OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 23, 2014, 10:56:55 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 11074 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #225 on: June 14, 2013, 09:42:04 AM »

Friggin confusing.

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

My church did have choice opinions about the ELCA, which should not be repeated, if there is to be a nice dialog here Smiley

PP
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 09:43:01 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #226 on: June 14, 2013, 09:46:17 AM »

Friggin confusing.

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

My church did have choice opinions about the ELCA, which should not be repeated, if there is to be a nice dialog here Smiley

PP

I was going to mention that about the sign of the cross. They defend it but hardly do it.

American Lutheran history: All the Scandinavian-American liberal churches eventually merged into ELCA. The Missouri Synod was founded by people who left Germany over the state watering down its Lutheran church, but it wasn't necessarily conservative until the Sixties (a reaction to that?), a result of which was the LCMS's liberals all leaving in the '70s for one of the Scandie mergers that became ELCA. ELCA: on average, slightly more conservative, less hoity-toity Episcopalians. LCMS: confessional Lutherans who want to keep distinctive, semi-Catholic classical Lutheranism vs. people who want to be American evangelicals.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 09:56:34 AM by The young fogey » Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,417



« Reply #227 on: June 14, 2013, 10:06:55 AM »

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #228 on: June 14, 2013, 10:17:44 AM »

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.
Yeah, there is an "official" way, but I cant find a video on it. Ironically, a search on it only shows a bunch of ELCA's doing it.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #229 on: June 14, 2013, 10:28:17 AM »

Quote
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
My patrimony. My church approved of the sign of the cross, but didnt do it much at all, outside of special occasions.

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.

I have no idea if each Lutheran denomination has an official way to do it. Sounds like the pastor was trying to be high-church but didn't know how; you see Episcopal priests make mistakes like that. (And mainstream modern Catholic priests when they start to learn how to do the traditional Mass. They struggle with the Latin, and I saw one wear his hat while giving Communion.)

The older Orthodox crossing themselves is understandable. They saw what the pastor was trying to do and reacted out of habit. Theologically unschooled but their heart was in the right place. Many such are cultural Orthodox; it's part of being ethnic. They'd never leave but see Lutheranism as the same, just as good, but for Germans and Scandinavians, etc.

If I were visiting and in a good mood, I might give a never-Catholic Lutheran or Episcopal minister the benefit of the doubt and cross myself too, acknowledging that God can act through such. Not the same as going to Communion.

By the way, in bygone days the Episcopalians (wanting ancient apostolic cred and not getting it from the Catholics) invited the Orthodox bishops to their cathedral events and the Orthodox bishops or their priest representatives would happily sit in the clergy seats in the chancel, but not vested or participating. Except occasionally preaching: the first hierarch of ROCOR at the time, Metropolitan Anastassy, once gave the sermon at London's St Paul's Cathedral.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 10:31:30 AM by The young fogey » Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,417



« Reply #230 on: June 14, 2013, 10:35:17 AM »

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.

I have no idea if each Lutheran denomination has an official way to do it. Sounds like the pastor was trying to be high-church but didn't know how; you see Episcopal priests make mistakes like that. (And mainstream modern Catholic priests when they start to learn how to do the traditional Mass. They struggle with the Latin, and I saw one wear his hat while giving Communion.)

The older Orthodox crossing themselves is understandable. They saw what the pastor was trying to do and reacted out of habit. Theologically unschooled but their heart was in the right place. Many such are cultural Orthodox; it's part of being ethnic. They'd never leave but see Lutheranism as the same, just as good, but for Germans and Scandinavians, etc.

If I were visiting and in a good mood, I might give a never-Catholic Lutheran or Episcopal minister the benefit of the doubt and cross myself too, acknowledging that God can act through such. Not the same as going to Communion.

By the way, in bygone days the Episcopalians (wanting ancient apostolic cred and not getting it from the Catholics) invited the Orthodox bishops to their cathedral events and the Orthodox bishops or their priest representatives would happily sit in the clergy seats in the chancel, but not vested or participating.

I think I was unclear. I meant older Orthodox signing themselves in weird ways in general, not that there were older Orthodox present at the wedding (only myself).

But your comment about trying but not knowing how makes sense, and I suppose would fit. IIRC, I don't think he even wore any vestments, although this may be the Lutheran norm - I don't know.
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #231 on: June 14, 2013, 11:08:06 AM »

This reminds me, I went to a Lutheran wedding where the pastor blessed the audience by signing the cross towards us. Except, if I hadn't been Orthodox I wouldn't have known what in the world he was trying to do since the "cross" was horribly butchered and made no sense - incredibly more so than some older Orthodox signing themselves. Is there an "official" way Lutheran ministers are supposed to do this? I think he belonged to a conservative denomination.

