. Both are beautifully written.

[Liz]

Thanks for your response FormerReformer. Do all the Anglican Provinces/dioceses have women priests? While I do have a problem with women "priests" there are other things that seem to concern me more such as open communion... I don't know if this concept/practice is found throughout anglicanism but it seems very dangerous/irreverent to me.

I'd never thought of communion that way before. That's very sobering.

Yes, open communion is a very disturbing practice from a more conservative ecclesiological mindset. In this area there are 4 main communion policies (among Episcopal churches): "all are welcome", "all who seek Christ all welcome", all Christians, and all baptized Christians. These are all disturbing (in descending order of severity) because they all involve sacramental oneness without oneness in faith.

Could you explain further? I am struggling atm. Is 'oneness of faith' something that exists the Orthodox Church by definition?

[Liz]

Saying that they are a peculiarly protestant phenomenon is a simplistic analysis.

Not really. They establish a number of points that are peculiarly Protestant and in contrast to those doctrines that are held in common between the "Apostolic" churches..

They have a similar position to some of the statements of the great councils of the early Church.  

Yes, some of what they say is sound and Patristic. But some of it is not.

I agree. It is neither the one thing nor the other.

[deusveritasest]

Thanks for your response FormerReformer. Do all the Anglican Provinces/dioceses have women priests? While I do have a problem with women "priests" there are other things that seem to concern me more such as open communion... I don't know if this concept/practice is found throughout anglicanism but it seems very dangerous/irreverent to me.

I'd never thought of communion that way before. That's very sobering.

Yes, open communion is a very disturbing practice from a more conservative ecclesiological mindset. In this area there are 4 main communion policies (among Episcopal churches): "all are welcome", "all who seek Christ all welcome", all Christians, and all baptized Christians. These are all disturbing (in descending order of severity) because they all involve sacramental oneness without oneness in faith.

Could you explain further? I am struggling atm. Is 'oneness of faith' something that exists the Orthodox Church by definition?

Uh.... I don't understand the grammar of that question. Could you rephrase?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Relationships between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy