Author Topic: Convince me that Anglicanism is false  (Read 61026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #225 on: June 01, 2015, 12:12:13 PM »
Anglicanism... is a sort of weird religion that is based on sex.
No, it isn't, as you well know.

I was in a hurry and did not choose the right word. Sorry. Here is what I was driving at:

1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 12:13:08 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) »

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #226 on: June 01, 2015, 12:55:42 PM »
Quote
Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/church-of-england-womens-group-bishops
We're already discussing this movement here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html

So how does this desire to use feminine titles for God prove Anglicanism false?

I would like to answer that Peter by quoting Metropolitan Kallistos Ware: "A Mother Goddess is not the Lord of the Christian Church."

Read his entire thoughts on the subject here, or turn to Page 34 of your copy of The Orthodox Way: http://bit.ly/1JezEmd

Note this only falsifies the belief of those Anglicans who in my mind have committed grave heresy or apostasy by feminizing God.  it also applies to the strange ELCA parish in San Francisco, in the Cascade Pacific Synod, which should be anathematized on this basis, and for stealing the name of a paper company, formerly known as Ebeneezer Lutheran Church amd now known as herchurch, where you can buy a Mother Goddess Rosary with an idol of Aurora instead of a crucifix.

This falsification does not apply to the huddled masses of traditionalist Episcopalians like those at the conservative parish I used to visit, where my friend was the rector; they now got stuck with the ultra liberal deaconess who insists on calling herself a deacon who was historically posted there to keep the priest in check.  This also certainly does not apply to the ACNA and the dioceses and parishes that have risked everything, and in the case of the latter, lost, to leave ECUSA, and it does not apply to the Continuing Anglicans who left ECUSA in 1979 when womens ordination begin, the Anglo Catholic jurisdictions of which are prime candidates for becoming a part of Western Rite Orthodoxy.  i cant falsify their beliefs.

 In my opinion a large number of them are functionally identical to, and thus in practice united with, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, even if this union isnt formal (ecclesiology becomes fuzzy and necdessarily allows for such conditions if you are an OO like myself who regards the EO as fully Orthodox, I think,,although other Oos may disagree with me on this point, also many would cite the apostolic succession issue as one reason why the functionally Orthodox Anglicans are "false" and in fact, if one wants to argue that the entire Anglican Communion and every derivative conservative church that sprung from it starting with the Scottish Non Jurors is false, one should attack the validity of their orders, its a bit of an Achilles heel for them). 

So et voila, I believe I just proved a portion of heretical Anglicans false based on the esteemed wrotings of the Metropolitan of Diokleia, and also showed you how if you must you can falsify the entire Communion, with the exception of those priests and bishops who recognized this problem and took additonal consecration from Old Catholics and, according to rumors, the Orthodox (almost a certainty in the case of John Wesley).  In fact its on the basis of invalid form that the Roman Catholics regard Anglican ordinations as invalid and thus demy the Anglicans have a valid Eucharist.

I do hope that convinces the OP, even though it doesnt convince me, so I can win the thread.   :P  By the way sorry about the word count Peter, think of this as Wheel of Fortune and myself as having just attempted a solution.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2015, 12:58:57 PM by wgw »
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Timon

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,818
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #227 on: June 01, 2015, 01:02:38 PM »
Quote
Let God be a 'she', says Church of England women's group

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/01/church-of-england-womens-group-bishops
We're already discussing this movement here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64995.0.html

So how does this desire to use feminine titles for God prove Anglicanism false?

I did not know it was already being discussed. My apologies. And with regard to the 2nd question, it seems to answer itself. I realize its a fairly small group claiming this, but if it were to catch on, it would contradict the language used in the creed, which is the Church's statement of faith. Wouldnt it be understood that any "Christian" group who contradicts the Creed is "false"?

No need to discuss this here, though, unless you wish to respond to my claim. I was just pointing out something happening within that particular communion. I will hop on over to the other thread.
Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #228 on: June 01, 2015, 04:14:09 PM »
Sometimes I feel like a bit of a hypocrite.  I have spoken out here about how I believe the Church should be more understanding towards gay men and women.  And yet, I told my wife the moment I started hearing God referred to as "Mother" in the doxology, Lord's Prayer, or baptismal formula is the moment I walk out of a parish/church and never go back.  It has nothing to do with being hostile to women or feminism:  some things I just view as divine revelation.  If Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then the only way we ultimately know anything about God's being is through Jesus.  And Jesus did not call God "Mother", but "Father".
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,101
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #229 on: June 01, 2015, 05:18:52 PM »
Sometimes I feel like a bit of a hypocrite.  I have spoken out here about how I believe the Church should be more understanding towards gay men and women.  And yet, I told my wife the moment I started hearing God referred to as "Mother" in the doxology, Lord's Prayer, or baptismal formula is the moment I walk out of a parish/church and never go back.  It has nothing to do with being hostile to women or feminism:  some things I just view as divine revelation.  If Jesus is the image of the invisible God, then the only way we ultimately know anything about God's being is through Jesus.  And Jesus did not call God "Mother", but "Father".

Interesting.
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline pasadi97

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #230 on: June 01, 2015, 07:01:42 PM »
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.

Again God does the Holy Water so it is the same in any jurisdiction irrespective of what the priest did or how much he prayed.

Holy Water is not sacrament neither Holy Communion.
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,101
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #231 on: June 01, 2015, 09:10:37 PM »
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.

Again God does the Holy Water so it is the same in any jurisdiction irrespective of what the priest did or how much he prayed.

Holy Water is not sacrament neither Holy Communion.

You need to go outside, take a long walk, and look at flowers.
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #232 on: June 02, 2015, 06:26:30 AM »

In the early 20th century ...  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.

Extreme Anglo-Catholics were mimicking what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th century, including not just Low Mass early in the morning for Communion but early-morning Communion from the tabernacle outside of Mass. A pious Roman or Anglo-Catholic lay person would go to church three times on Sunday; devout Protestants went at least twice for a morning AND evening service (movies, radio, and TV killed Sunday-night services). Low Mass or Communion early, then High Mass for the sermon, at which Communion was NOT offered to the congregation, then back to church Sunday night for Vespers (compare to the vigil Vespers in the Byzantine Rite) and Benediction (priest's blessing with the reserved Eucharist).

Regarding Mark Driscoll, I agree that muscular Christianity is problematic (it can be idolatrous like HerChurch) but has a point, and I don't think you want somebody converting to Orthodoxy and asking to be a seminarian just because he wants to be a married priest.

"God as female" isn't new, certainly from the Anglicans. Interestingly, it, including women's ordination, doesn't attract converts. It doesn't impress the unchurched and it drives away the religious.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #233 on: June 02, 2015, 10:34:58 AM »

In the early 20th century ...  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.

Extreme Anglo-Catholics were mimicking what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th century, including not just Low Mass early in the morning for Communion but early-morning Communion from the tabernacle outside of Mass. A pious Roman or Anglo-Catholic lay person would go to church three times on Sunday; devout Protestants went at least twice for a morning AND evening service (movies, radio, and TV killed Sunday-night services). Low Mass or Communion early, then High Mass for the sermon, at which Communion was NOT offered to the congregation, then back to church Sunday night for Vespers (compare to the vigil Vespers in the Byzantine Rite) and Benediction (priest's blessing with the reserved Eucharist).

Regarding Mark Driscoll, I agree that muscular Christianity is problematic (it can be idolatrous like HerChurch) but has a point, and I don't think you want somebody converting to Orthodoxy and asking to be a seminarian just because he wants to be a married priest.

"God as female" isn't new, certainly from the Anglicans. Interestingly, it, including women's ordination, doesn't attract converts. It doesn't impress the unchurched and it drives away the religious.

Thank you for the information on 19th century Catholic praxis.  Two things confuse me still: when did Catholics begin communing more frequently?  Also I tought low mass tended to have communion by just the priest, with solemn mass more likely to commune the people; did I get that backwards?  The Preanctified Mass on Good Friday only had the Priest communicate.  What were the rules regarding communion on Maundy Thursday and Easter Even?  And were there ever any solemn masses, like on Easter Sunday, which was a day, correct me if Im wromg, that even in the period of infrequent communion, it was commonly taken by Catholics?

Also, to what extent was the Divine Oiffoce historically celebrated and publically attended in Roman churches outside of monasteries?  Ive always felt to a degree like the Roman Church neglects the Office in favor of Masses in parish churches and the LOTH, which was supposed romchange that, did not.

I believe the time is ripe for a comeback of Sunday evening services, due among other things to the most offensive practice of Sunday morning sports practice in schools.  A local Catholic parish has a Vincentian Father who celebrates a well attended Novus Ordo mass with banal music, not praiseband but not pretty, every Sunday evening.  I think in Orthodoxy having a Sunday evening liturgy is probably not doable, or would be difficult, due to the one priest per altar per day rule, but I see no reason why Sunday night vespers should not be celebrated.

My understanding of Anglican Mattins and Evensong is that the Sunday Mattins served to introduce the liturgy,mand the evensong on Sunday would hint at the service next Sunday, a bit like EO Saturday night Vigils.

i dont follow your point on Mark Driscoll.  I do believe the Roman Rite is in error in insisting on secular clergy to be celibate, however, the UK Ordinariate blogger Fr. Hunwicke indicated that many Catholic parishes have experienced "sticker shock" at the increased cost of married clergy.  However, regular clergy are surely less expensive than secular celibates.  I find myself wishing among other things about your church that you had married secular priests and more religious priests, and that all your bishops were drawn from religious orders and followed monastic rules. Imlove Archbishop Cordielone but the incident where he was out dining with friends and got nailed at a DUI checkpoint for being just slightly over the limit was a huge embarassment, that while not unheard of among Orthodox bishops, i believe following the ancient canons regarding bishops would prevent altogether.

On your last point, I agree entirely.  Ive encountered many great female theologoans but in Christianity, not a good female priest.  Imdomt think they can do the job any more than a man can give birth.  I dont mind women telling me waphat to do, but there is just something about female clergy that I find extremely unnatural, and have since I was a child. I refuse to visit a Protestsnt church that has a female minister.  But the Mother Goddess thing is even worse.  And the teo are related; bith emerged with the theological liberalism that bubbled to life after World War II..

With some exceptions: the Disciples of Christ had a female elder decades before any other mainline church, in a rural part of the country.  And of course in the fringes we have Mar Baker Eddy and Ellen G White, who along with the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky, were powerful cult leaders.

The mother Goddess rhing however, well, the first trace of it I am aware of since the Gnostics, would be the Sophianism of St. Pavel Florensky and Archoriest Sergei Bulgakov.  I love the oainting, The Philosophers, showing them strolling thriugh a hardenbefore the latter was ordained and the former murdered.  But I consider their theological scheme a dire heresy.  If I understand it correctly, the idea was that at the annunciation the Virgin Mary became hypostatically joined to the Holy Spirit and thus became a part of the Trinity, and was thus Sophia, or the personified Wisdom that was discuseed poetically in Proverbs.  Nasty stuff.  However, from that awful core they developed a theologocal, economic and social peogram intended to rival Communism, that I daresay would have peobably been an improvement on both the USSR and the Czarist regime.  But basing it on such a blasphemous Mariology would make it feel a bit like selling ones soul. 


Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #234 on: June 02, 2015, 12:25:52 PM »

In the early 20th century ...  There were also Anglo Catholic parishes in London where only the Priest would communicate in Solemn High Mass, which was a flagrant violation of the rules, and also rather an inversion of what I understand to be normative Catholic practice.  The people would communicate at a said service modified to look more like Low Mass early in the morning.  One will find also a host of hybrid BCP-Tridentine liturgies from this era.  A sort of division emerged between Missal Catholics using the 1915 English Missal or in some places (St. Magnus the Martyr) even the Roman missal, and Prayer Book Catholics sticking to the BCP, who had huge influence on the 1928 Deposited Book, which was rejected by a majority culled from non Anglican dissenting Protestants in the House of Commons.

Extreme Anglo-Catholics were mimicking what the Roman Catholic Church did in the 19th century, including not just Low Mass early in the morning for Communion but early-morning Communion from the tabernacle outside of Mass. A pious Roman or Anglo-Catholic lay person would go to church three times on Sunday; devout Protestants went at least twice for a morning AND evening service (movies, radio, and TV killed Sunday-night services). Low Mass or Communion early, then High Mass for the sermon, at which Communion was NOT offered to the congregation, then back to church Sunday night for Vespers (compare to the vigil Vespers in the Byzantine Rite) and Benediction (priest's blessing with the reserved Eucharist).

Regarding Mark Driscoll, I agree that muscular Christianity is problematic (it can be idolatrous like HerChurch) but has a point, and I don't think you want somebody converting to Orthodoxy and asking to be a seminarian just because he wants to be a married priest.

"God as female" isn't new, certainly from the Anglicans. Interestingly, it, including women's ordination, doesn't attract converts. It doesn't impress the unchurched and it drives away the religious.

Thank you for the information on 19th century Catholic praxis.  Two things confuse me still: when did Catholics begin communing more frequently?  Also I tought low mass tended to have communion by just the priest, with solemn mass more likely to commune the people; did I get that backwards?  The Preanctified Mass on Good Friday only had the Priest communicate.  What were the rules regarding communion on Maundy Thursday and Easter Even?  And were there ever any solemn masses, like on Easter Sunday, which was a day, correct me if Im wromg, that even in the period of infrequent communion, it was commonly taken by Catholics?

Also, to what extent was the Divine Oiffoce historically celebrated and publically attended in Roman churches outside of monasteries?  Ive always felt to a degree like the Roman Church neglects the Office in favor of Masses in parish churches and the LOTH, which was supposed romchange that, did not.

I believe the time is ripe for a comeback of Sunday evening services, due among other things to the most offensive practice of Sunday morning sports practice in schools.  A local Catholic parish has a Vincentian Father who celebrates a well attended Novus Ordo mass with banal music, not praiseband but not pretty, every Sunday evening.  I think in Orthodoxy having a Sunday evening liturgy is probably not doable, or would be difficult, due to the one priest per altar per day rule, but I see no reason why Sunday night vespers should not be celebrated.

My understanding of Anglican Mattins and Evensong is that the Sunday Mattins served to introduce the liturgy,mand the evensong on Sunday would hint at the service next Sunday, a bit like EO Saturday night Vigils.

i dont follow your point on Mark Driscoll.  I do believe the Roman Rite is in error in insisting on secular clergy to be celibate, however, the UK Ordinariate blogger Fr. Hunwicke indicated that many Catholic parishes have experienced "sticker shock" at the increased cost of married clergy.  However, regular clergy are surely less expensive than secular celibates.  I find myself wishing among other things about your church that you had married secular priests and more religious priests, and that all your bishops were drawn from religious orders and followed monastic rules. Imlove Archbishop Cordielone but the incident where he was out dining with friends and got nailed at a DUI checkpoint for being just slightly over the limit was a huge embarassment, that while not unheard of among Orthodox bishops, i believe following the ancient canons regarding bishops would prevent altogether.

On your last point, I agree entirely.  Ive encountered many great female theologoans but in Christianity, not a good female priest.  Imdomt think they can do the job any more than a man can give birth.  I dont mind women telling me waphat to do, but there is just something about female clergy that I find extremely unnatural, and have since I was a child. I refuse to visit a Protestsnt church that has a female minister.  But the Mother Goddess thing is even worse.  And the teo are related; bith emerged with the theological liberalism that bubbled to life after World War II..


If I'm not mistaken, though, Methodism had female leaders (maybe not always formally ordained, though) since its inception, and Pentecostalism followed suit. The rationale wasn't theological liberalism, since it wasn't much of a factor back then, but rather the existence of Biblical figures such as Deborah. Look, for example, at Alma White, who was quite a disagreeable character in a lot of ways, but hardly a liberal.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #235 on: June 02, 2015, 12:32:09 PM »
Since the schism of Wesleyan Methodism with the Anglicans after John Wesleys dearh, and after the Revolutionary War in the US, the Methodists under his direction, the Methodist Episcopal Church in the US, had no female elders or suoerintendents (bishops) until 1957 when a female elder was ordained.  The superintendents had all authority,

There were other Methodists thiugh.  Like the Countess of Huntingdon's Connection.  They were Calvinist Methodists and theolgically in opposition to the Wesleyan Methodist Episcopal Church.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #236 on: June 02, 2015, 12:39:32 PM »
Option 3 sounds a bit like a European Cathedral.  St. Peters can be a bit like Grand Central Station, with pilgrim priests reserving altars at which to offer a low mass.  Every altar might be in use at the same time, and Fr. Z on his blog reported dashing through the basillica with his server, to find a free altar, after the basillica staff double booked his office.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #237 on: June 02, 2015, 06:08:22 PM »
Two things confuse me still: when did Catholics begin communing more frequently?

About 100 years ago, after Pope St. Pius X lowered the age for First Communion from around 12 or 13 (after Confirmation?) to 7.