I have no idea if each Lutheran denomination has an official way to do it. Sounds like the pastor was trying to be high-church but didn't know how; you see Episcopal priests make mistakes like that. (And mainstream modern Catholic priests when they start to learn how to do the traditional Mass. They struggle with the Latin, and I saw one wear his hat while giving Communion.)

The older Orthodox crossing themselves is understandable. They saw what the pastor was trying to do and reacted out of habit. Theologically unschooled but their heart was in the right place. Many such are cultural Orthodox; it's part of being ethnic. They'd never leave but see Lutheranism as the same, just as good, but for Germans and Scandinavians, etc.

If I were visiting and in a good mood, I might give a never-Catholic Lutheran or Episcopal minister the benefit of the doubt and cross myself too, acknowledging that God can act through such. Not the same as going to Communion.

By the way, in bygone days the Episcopalians (wanting ancient apostolic cred and not getting it from the Catholics) invited the Orthodox bishops to their cathedral events and the Orthodox bishops or their priest representatives would happily sit in the clergy seats in the chancel, but not vested or participating.

I think I was unclear. I meant older Orthodox signing themselves in weird ways in general, not that there were older Orthodox present at the wedding (only myself).

But your comment about trying but not knowing how makes sense, and I suppose would fit. IIRC, I don't think he even wore any vestments, although this may be the Lutheran norm - I don't know.

Sure, lots of born Catholics and Orthodox cross themselves funny.

Lutheran pastors sometimes wear vestments. Like sometimes they wear black suits and Roman collars just like Catholic priests; sometimes regular suits and ties like evangelical ministers. They're understandably confused. Sacramentally high but with a low theology of the pastorate, reacting against clerical corruption in Renaissance Germany. They don't believe ordination has an indelible character on the soul and they believe that it's functional: strictly, a pastor without a call is not a pastor, but in practice they recognize retired pastors. The pastorate is for good order but not essential to the sacraments; it's rare and frowned upon but they allow lay celebration of Communion for example. The conservative Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has had groups of laywomen do it.

By the way, Evangelische means Lutheran in German.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 11:13:52 AM by The young fogey » Logged

primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,416


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #232 on: June 14, 2013, 11:15:43 AM »

Vestments...I know my old church used to, and I think they still do for some things, but not everything....kind of like everything else in some Lutheran circles.
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #233 on: June 14, 2013, 11:27:29 AM »

Vestments...I know my old church used to, and I think they still do for some things, but not everything....kind of like everything else in some Lutheran circles.

Right, there's a high-church/low-church spectrum of ceremonial and theology in Lutheranism.

Anglican Evangelicals weren't quite the same as American evangelicals either. The big E helps mark that. The low Church of Englanders were Congregational in their theology (bishops are nice but not necessary) but unlike American evos they were liturgical: cassock, surplice, black scarf, academic hood, and Morning Prayer and quarterly Communion according to the Prayer Book. Today they're mixed like the Lutherans, with copycat American evangelicalism winning.

Anglican liberals logically used to show their anti-Catholicism by caring little for ceremonial, minimalist like Evangelicals. But that started to change in the late 1800s, an effect of Anglo-Catholicism; by the '20s you have Modernists who were ceremonially high. Liberal high church. I'd say that took over Episcopalianism in the Sixties for a number of reasons: hippie shamanism, fashionable ecumenism with Catholics, in the war on the old America/diversityfest, ethnic Catholics were cool for five minutes before Roe v. Wade turned the Prots against us again. (You still sort of see it with Hispanic outreach: some Episcopalians celebrating Our Lady of Guadalupe and 'la Santa Misa en Español'.) Today, most lay Episcopalians say they're Protestants (including the few remaining old country-club WASPs like George H.W. Bush) but most Episcopal priests don't; to them, 'Protestant' means the evangelical and fundamentalist whites they look down on, so being high-church is a marker to distinguish themselves from that.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2013, 11:28:13 AM by The young fogey » Logged

Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,410



« Reply #234 on: June 14, 2013, 07:07:22 PM »

Keble, what would listening on the part of the Orthodox entail?

Well, if some sweeping generalization or error of history was being aimed at the Anglicans, it might be actually listening to some real factual information. 
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.
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #235 on: June 14, 2013, 07:16:42 PM »

I've never heard any whoppers from the Orthodox, in person, about the Anglicans. Not like the story, I think from Overbeck, from 150 years ago about the Armenian priest who told his congregation that once a year an Anglican vicar throws the bread of Communion from the pulpit to his congregation.

