OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 08:34:34 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...  (Read 11330 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« on: April 18, 2013, 07:53:29 AM »

I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

 
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,484


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2013, 08:03:54 AM »

There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy. Grin
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2013, 08:16:53 AM »

There are many, many flavours of Anglicanism. From highly liturgical High Church (the topmost layer, sometimes called Anglo-Catholic, are probably what Henry VIII wanted - Catholics outside the Pope's jurisdiction) to Latitudinarian/Broad Church (that can get so broad as to accept anyone believing in God) to heavily Calvinist-influenced Low Church. So you can find a lot of variety in views. :-) Your friend's points sound Low Church-ish enough to give Anglo-Catholics apoplexy. Grin

I'd say his friend sounds a lot more than Low Church-ish. The points made in the OP seem particularly Low Church. I spent most of my life worshipping in the low-ish Church end of Anglicanism (somewhere between the evangelicals and middle of the road is where my Lutheran mother felt at home) and those comments would have been beyond the pale for any of those parishes.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,934


« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2013, 09:04:13 AM »

St. Raphael of Brooklyn expressed himself well on the subject of the Anglican Communion when he said:

Quote
...the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

The frustration that Orthodox have in speaking with Anglicans is that it is impossible to determine exactly "what they actually believe".  When one Anglican tells you "what they actually believe", most often you are just being told what this one person, as an Anglican, "actually believes".  The vagueness of their teaching is largely due to the fact that Anglicanism was not founded so much on conviction but on compromise.  Anglicanism was an attempt to find some kind of middle way of compromise between Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it seems that most Anglicans decide for themselves where they want to be in that spectrum.
Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,207


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2013, 01:03:29 PM »

The Episcopalian Church that I remember attending when I lived in Central Florida I think was maybe low-church. I remember that they had vestments, but they also had electric guitars and drums. That was my real first impression of the Epsicopalians and I thought that all of their churches were like that.

When I was younger I never knew that the Anglican Church and the Episcopalian Church was the same thing. Knowing now that are the same, I am still at a loss to even begin to describe what they believe, because ISTM that most of them don't know what they believe; some are for gay marriage and gay bishops, others are against both; some are for women clergy, and others are against; some seem to think that they don't need the bishops and other clergy, and others insist that they are needed.

Don't feel bad if you can't figure out what they believe, they are in the same boat*!  Grin








*I'm sure one of our Anglican/Episcopalian members will find this thread and then tell us what it is they believe. However, I'm sure another could come and give us another answer entirely. I guess we should just add everything up and take the average or the mean of what is left and then we might be able to generalize their beliefs.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
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 #5 on: April 18, 2013, 01:24:48 PM »

St. Raphael of Brooklyn expressed himself well on the subject of the Anglican Communion when he said:

Quote
...the loose teaching of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definitions of truths, and so inclined toward pet heresies that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can call out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulous is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not, without distrust, grasp the hand of her theologians, for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/hawaweeny.aspx

The frustration that Orthodox have in speaking with Anglicans is that it is impossible to determine exactly "what they actually believe".  When one Anglican tells you "what they actually believe", most often you are just being told what this one person, as an Anglican, "actually believes".  The vagueness of their teaching is largely due to the fact that Anglicanism was not founded so much on conviction but on compromise.  Anglicanism was an attempt to find some kind of middle way of compromise between Roman Catholic and Protestant, and it seems that most Anglicans decide for themselves where they want to be in that spectrum.
as someone put it, no one is safe from being Anglican.  All that bridge building leads to nowhere.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2013, 01:47:44 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.
Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,484


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2013, 03:58:17 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2013, 04:11:26 PM »

"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  Cheesy

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2013, 04:21:10 PM »

"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  Cheesy

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

 laugh
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,572


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2013, 04:40:07 PM »

"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  Cheesy

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*


I have plenty of issues with Anglicanism but your observation is about as useful as say, this little ditty from an Evangelical site :

"Whilst we may take God-fearing and Christ-honouring Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mormons and Lutherans seriously we, as New Covenant Christians, cannot extend the same respect to their respective traditions.http://www.nccg.org/FAQ011-OrthCh.html.   

or this one from a Comment board on Rotate Caeli:

"Anonymous said... Eastern "orthodoxy" is not the path to salvation no matter how beautiful the liturgy is. The denial of Peter as the head of the church as JESUS himself made him is not a little matter. Outside the Church there is NO Salvation so if i was a member of that schismatic body and was concerned for my salvation i would be searching for an Eastern Rite CATHOLIC church immediatedly!!http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/01/julian-calendar-christmas-greeting.html





Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,019


"My god is greater."


« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2013, 04:44:02 PM »

He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary.

There are still some Calvinists in Anglican circles.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2013, 04:51:21 PM »

Having fun?....  in Lent...

 Sad
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 04:51:47 PM by Ebor » Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2013, 04:54:54 PM »

"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  Cheesy

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters.  Will you now please?  Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

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

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2013, 04:56:03 PM »

Thank you, Podkarpatska.  Your post is appreciated.
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2013, 04:56:31 PM »

"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  Cheesy

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters.  Will you now please?  Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Sure. I don't remember what you are talking about though. Feel free to ask them again.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2013, 04:59:31 PM »

"I don't give a hell, God sent me to piss the world off!"  Cheesy

I really don't get how people honestly take Anglicanism seriously. The only people who belong to that Church are emotionally confused agnostic-atheist liberals with an existential streak who want to hold onto some sense of religion for emotional comfort, yet still want to be able to do indulge in whatever sins and anti-Christian teachings they want.

*flamesuit on*

You started a thread earlier Anglicans and did not answer some questions that I asked you before it was locked due to some other posters.  Will you now please?  Or will you set up such a straw figure that doesn't apply to real people?

*not flaming*

Sure. I don't remember what you are talking about though. Feel free to ask them again.

Thank you.

Do you recall at all a thread about Anglicans within the past few months and in which you made some erm "Broad brush" remarks about Anglicans?   I shall go check for the precise one

It was this one:  
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,49845.0.html

You did not start it but made some  posts.  

MY apologies for the error of who the OP was.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 05:01:58 PM by Ebor » Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2013, 05:01:42 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I am not sure there is an single accurate statement above and I know almost nothing about the Church of England.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2013, 05:05:43 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,484


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2013, 05:10:17 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Annulments are granted by the RC, and probably, if the English-Spanish relations were not as prickly at the time, the issue would have been resolved. Still, after the break with Rome, the dissolution of that first marriage is considered by historians a divorce, de facto if not de jure.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2013, 05:11:25 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 05:11:44 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2013, 05:14:38 PM »

I am not quite sure as the the proper method of referencing things in threads that have been locked such as copy-and-paste, so I will just start JamesR with you used the term "Pseudo-liturgicalism" in writing about my Church in general.  I asked 1) would you please explain what you meant by that phrase?  and 2) What personal experience or knowledge you may have had with anything Episcopalian/Anglican that you could base this opinion upon?
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,738


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2013, 05:17:09 PM »

Quote
First, you have not answered my questions about what personal experience or knowledge you have about Anglicans/Episcopalians.  Could you please tell us this?

What I've read about their doctrinal statements and take on matters--such as approving of homosexuality and abortion, having atheist Bishops and allowing anyone to commune. I know that for a time, Anglicanism was respectable and actually very close to being reconciled with the Orthodox Church, but then the liberalization ruined it.

Quote
Second, as to the above, on what do you base your opinion about what other people know?  How would you know what other people believe?  Has a real Episcopalian told you something along the lines of he/she stays with the Anglican Communion but "knows that it's false"?

I don't know how to answer this without disrespecting him, but JamesRottneck seems to fit my description perfectly and still adheres to the beliefs of Anglicanism even when people on this board have proved him wrong countless times.

Quote
Would you possibly think that someone making such a declaration about your beliefs and Church was being presumptuous?

Yeah. But Anglicanism is not my Church. I don't agree with this new relativistic view in society that refuses to discern between truth and falsehood. My Church is true and theirs is false. And we can debate it logically to prove so.

Quote
But I will ask what specific things do you presume to think are "false" and/or "wrong" please?

Doctrinal disunity, open communion, approval of homosexual lifestyle and abortion, atheist Bishops, atheist members, etc.

Quote
Not being in the same group that you have chosen does not mean that other people are willfully staying with something that you personally think is "wrong".

I know that, but I just think that--in my experience--Anglicans are especially like that though. I've met several Anglicans/Episcopals who--for the most part--were really just agnostic atheists wanting some sense of spirituality in their life, even if they thought the religion was bogus.  
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,423



« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2013, 05:20:39 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Annulments are granted by the RC, and probably, if the English-Spanish relations were not as prickly at the time, the issue would have been resolved. Still, after the break with Rome, the dissolution of that first marriage is considered by historians a divorce, de facto if not de jure.