Also I thought low mass tended to have communion by just the priest, with solemn mass more likely to commune the people; did I get that backwards?

Yes.

And were there ever any solemn masses, like on Easter Sunday, which was a day, correct me if Im wromg, that even in the period of infrequent communion, it was commonly taken by Catholics?

Sure there were. We're required to go to Communion during the Easter liturgical period, but again, High Mass was non-communicating for the laity. People would receive at Low Mass or in church between Masses.

Also, to what extent was the Divine Offce historically celebrated and publicly attended in Roman churches outside of monasteries?  Ive always felt to a degree like the Roman Church neglects the Office in favor of Masses in parish churches and the LOTH, which was supposed to change that, but did not.

Until radio and movies revolutionized entertainment, Roman Rite parish churches had Sunday Vespers and people were expected to attend. You're right about the failure now to have public recitation of the office.

i dont follow your point on Mark Driscoll.

People here complained because he didn't become Orthodox. I was trying to say of course you want somebody to become Orthodox because he believes in Orthodoxy, not just because he's a frustrated Roman Catholic who wants to be a married priest. (Catholicism doesn't let men switch rites if that's their only or main reason.)
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,101
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #238 on: June 03, 2015, 01:21:52 AM »
I believe the time is ripe for a comeback of Sunday evening services, due among other things to the most offensive practice of Sunday morning sports practice in schools.  A local Catholic parish has a Vincentian Father who celebrates a well attended Novus Ordo mass with banal music, not praiseband but not pretty, every Sunday evening.  I think in Orthodoxy having a Sunday evening liturgy is probably not doable, or would be difficult, due to the one priest per altar per day rule, but I see no reason why Sunday night vespers should not be celebrated.

I can see several ways around that:

  • Rent space from another church (like an Anglican, Catholic or Methodist one). Since that church is using the building on Sunday morning, the Orthodox parish meeting there would of necessity have to have its Sunday service in the evening.
  • Have an EO and an OO congregation (or an Eastern Rite and Western Rite) use the same building. There would then be two different altars in it, one designed for each rite, and two priests. It would effectively be two parishes in one.
  • For very large parishes, just have multiple priests and altars. This would have the added benefit of spreading attendance throughout the week, thus preventing overcrowding.

A "Sunday evening liturgy" would actually be the Liturgy of Monday.  What you probably want is a "Saturday evening liturgy", which is feasible, but not without leaving a big hole in Sunday morning.  But if you actually wanted a "Sunday evening Liturgy", that would not necessarily violate the "one priest per altar per day" rule if there was a "Sunday morning Liturgy", but, again, it's a Monday at that point.   
I don't know what the rubrics say in the OO tradition, but an EO church is permitted to celebrate the Divine Liturgy twice in one liturgical day (Vespers to Vespers) but not twice in one civil day (midnight to midnight). As such, an EO parish can celebrate the Divine Liturgy Saturday evening and Sunday morning, as is the case for Pascha, but cannot celebrate a Liturgy on Sunday evening.

Do you have a source for that?
OCnet is KGB.
I hail Mor Ephrem as our Secretary General.

Quote
Oh you Greeks, you are all dumb!

An Athonite

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #239 on: June 03, 2015, 02:32:05 AM »
NVM
« Last Edit: June 03, 2015, 02:38:07 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline pasadi97

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,110
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #240 on: June 03, 2015, 08:03:03 PM »
pasadi, have you done any research into determining which jurisdiction has the best Holy Water? Do you think perhaps the Russians have better quality than the Antiochians? I ask because I want to make sure I'm in the absolute best place, so if Antioch only puts out second place water, I'm gonna need to switch it up.

Again God does the Holy Water so it is the same in any jurisdiction irrespective of what the priest did or how much he prayed.

Holy Water is not sacrament neither Holy Communion.

Wanted to mention one more time that Holy Water has to be disposed with care.
God the Father is great. God the Father is good.