I think ecumenical talks have gone on long enough that Orthodox bishops have no such misconceptions.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,244



« Reply #236 on: June 14, 2013, 10:31:49 PM »

I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #237 on: June 15, 2013, 12:16:54 AM »

I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Intercommunion but not interchangeable ministers. Probably very old news, since Protestants often don't care about denominational rules. My mother's family jumped between Methodist and Episcopal a few times over the generations.
Logged

Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,244



« Reply #238 on: June 15, 2013, 12:56:30 AM »

I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Intercommunion but not interchangeable ministers. Probably very old news, since Protestants often don't care about denominational rules. My mother's family jumped between Methodist and Episcopal a few times over the generations.

Is there honestly any difference? The Methodists don't accept the homophilia theology and pageantry (yet) but share communion with those who do. A distinction without a difference from my perspective.  Undecided

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #239 on: June 15, 2013, 08:31:33 AM »

I was just making it clear that it isn't a merger.

I guess I can agree with you there. (You may already noticed that I put "union" not "merger" in my last post.)

Whether you call it a merger, a union, or intercommunion, the bottom line is that it shows that the Episcopal church offically holds that their supposed episcopate is nice to have, but not essential.  What was once just an opinion of the more Protestant and liberal wings is now official doctrine, which along with the "ordination" of women demolishes Anglicanism's already shaky claims to apostolicity.

On what do you base this?  One of the required points in order to have this agreement was that the ELCA officially recognize that a bishop is ordained, in every sense of the word, and that bishops are necessary.
Ok, so let me get this right. ELCA and the Episcopalians state that each other's Eucharist is valid, which they can inter-commune, that each other's bishops are both valid and necessary (including women), and that Episcopalian priests can be a pastor at an ELCA church and still be in good standing?

It might not be a de jure merger, but it sure seems like a de facto one.

PP

The United Methodists are in bed with them, too, if I recall correctly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Intercommunion but not interchangeable ministers. Probably very old news, since Protestants often don't care about denominational rules. My mother's family jumped between Methodist and Episcopal a few times over the generations.

Is there honestly any difference? The Methodists don't accept the homophilia theology and pageantry (yet) but share communion with those who do. A distinction without a difference from my perspective.  Undecided

In Christ,
Andrew

Right. If you share Communion, you might as well have interchangeable ministers.
Logged

William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,320


« Reply #240 on: June 18, 2013, 03:26:19 PM »

On a related note YF you might be in tune with your church's teaching on abortion gays and even psychoanalysis . I really wonder what mental gymnastics are required to reconcile libertarianism with the same church's pronouncements on economic matters.

What pronouncements?
Rerum novarum, Quadragesimo anno, Centesimus Annus etc;  the so-called catholic social teaching ain't communism but it ain't libertarianism either.

So what do you think of Salazar's Estado Novo? It was based on Rerum Novarum.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #241 on: June 18, 2013, 09:08:02 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?

 


Sounds about right! Your friend told you the truth
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 #242 on: June 18, 2013, 09:12:15 PM »

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

Anglo-Catholics are a super minority within Anglicanism. They are also a late comer (the mid to late 19th century). They go against the view of what Anglicans are officially suppose to believe. I was anglo-catholic for 4 years before becoming Orthodox, and so I'm talking with some personal experience about the issue.

Yes I love Anglo-catholics, but they are not the norm, nor no where near the majority. They are a super super minority. The bigger groups are the broad wing and the evangelical wing.
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 #243 on: June 18, 2013, 09:19:43 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.

What your friend showed you was correct. Even Nashota house (a high church episcopal seminary) has a hard time calling it a sacrifice.
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/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #244 on: June 18, 2013, 09:35:56 PM »

Anglo-Catholics are a super minority within Anglicanism.

I don't know about super. They're alright, I guess.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #245 on: June 18, 2013, 09:50:52 PM »

The short way to understand Anglicanism is anything goes and if not Anglican's will vote it in or vote it out. Question is can we even call Anglican's an "ism" anymore

Yup. William F. Buckley Jr., a Catholic, once quipped that, after Anglicanism more openly liberalized in the Sixties, no one from the Pope to Mao Tse-Tung could be sure he is not an Anglican.

You touch on a reason for mainline decline. They do everything the secular world wants but people still leave. The liberals don't need those denominations anymore. Conservative churches are declining too but not as much. The mainline rightly sees the triumph of political correctness in Western society as a victory for it. Political correctness is a Christian heresy. So, sort of like the British acting like Dunkirk was a victory, they claim the now non-religious liberals are still in some sense liberal Christians like them. Numbers, schnumbers; only bigoted conservative Christians keep count. And/or they blame their decline, their now being passé in society, on... not being liberal enough. So you get books and articles such as Spong's Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