It is true that annulments has certainly been granted in the past and often with the lack of a male heir being part of it.  That the Bishop of Rome was essentially a prisoner of the Emperor Charles V, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, influenced matters against the case.
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 4,484


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2013, 05:25:09 PM »

Anglicanism is strange. It is amazing how Calvinists and Crypto-Papists can be in communion with eachother.

That's because the Church of England was created as a government agency, not a denomination. Things just snowballed from there.

Though I admit it is deliciously ironic how a church created over a divorce generally denies remarriage to divorcees today.

I'm sorry, Arachne, but it was not a "divorce" but an annulment from a marriage that had previous required a special permit from the Bishop of Rome in order to occur.  Cathrine of Aragon was married to Henry Tudor's elder brother Arthur for about 6 months or so before he died as a teenager.  Since Henry VI did not want to lose the dowry and other benefits (and some alliance) it took some time, permission from Rome and the death of the king before Henry VIII was able to marry her.

Nor did it "start" there.

Nor if everything else were true including the misstatement the Church of England doesn't allow for remarriage would anything be ironic.

And when you call yourself anything, you are a denomination.

Again I don't know much, but when did the Church in England begin to understand itself as the Church of England?

But again, I know very little about all this. One of few things less interesting than American history is English history.

Certainly if we can have informative posts about Daoism and Buddhism of varying stripes, someone here knows something about this beyond vague stereotypes and misconceptions.

Henry VIII wanted a change of jurisdiction, with himself as head of the Church in England instead of the Pope. He favoured Catholic practices himself, and the Reformation didn't go far during his lifetime. More Protestant forms were adopted under Edward VI, when Thomas Cranmer was Archbishop of Canterbury. The definite turning point was probably the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. Mary I tried to reestablish Catholicism, so Elizabeth I swung further the other way when her turn came.

As for the CoE not allowing remarriage to divorcees... I said generally. It is left to the discretion of each vicar whether they are willing to perform the rite, and a great majority aren't. It would have made things much easier for me and my husband if they were.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2013, 05:28:50 PM »

I am not quite sure as the the proper method of referencing things in threads that have been locked such as copy-and-paste

PM some of the more "active mods" and ask them. It is a good question. Sometimes locked threads get locked after they spiral out of control into very different places than where they began. You might be allowed to reference a locked thread's content, if it is for good reason and the mod hasn't said otherwise.

If you get an answer, let us know.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2013, 10:39:52 AM »

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.
Logged
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 750



« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2013, 02:56:43 PM »

While the Anglican cited in the OP certainly represents the "snake-belly" low form of Anglicanism, the Episcopal Church clearly considers episcopacy to be optional, as evidenced by its full communion with Lutherans.  Non-episcopally ordained Lutheran ministers can become Episcopal priests without being reordained.
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 #28 on: April 19, 2013, 03:39:09 PM »

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.
You do; Anglicanism doesn't.
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
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2013, 04:22:53 PM »

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof. 

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues. 
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2013, 07:12:08 PM »

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 07:12:18 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2013, 09:50:55 PM »

I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations

   I attend the diocese of Central Florida of the Episcopal Church, FWIW.   Your puzzlement is due to the fact that Anglicanism is alot less authoritarian and dogmatic in tone, however that doesn't mean that Anglicans have no belief.  Anglican belief is shaped by the worship, prayer book, and creeds.  There is a great deal of respect for individual opinions on non-essential matters or things indifferent:  places where the Bible, Creeds, or Councils are silent.

  Your friends views sound like an extreme fringe.  Most Anglicans believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, albeit one that is re-presented rather than repeated.   Calling the altar a "table" also doesn't much reflect on the Eucharistic theology of the congregation, either, and I don't personally have anything against calling the altar a table if it looks like one.   That I'm more "Anglo-Catholic" leaning that the priest, who might have a more "Evangelical" or Lutheranesque understanding doesn't bother me.   I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2013, 11:35:10 PM »

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Anglican (Episcopal Church)
Posts: 132



« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2013, 12:07:55 AM »

I had an Anglican friend set me straight on what they actually believe as opposed to what is actually portrayed.He said that the AC considers itself Apostolic but doesn't understand that word in the same fashion as EO or RCC. He also said that while the office of bishop was decided to be kept because of it historic use that it is not necessary. He also said that while they call their minister a priest and the table an altar in everyday parlance that they in fact do not believe that he is a priest since there is no sacrifice going on in their service...also it is a holy table not an altar again due to their being no sacrifice. I have looked at the 39 articles and while some seem fine I have real issues with others. Any comments observations?