Offline sprtslvr1973

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 743
  • "Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #241 on: June 04, 2015, 07:17:48 AM »
We don't. I have a soft spot for High Church Anglicans and clergy like NT Wright and Rowan Williams. However with the direction the Anglican Communion is taking and its tolerance for things contrary to Christianity like homosexuality. I have no problem with gay priests under the provision that these priests are aware of their disorder and struggle against it through God. However its tolerance of homosexuality and over accommodating stance is something that I can never accept. We don't play Via Media when it comes to our theology.
Nicely said; to paraphrase Lewis's Screwtape, "moderate" devotion to God serves "Our Father Below" (Satan)
"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #242 on: June 04, 2015, 11:36:22 AM »
Thread locked temporarily for split
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #243 on: June 04, 2015, 11:41:22 AM »
The tangent on the hoped for return of Sunday evening services has been moved to Liturgy.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=65038.0
« Last Edit: June 04, 2015, 11:42:38 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #244 on: June 04, 2015, 11:43:03 AM »
Thread now unlocked. Please stay on topic.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #245 on: June 04, 2015, 12:05:40 PM »
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Now the main falsification for Anglicanism in its High Church, Anglo Catholic, Percy Dearmer, Edward Pussey and Dom Gregory Dix / Order of the Holy Cross form, is that the orders are invalid due to invalid form and non-recognition by the Anglican bishops outside of this Anglo Catholic realm that ordination is a Sacrament.  This form survives in the Global South in the Anglo Catholic churches of Africa, like The Church of Ghana, and in the Continuing Anglican Movement in the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Orthodox Church and a host of small traditionalist jurisdictions, one of which rescued the foemer Anglican church in Chico, CA, where I lived as a young  boy, from its fate as a Chinese Restaurant; the Episcopalians moved to a massove, ugly, wooden church in the 70s or 80s that is one of those deeply unpleasant churches of the architectural style called Brutalism.

Now, if ROCOR or other Orthodox were prepared to accept the orders of Anglicans before the ECUSA decided that James Pike was the model bishop, perhaps even now we might say that the continuing Anglo Catholic jurisdictions are true churches, and enter into communion with them.  Many of them have augmented their episcopal succession through various lines, some of dubious validity, through groups like the Order for Corporate Reunion, a vagante group that thought it could achive the aims of Anglo Papalists by forming a cadre of bishops who had apostolic succession from all known communions.  They sound a bit like ecclesiastical underpants gnomes; ultimately Pope Benedict XVI realized the aims of the Anglo Papalosts through the ordinariates, but the Order for Corporate Reunion did not have anything to do with it.  Nonetheless, several continuing Anglican bishops have I believe been co-consecrated by the OCR before their demise (their leader, Henry de Wilmott Newman, was I believe the uncle and predeccessor of Metropolitan Seraphim of Glastonbury at the helm of the British Orthodox Church).
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #246 on: June 04, 2015, 07:01:54 PM »
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Some Orthodox, including the founding metropolitan of ROCOR, speculated about Anglican orders thus: they thought that, unlike Catholicism on Anglican orders, IF the WHOLE Anglican Communion dropped Protestantism AND asked to become Orthodox, THEN they could be received in their orders, just like ex-Catholics have been. That will never happen so the question's moot.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Mockingbird

  • Mimus polyglottos
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 247
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Episcopal Church
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #247 on: June 06, 2015, 02:16:58 PM »
1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.
No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.
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

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #248 on: June 07, 2015, 05:48:01 PM »
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Some Orthodox, including the founding metropolitan of ROCOR, speculated about Anglican orders thus: they thought that, unlike Catholicism on Anglican orders, IF the WHOLE Anglican Communion dropped Protestantism AND asked to become Orthodox, THEN they could be received in their orders, just like ex-Catholics have been. That will never happen so the question's moot.

Since some Comtuing Anglican churches of an Anglo Catholic orientation are out of communion with any other Anglicans,,such churches could I daresay become entirely Orrhodox with relative ease and then be accepted on that basis, or alternately persuade us of their Orthodoxy, by dropping the fliioque and the 39 arricles amd affirming the Sacraments as seven in number.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #249 on: June 07, 2015, 06:33:01 PM »
Now back on topic, I want to ask something: I once read a comment on Fr. Andrew's blog, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy,  I think posted by the great heresiologist himself, that ROCOR in the 1940s came close to accepting Anglican orders.

Some Orthodox, including the founding metropolitan of ROCOR, speculated about Anglican orders thus: they thought that, unlike Catholicism on Anglican orders, IF the WHOLE Anglican Communion dropped Protestantism AND asked to become Orthodox, THEN they could be received in their orders, just like ex-Catholics have been. That will never happen so the question's moot.