Episcopalianism took that and its Anglo-Catholic movement (really dating from the late 1800s) and has tried to reinvent/market itself as a 'cool' Catholicism for 'thinking people', different from old-school Anglo-Catholicism, which doctrinally imitated Catholicism. This has both conservative (they like our stuff, our liturgies, our classical music; they don't necessarily worship like Catholic liberals; in contrast, liberal high church is nearly unknown in Catholicism) and of course liberal aspects (now they have divorce and remarriage, have women clergy, and approve homosexuality). That's why many Episcopal priests go by 'Father' and say they're not Protestants. They're not fundamentalists and are liturgical and sacramental. Not wannabe Catholics like the old A-Cs but sort of Catholic on their own terms, which Catholicism thinks is contradictory. But ex-Protestant liberals don't buy it... and neither do one of the Episcopalians' target markets, American Catholics such as the many lapsed or who don't accept all the church's teachings. Even when they're told what they want to hear, such people know better and don't fall for this. They're more likely to stay lax/lapsed or just leave and not go somewhere else. (Easier now in America, where no one cares anymore if you go to church.)

You raise a number of good points!
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/
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,417



« Reply #246 on: June 24, 2013, 01:35:18 PM »

This Episcopalian priest (I assume that's what he is), from a year ago, seems fairly optimistic about the future of TEC.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2013, 01:36:33 PM by Nephi » Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #247 on: June 24, 2013, 01:53:11 PM »

This Episcopalian priest (I assume that's what he is), from a year ago, seems fairly optimistic about the future of TEC.

I don't have time right now to watch the whole thing. Except for the part praising 'the Anglican reformers' (heretics, state lackeys, and murderers of Catholics), there's of course much to like. I wonder if he's an Episcopalian, though. Since he seems conservative from what I've watched, my guess is he's in one of the small conservative denominations formed by people who left the Episcopalians.

Classical Anglicanism, the Prayer Book, is liturgical, but it got rid of most Catholic ceremonial. Towards the beginning, they got rid of the altars, set the Communion table lengthwise in the old chancel and had church in the round for Communion, with no cross, let alone a crucifix, no candles, no incense, no wafer bread (insisting on plain bread), and no water in the cup (which was made not to look like a Catholic chalice). The priest (Anglicans claim apostolic succession) wore his old Catholic choir habit of cassock, surplice and black scarf, not the Catholic Mass vestments. And eventually they had Communion only four times a year; the main service, even in many Episcopal churches when I was a kid, was Morning Prayer.
Logged

Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #248 on: June 24, 2013, 10:56:31 PM »

This Episcopalian priest (I assume that's what he is), from a year ago, seems fairly optimistic about the future of TEC.

  Fr. Jonathan is Episcopalian, and relative conservative.   I notice he seems to be trending towards being more conservative and less "Protestant" in his thinking as time goes on, though he seems to be strongly in favor of penal substitution.  I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,417



« Reply #249 on: June 24, 2013, 11:21:55 PM »

I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #250 on: June 25, 2013, 08:22:43 AM »

Thanks for the video and info. The Episcopal Church is semi-congregational: every rector, every parish can almost be its own church. (Which is how Anglo-Catholicism existed to introduce me, originally Episcopal, to pre-Vatican II Catholicism, after the council.) So there are still a few relative conservatives. Still, I'm surprised to see a young one. Old liberals call the shots in that denomination, eclipsing even that semi-congregationalism. (I'm not angry; they have the right to govern themselves.) My guess is Fr Jonathan will end up not being an Episcopalian anymore: ending up with the breakaway 'classical Anglicans' who share his beliefs, or converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Anglicanism and Lutheranism ended up being equivalent (why there are next to no Lutherans in England; Germans and Scandinavians who moved there just went Anglican, and after American independence, Lutherans in the old Swedish settlements in the colonies became Episcopalians) but Anglicanism's roots are closer to Calvin and Zwingli, more radical than the Lutherans (reformist Catholics at heart but with a funny view of church order, reacting to circumstances at the time of their founding). But Anglicanism has the quirk of claiming apostolic succession because the king liked having bishops. Whether the historic episcopate is necessary is up in the air for Anglicans; the real classical Anglicans didn't really think so (they just thought keeping bishops was better), and English Evangelicals (and I'm guessing the conservative Africans) don't, but Episcopalians historically have thought so, but don't anymore (they waived it for the union with ELCA). (Lutherans don't: the Swedes and Finns claim apostolic succession but don't think it's necessary.)

I'm guessing 'quasi-Lutheran' means the high-ish view of the Eucharist, the Real Presence, that self-styled classical Anglicans uphold, much like Martin Luther, unlike Cranmer's Zwinglianism. Also, like Lutherans, today's classical Anglicans don't believe in double predestination.

The Anglo-Catholics I knew would have been offended by being called the equivalent of Lutherans; they thought they were the Anglo-Saxon version of Catholics and Orthodox.
Logged

Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #251 on: June 26, 2013, 11:45:19 AM »

I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 11:58:47 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #252 on: June 26, 2013, 12:24:53 PM »

I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.


