OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 01:27:23 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Relationships between Anglicanism and Orthodoxy  (Read 7108 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #45 on: September 01, 2009, 12:25:51 PM »

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

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

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.
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #46 on: September 01, 2009, 02:48:47 PM »

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.
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #47 on: September 01, 2009, 06:51:03 PM »

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.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 01, 2009, 07:39:50 PM »

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).
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,065


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #49 on: September 02, 2009, 02:52:16 PM »


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

Gosh! Well, I suppose any convert is good news, but ...  Huh


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

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #50 on: September 02, 2009, 04:40:07 PM »

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).
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2009, 04:42:08 PM »


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

Gosh! Well, I suppose any convert is good news, but ...  Huh


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.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,550



WWW
« Reply #52 on: June 11, 2010, 08:47:19 PM »

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".

Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2010, 12:25:16 PM »

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.   
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2010, 01:01:19 PM »

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.
Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2010, 01:52:54 PM »

Quote
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.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #56 on: July 31, 2010, 09:36:05 PM »

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.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #57 on: July 31, 2010, 09:38:01 PM »

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.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2010, 09:39:42 PM »

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.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2010, 10:59:48 PM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #60 on: July 31, 2010, 11:46:30 PM »

I hope we Orthodox can see that the conservative anglicans are Protestant at core.
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2010, 11:50:34 PM by augustin717 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: August 01, 2010, 12:08:14 AM »

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

Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #62 on: August 01, 2010, 04:54:06 AM »

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #63 on: August 01, 2010, 06:35:55 AM »

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

That would be the conservative Episcopalians.

Quote
Anglicans are the most pretentious of the Protestants.

Some of them can be. Comes with nominalism.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #64 on: August 01, 2010, 06:36:36 AM »

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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #65 on: August 01, 2010, 06:38:19 AM »

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.
Logged

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

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #66 on: August 01, 2010, 07:38:04 AM »

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #67 on: August 01, 2010, 09:34:36 AM »

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.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #68 on: August 01, 2010, 09:51:58 AM »

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.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #69 on: August 01, 2010, 10:04:32 AM »

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.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #70 on: August 01, 2010, 10:06:59 AM »

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.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #71 on: August 01, 2010, 04:23:36 PM »

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.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #72 on: August 01, 2010, 04:26:50 PM »

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?

 Cheesy
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #73 on: August 01, 2010, 09:29:17 PM »

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?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #74 on: August 01, 2010, 09:31:16 PM »

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.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #75 on: August 01, 2010, 09:36:16 PM »

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.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #76 on: August 01, 2010, 09:38:02 PM »

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.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #77 on: August 01, 2010, 10:01:50 PM »

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
« Last Edit: August 01, 2010, 10:29:29 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #78 on: August 01, 2010, 10:39:58 PM »

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?
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #79 on: August 01, 2010, 11:16:00 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2010, 11:17:13 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #80 on: August 02, 2010, 12:14:11 AM »

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.
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #81 on: August 02, 2010, 12:37:55 AM »

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.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #82 on: August 02, 2010, 03:37:28 AM »

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.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #83 on: August 02, 2010, 03:40:15 AM »

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.
Logged
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #84 on: August 02, 2010, 03:43:16 AM »

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.
Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #85 on: August 02, 2010, 05:16:35 AM »

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
Logged

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

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #86 on: August 02, 2010, 05:19:05 AM »

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
Logged

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

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Liz
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Church of England
Posts: 989



« Reply #87 on: August 02, 2010, 05:29:11 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2010, 05:31:38 AM by Liz » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #88 on: August 02, 2010, 11:22:07 AM »

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.
 
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #89 on: August 02, 2010, 12:01:30 PM »

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.  
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.162 seconds with 72 queries.