I understand that the Anglican Church has a wide spectrum of believers, anywhere from calvinism to anglo catholic. But each group claims they are the genuine group or represent "Classical Anglicanism". Needless to say that my friend showed me I believe it was article 31 that states their is no sacrifice of the mass and i believe he was qouting the Book of common prayer when he said it calls the priest a presbyter (yes i know we  understand our presbyters as priests) and it only refers to a holy table and not to an altar. I am not questioning the sincere desire of its members to follow Jesus Christ I am just trying to figure out if their is a real anglican church or is it more of a philosophy made up of the smaller parties. hope that makes sense.

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

In the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral the Episcopate is listed as one of the essential components of Christianity.

Our Eucharistic liturgy states in no uncertain terms that we are "offering" to God a "sacrifice" of praise and thanksgiving.

In the Church consecration rite we are invited to pray for "the setting apart of the Altar."  The Bishop goes on to pray,
Quote
Lord God, hear us.  Sanctify this Table dedicated to you.  Let it be to us a sign of the heavenly Altar where your saints and angels praise you forever.
 The following rubric directs
Quote
Members of the congreation vest the Altar, place the vessels on it, and light the candles.
 In the Lamplighting rite the Holy Table is used as an altar of light and incense, for the rubric directs
Quote
The candles at the Altar are now lighted, as are other candles and lamps as may be convenient.
 Throughout the Book of Common Prayer "Priest" and "Presbyter" are used for the most part interchangeably.

Article XXXI states
Quote
XXXI.  Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.  

The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.  Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits.
 This clearly refers to a specific doctrine, according to which Jesus was destroyed afresh in every Eucharist for the remission of sins that his death on Calvary had somehow failed to reach.  I'm not sure that even the Latin church teaches this anymore.  If your lot teach it, it's the first I've heard of it.  From the reformers' standpoint, Christ died "once for all."  The "sacrifices of Masses" taught that Jesus died once for some, then again for some more, then again for some more, and so on, being killed afresh in each Eucharist for sins he hadn't gotten to yet.  One may regret that the reformers had a somewhat constrained theological context to work in, but within those constraints I think they made the right choice.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 12:11:40 AM by Mockingbird » Logged

Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.--Byrhtferth of Ramsey
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,491


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2013, 03:25:53 AM »

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 03:26:18 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2013, 08:34:25 AM »

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
Shocked
Logged

Peace.
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2013, 12:10:14 PM »

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,968


When in doubt, you lack the proper φρόνημα


« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2013, 12:27:31 PM »

(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
That's not the Teaching.

(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
Like what?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 12:27:56 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
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 #38 on: April 25, 2013, 12:45:35 PM »

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.
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 #39 on: April 25, 2013, 12:46:57 PM »

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof. 

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues. 
how can it, if you embrace diversity as a dogma at the expense of Truth?
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 #40 on: April 25, 2013, 12:49:24 PM »

The Holy Spirit binds us together with all believers, living and dead, including the Apostles.  That makes us Apostolic.

A spirit may bind the protestants together, but it surely isn't the Holy Spirit. The Apostles and the saints have nothing to do with Protestantism.
Yes, the Holy Spirit doesn't bind dead, gangerous limbs to a live Body.  And the Apostles and the saints aren't dead.
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 #41 on: April 25, 2013, 12:50:20 PM »

(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
Such as?
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
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 8,687



« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2013, 01:27:09 PM »

I'm learning to get past this Eastern Orthodox idea that we must all believe the same things in every detail or else...

An idea that seems incredibly unOrthodox.
That tremor felt throughout the universe was me agreeing with Orthonorm.

I wouldn't say that we have to agree in every detail.  We don't all agree on toll houses, extent of relations with other religious traditions, 6 day creationism, etc. We aren't the Borg.  The Church Fathers certainly don't universally agree on everything.  That is not to say that we can diverge off from what the Church teaches, but there are some grey areas that have not been dogmatized.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Somebody just went all Jack Chick up in here.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2013, 03:10:58 PM »

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
Would you be willing to elaborate on the second issue (2) ?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2013, 03:30:47 PM »

As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  

Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
Would you be willing to elaborate on the second issue (2) ?

The 2s have it!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »  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 0.168 seconds with 73 queries.