I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
Logged

Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #253 on: June 26, 2013, 01:32:09 PM »

   Thought Cranmer created much of the wording for the Book of Common Prayer, Anglicanism's theological trajectory was shaped more by Elizabeth, and she favored Eucharistic realism without wanting to completely alienate moderate Puritans.  Richard Hooker was basically the theological apologist for her settlement.

  Cranmer's views are closer to what you might understand as Receptionism or a Parallelism.  He was not a Zwinglian Memorialist though Zwingli did influence him.     Some of the things that Pope Benedict XVI said about Eucharistic theology are not entirely unlike Cranmer's, so I'd be careful to dismiss his ideas as un-Catholic altogether. 

  I do agree that Cranmer was very radical for his time, Nicholas Ridley even moreso.  But the kind of anti-Catholic polemicism fortunately did not last too long, though it made an impression on the Church of England, Elizabeth changed the trajectory away from polemical theologizing.  Charles I was the heir of this tradition but he tried to basically make the Church of England enforce what it believed and it lead to a horrible civil war and a tension within Anglicanism that has never been fully resolved and that lies at the heart of debates around womens ordination and homosexuality in the Communion today (ironically with most Catholic leaning Anglicans supporting womens ordination and inclusion of gays, with opponents mostly coming from a Biblicist, rather than Catholic perspective on those matters- Tradition doesn't matter a whit to them, it's all about the Bible).
Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #254 on: June 26, 2013, 01:40:18 PM »

  Thought Cranmer created much of the wording for the Book of Common Prayer, Anglicanism's theological trajectory was shaped more by Elizabeth, and she favored Eucharistic realism without wanting to completely alienate moderate Puritans.  Richard Hooker was basically the theological apologist for her settlement.

  Cranmer's views are closer to what you might understand as Receptionism or a Parallelism.  He was not a Zwinglian Memorialist though Zwingli did influence him.     Some of the things that Pope Benedict XVI said about Eucharistic theology are not entirely unlike Cranmer's, so I'd be careful to dismiss his ideas as un-Catholic altogether.  

  I do agree that Cranmer was very radical for his time, Nicholas Ridley even moreso.  But the kind of anti-Catholic polemicism fortunately did not last too long, though it made an impression on the Church of England, Elizabeth changed the trajectory away from polemical theologizing.  Charles I was the heir of this tradition but he tried to basically make the Church of England enforce what it believed and it lead to a horrible civil war and a tension within Anglicanism that has never been fully resolved and that lies at the heart of debates around womens ordination and homosexuality in the Communion today (ironically with most Catholic leaning Anglicans supporting womens ordination and inclusion of gays, with opponents mostly coming from a Biblicist, rather than Catholic perspective on those matters- Tradition doesn't matter a whit to them, it's all about the Bible).


Right, Anglo-Catholicism's unintended effect was to create liberal high church, the Episcopal house style now. There is a kind of conservative Anglican, including Fr Jonathan, who points out that A-Cs' disobedience to their bishops, to the Prayer Book, and to Hooker's 'reformed Catholic' doctrine paved the way for Modernist revisionism, deconstructing the meaning of texts including eventually scripture, which the Tractarians never intended.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 01:41:22 PM by The young fogey » Logged

Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #255 on: June 26, 2013, 01:49:58 PM »

Right, Anglo-Catholicism's unintended effect was to create liberal high church, the Episcopal house style now. There is a kind of conservative Anglican, including Fr Jonathan, who points out that A-Cs' disobedience to their bishops, to the Prayer Book, and to Hooker's 'reformed Catholic' doctrine paved the way for Modernist revisionism, deconstructing the meaning of texts including eventually scripture, which the Tractarians never intended.

  Disobedience is one area I see as seriously problematic in Anglicanism.  Anglicans have little concept of disobedience, and this has serious consequences for spiritual formation or lack thereof.  I've even confronted conservative Episcopalian clergy about this and they don't seem to grasp the gravity of the issue- they think being a anti-gay is ok in a denomination that has spoken on this issue and even come up with canon law in some cases.   It's a bit too much of a free-for-all, hence Father Jonathan  being an oddity but not really being an oddity- the Episcopal Church is full of mavericks and freelancers compared to the Orthodox Church or Roman Catholicism (or Lutheranism, for that matter).  Many are converts from other churches- one I know is formerly Pentecostal.  They want to bask in Apostolicity but not actually in the discipline that was for centuries entailed in that.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 01:51:31 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #256 on: June 26, 2013, 01:53:43 PM »

They have the right to govern themselves. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Same answer for both Catholic liberals and Episcopal conservatives.

Right, Anglo-Catholicism's unintended effect was to create liberal high church, the Episcopal house style now. There is a kind of conservative Anglican, including Fr Jonathan, who points out that A-Cs' disobedience to their bishops, to the Prayer Book, and to Hooker's 'reformed Catholic' doctrine paved the way for Modernist revisionism, deconstructing the meaning of texts including eventually scripture, which the Tractarians never intended.

  Disobedience is one area I see as seriously problematic in Anglicanism.  Anglicans have little concept of disobedience, and this has serious consequences for spiritual formation or lack thereof.  I've even confronted conservative Episcopalian clergy about this and they don't seem to grasp the gravity of the issue- they think being a anti-gay is ok in a denomination that has spoken on this issue and even come up with canon law in some cases.   It's a bit too much of a free-for-all, hence Father Jonathan  being an oddity but not really being an oddity- the Episcopal Church is full of mavericks and freelancers compared to the Orthodox Church.  Many are converts from other churches- one I know is formerly Pentecostal.  They want to bask in Apostolicity but not actually in the discipline that was for centuries entailed in that.

Yep.

Our holy mother, the church is a feeling foreign to Protestants including them.
Logged

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

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: 37,680



« Reply #257 on: June 26, 2013, 02:00:52 PM »

I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.


I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
There was talk of union during the Reformation, including during HRH Elizabeth I and Eric XIV's tenure (the latter courting the former, as well as Mary Queen of Scots and Christine of Hesse, daughter of the polygamous Lutheran Landgrave Philip I) between the Anglicans and the Lutheran State Church of Sweden, which also claimed (and claims) Apostolic succession.  Talks were resumed when as a common front against "Apostolicae Curae"
http://anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/conference1909.html
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
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #258 on: June 28, 2013, 09:18:08 AM »

I think he's a quasi-Lutheran, which isn't uncommon in Anglicanism.

What does "quasi-Lutheran" mean in the Anglican context? I don't know enough about either Lutheranism or Anglicanism, but it seems to me that Anglo-Catholics are already at least superficially similar to Lutherans of the high church sort. I really need to expand my knowledge of Protestantism outside the Reformed traditions...

  Some "classical Anglicans" view the Elizabethan Settlement through a more Calvinist lense, others through a Lutheran lense.  Fr. Jonathan is closer to being Lutheran than Calvinist.   This is in keeping with classical Anglicanism in general: Elizabeth I was Lutheran in her preference for high ceremonial and theology but she tolerated Calvinistic theology to some degree, only objecting when these opinions were asserted as official Church teaching.

 Zwinglian interpretations of the Eucharist are plainly rejected in the Anglican 39 Articles, Article 28 expressly rejects a Memorialist interpertation.


I didn't know Elizabeth sympathized with the Lutherans but that's not surprising. Still, the Anglicanism she re-founded may have been a backtracking from the radicalism under Edward VI (the 1552 Prayer Book, Cranmer's Zwinglian beliefs), because the government was trying to persuade English Catholics to obey (so you have things like the black-letter saints' days in the English BCP; almost all the medieval Catholic saints are named but there is no real liturgical commemoration of them), but was far from the ceremonial conservatism of the Lutherans at the time or Catholic belief about the Eucharist. There's also the Black Rubric in the English BCP, defending kneeling for Communion by denying the Real Presence starkly, in contrast to both Lutheranism and Catholicism.
There was talk of union during the Reformation, including during HRH Elizabeth I and Eric XIV's tenure (the latter courting the former, as well as Mary Queen of Scots and Christine of Hesse, daughter of the polygamous Lutheran Landgrave Philip I) between the Anglicans and the Lutheran State Church of Sweden, which also claimed (and claims) Apostolic succession.  Talks were resumed when as a common front against "Apostolicae Curae"
http://anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/conference1909.html

Thanks. I didn't know that background but again it's not surprising. As I wrote earlier, the Swedes (and Finns and other churches claiming the episcopate from them) claim succession but, being Lutherans, don't think it's necessary. Turns out neither did classical Anglicanism. So despite Anglicanism's more radical roots with Cranmer, the claim to the episcopate made it the equivalent of Swedish Lutheranism. As I wrote, long before the 1930s official intercommunion between the Church of England and the Church of Sweden, Anglican and Lutheran have long been interchangeable. I'm sitting in what used to be the Swedish colony in America, sold to the British, where they founded a few parishes; when they changed languages they adopted the Book of Common Prayer, Gloria Dei here in Philadelphia was built in British colonial times by English designers and craftsmen so it looks just like an Anglican church of the time, and after independence, after the last Swedish priests died (yes, the Swedish church calls them priests), the congregations voted to join the Episcopal Church.

Norwegian, Danish and I think Icelandic Lutherans don't claim succession; again, Lutherans don't think it's necessary. Norway's interesting: they got rid of bishops and had district superintendents (like American Lutherans historically have), then they brought back the old system with its titles (bishop) but without trying to bring back the succession. I think the Danes and Icelanders are like the Germans: no bishops.

In America the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Germans who came here after the government interfered with and watered down the local Lutheranism) and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ditto) don't have bishops. The mainline (liberal) ELCA, a merger of the Scandinavian-American churches (19th-century immigration to the Midwest: why Minnesota has its accent), was like the Norwegians, with bishops but not as a lifetime office (they'd serve a term then go back to being just pastors) and without the claim to succession; the Episcopalians grandfathered them in, in their union, but the new ELCA bishops and pastors have Episcopal succession.

Then there's the Episcopal claim to valid orders through Old Catholic including Polish National Catholic bishops participating in Episcopal bishops' consecrations and priestly ordinations, 'the Dutch touch' as an English now-Catholic priest called it. Rome and the East have never bought the argument; such clergy are always received as laymen and reordained. Anyway, I thought of that because now ELCA has that claim, through the Episcopalians. ELCA's presiding bishop has it.

That Old Catholic 'line of succession', based on St Augustine's Western Catholic theology of holy orders (which is how Catholicism includes the Orthodox among real bishops), is the stock and trade of vagantes, the little wacko 'independent Catholic' churches and wannabe priests as Fr Nathan Monk was for about 10 years before his eight months as an Orthodox.

(The Old Catholics have broken up. The main body, a tiny European denomination, has gone in a little over 100 years from not recognizing Anglican orders, just like Catholics, to essentially becoming Episcopalians. They ordain women. The Episcopal Church is their official representation/stand-in in America. The Polish National Catholic Church, founded in America a little over 100 years ago by a liberal, went the other way, more conservative, breaking with the Episcopalians and eventually with the main Old Catholics over women's ordination. There are similar relatively conservative splinter Old Catholics, a splinter of a splinter, in Eastern Europe, priests who switched to get married and that's about it.)

The vagante circus and now the respectable ELCA bring up the good question: how far can that 'line of succession' argument go? Moot to Catholics and Orthodox, who don't play that game; real churches, socially speaking (including the Anglicans and Lutherans), have the 'lines' but don't need to brag about them. The Orthodox have a point about being in the church trumping lines of succession. A good rule of thumb is if a priest in person or online mentions his 'lines', run. He's a dangerous wannabe.

The Nordic Lutherans have been ordaining women since about the '50s. Interesting how it happened. The bishops or leaders and parishioners didn't want it at the time but because they're state churches (or were until recently: the Church of Sweden was disestablished around 2000), the government voted in the change and imposed it on them. Norden (Scandinavia plus Finland; maybe Estonia too, as they're the Finns' cousins, and are Lutherans too) is famously irreligious, even more than Britain and the rest of Europe. Next to nobody goes to church, and the few religious often don't go to the official Lutheran churches.
Logged

Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #259 on: June 28, 2013, 10:18:56 AM »

   I actually agree.. a purely mechanical understanding of apostolicity is bogus and its sad when high church Anglicans resort to it, especially because this is not the classical Anglican belief at all.    Anglicans have always had a generosity about who was and was not in the Church until the Tractarian movement tried to make it more Scholastic.

  The modern Anglican Communion's belief is that baptism is the rite of initiation into the Church and it's not restricted to any particular line of bishops, priests, or ministers.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 10:20:00 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,720


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #260 on: June 28, 2013, 11:01:14 AM »

Right; Catholicism's understanding of orders is Augustinian but not the purely mechanical one of some Anglicans historically and of the vagantes.

By the way, the relatively conservative Old Catholics have regrouped arguably as a denomination or communion led more or less by the PNCC, the Union of Scranton, named after the PNCC's main see, in Pennsylvania, its 'Vatican', home of its Prime Bishop. A group that people promoting Western Rite Orthodoxy probably want to court. They include a church of Norwegian high-church ex-Lutherans whom the liberal Norwegian Catholic Church cold-shouldered: the Nordic Catholic Church, tiny but it exists. Liturgically most are Novus Ordo clones now. (Of course the PNCC used to be Tridentine in Polish.)

(I think St Mark's ex-Episcopal Church in Denver passed through the PNCC before leaving, amicably as far as I know, and joining the Antiochian Orthodox, where it has remained.)
Logged

Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #261 on: June 28, 2013, 07:57:08 PM »

   What I find interesting about Fr. Jonathan is how he tries to bracket his "Sola Scriptura" beliefs between Catholicism/Orthodoxy and Protestantism.  I'm not sure that is possible.  I think he just wants to say the Bible is the most important document in the Church (who disagrees with that, anyways?), but he also is afraid of private interpretation.  And yet if you try to take Scripture outside of Tradition, private interpretation is what you are often left with.   Everybody is going to have an opinion now days but the problem is in the Anglican Communion opinions are the norm, orthodoxy is another option among many.   And the liberal, scientific approach to the Scriptures tends to predominate.

  I wish the High Church did win out in Anglicanism, there are some brilliant theologians in that tradition, there always have been.  Rowan Williams is one of the most brilliant theologians I've read in my life, right along with Alexander Schmemann.  But the real global power is in the hands of the witchdoctors in mitres in the Global South and people in the north that think religion makes a nice decoration for weddings and funerals.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 07:59:35 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,123



« Reply #262 on: June 28, 2013, 09:12:15 PM »

But the real global power is in the hands of the witchdoctors in mitres in the Global South

Um
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #263 on: June 28, 2013, 11:59:50 PM »

But the real global power is in the hands of the witchdoctors in mitres in the Global South

Um

 Sorry, I don't have much respect for Nigeria's clergy, or their interference in the Church in North America.  Much of the Anglicanism in Africa is just as atavistic as its pagan counterpart.  The same is true in the civilized world in places like Sydney- the  Anglican South is full of crazed evangelical religion where simplistic biblicism rules the day  For every Desmond Tutu there's a half-dozen Akinolas.  I always find it strange when an EO praises these conservative Anglicans as being "faithful", they clearly do not understand the party system in Anglicanism, because that kind of Anglicanism is about as far from Eastern Orthodoxy as Islam.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 12:02:42 AM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
Deep Roots
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Catholic
Posts: 370


« Reply #264 on: June 29, 2013, 06:58:14 PM »

The same is true in the civilized world
is that you, Joseph Conrad? 
Logged

Peace.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,417



« Reply #265 on: July 03, 2013, 09:36:01 PM »

Since it was being talked about earlier in this thread, it looks like Episcopalians and Lutherans are moving closer:

Quote
In their letter, the four leaders also recognized that “our full and mutual recognition of each other’s ministries and sacraments ‘marks but one step toward the eventual visible unity of the whole Church catholic.’”

Some possibilities before the churches, the leaders said, can include theological education -- the calling forth and forming lay and ordained leadership; sharing “episcopal oversight” -- clergy exchange and, in some regions, diocesan and synodical leaders; and speaking with a single voice on issues affecting Canadians and Americans.

As the journey of full communion continues, the leaders concluded their letter expressing that “… we have the courage and determination to follow where the Holy Spirit is leading our churches, and the strength and steadfastness to be faithful in serving God’s mission in the world -- together.”
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 09:36:23 PM by Nephi » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,011


"My god is greater."


« Reply #266 on: July 03, 2013, 09:57:54 PM »

I've been meaning to ask the Episcopal Church members on this board about something, and I guess this thread is as good as any, so here goes:

My understanding is that, while allowing a broad range of interpretations of the doctrines, the Episcopal Church accepts as normative the creeds and the general theological stances contained in the Book of Common Prayer.

How/ why are certain Episcopal clergy- I am thinking especially of Bishop Spong- allowed to deny basic Christian dogma, and still remain clergy in the Episcopal Church? How do you, as members of the Episcopal Church, justify this, or at least reconcile it with your understanding of your communion as being part of the Christian church?
Logged

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

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #267 on: July 04, 2013, 05:08:33 AM »

I've been meaning to ask the Episcopal Church members on this board about something, and I guess this thread is as good as any, so here goes:

My understanding is that, while allowing a broad range of interpretations of the doctrines, the Episcopal Church accepts as normative the creeds and the general theological stances contained in the Book of Common Prayer.

How/ why are certain Episcopal clergy- I am thinking especially of Bishop Spong- allowed to deny basic Christian dogma, and still remain clergy in the Episcopal Church? How do you, as members of the Episcopal Church, justify this, or at least reconcile it with your understanding of your communion as being part of the Christian church?

Well, ten people can assent to one creed and believe 10 radically different things.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,255


Ceci n'est pas un Poirot


« Reply #268 on: July 04, 2013, 05:19:29 AM »

The Nicene Creed rules out atheism in its first few words.
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #269 on: July 04, 2013, 07:34:05 AM »

I have a friend training to become an Anglican priest at the moment. He does not believe God is Trinity, He does not believe Christ is God in any concrete way, he does not believe in the Virgin birth, he does not believe in His physical resurrection from the dead, nor ours on the last day. And this is all known to the bishops and other clergy he is in contact with.

Essentially, from what he told me, he believes the rites and liturgical texts of the church provide people with a common expression that facilitates joint worship. How much of it you buy into, or how you interpret it, is irrelevant.

That is an attitude I've come across quite often.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 07:34:55 AM by Orthodox11 » Logged
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 0.18 seconds with 73 queries.