Since some Comtuing Anglican churches of an Anglo Catholic orientation are out of communion with any other Anglicans,,such churches could I daresay become entirely Orrhodox with relative ease and then be accepted on that basis, or alternately persuade us of their Orthodoxy, by dropping the fliioque and the 39 arricles amd affirming the Sacraments as seven in number.

We'll see if one ever does. My guess is the Orthodox body receiving them would disregard this idea and just receive them as ex-Anglicans usually are received, at least through chrismation.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #250 on: June 07, 2015, 06:54:34 PM »
1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.
No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.

Born Episcopalian, now ex, who respectfully disagrees, but since this is an Eastern Orthodox board, you expected disagreement. I know you believe Anglicanism has the minimum to count as part of the church founded by Christ. Classical Anglicans do one better: they say you ARE the church, certainly in England, better than Roman Catholics and Orthodox thanks to being "reformed" (return to the Bible and the Fathers) as well as "Catholic" (here meaning the creeds, bishops, and the idea of a liturgy, different from the Roman Catholic one, and better, by virtue of being "reformed").

On women priests:

Catholicism: We can't change the matter of the sacraments. The church is infallible and irreformable (it can't change its mind).
Orthodoxy: We can't change the matter of the sacraments. The church is infallible and irreformable (it can't change its mind).
Classical Anglicanism: We can't change the matter of the sacraments. That's how we read the Bible and the Fathers.
Modern Anglicanism: We believe in women's rights.

I've been told the real reason for the change was shallow: the nice WASP gentlemen in the House of Bishops didn't want to be seen as male chauvinists. Women's ordination was greenlighted in Anglicanism only around 1968 or 1970, when the otherwise fairly good Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, said there was no theological problem with it.

Anglo-Catholicism has come in two versions: those who wanted to be Catholic (Anglo-Papalists, mostly a tiny minority of Englishmen; what most outside Anglo-Catholicism thought/feared Anglo-Catholics were) and those who, just like the Orthodox, thought they were Catholic so who needs Rome? Modern liberal high church, the mode now in Episcopalianism, is a version of the latter of course. But for those of us who were in or influenced by Anglo-Catholicism, be we Anglo-Papalists or more classical Anglicans, women's ordination was a punch in the face. (I found out about it in late 1981 or sometime in 1982.) I don't hate the Anglicans, including the women ministers, but still. I'm sure the ex-Anglican Orthodox here agree.

Interestingly in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, agitators for women's ordination are the exception. It just doesn't come up. Ignorant or lapsed members might tell pollsters they're fine with it, but they usually know they can't change the church so they don't waste their time trying.

And everybody knows women's ordination hasn't reversed decline in the Episcopal Church or the Church of England.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #251 on: June 07, 2015, 06:55:20 PM »
1. The very start of the Anglican Church was based on Henry the Eighth's obsession with having a male heir. In the process, he committed multiple grave sins, but most importantly, he also subverted enough "men of God" to establish the Anglican Church. Thus, the founding of this church was based on crass and worldly reasons.
No, our church was founded by Jesus Christ.

2. The Anglican Church today has departed from many Apostolic practices. This church does things that have no precedence (like ordination of women to priestly offices) and even are opposed by Holy Scripture (communing active homosexuals and blessing of their "marriage"). Thus, the church that started as the appeasement of  one man's worldly desires has ended up as the appeasement of some folks' worldly desires, and neither appeasement can be justified by Holy Tradition, Holy Scripture and other yardstick common to orthodox Christianity (please note the lower case "o").
Our facing the fact that some women are called by God to the presbyterate came after much debate, thought, and prayer.  So did our facing the facts and pastoral realities in the other matter you mentioned--facts that your party too must face eventually, however much some may wish they would go away.

Many Anglicans disagree with you and reject the authority of female priests and bishops.  The main concept the conservative Episcopalians were too slow to realize is that "you are what you are in communion with."

Ergo, I propose Anglicanism is generally an Imposter of the Church Catholic, on three grounds:

1. Lack of valid Apostolic succession, due to this being forfeit by the rejection of ordination as a Sacrament and the irregular liturgical form.
2. A history of heterodox dogma in direct opposition to the faith of the Orthodox, such as the 39 Articles, and now the ordination of women and the marriage of homosexuals.
3. The further disruption of apostolic authority by the exercose of the offices of Bishop and Priest by persons not authorized to hold that office, such as women, divorced and remarried men, persons who have killed another after baptism (I believe this may possibly apply to Bishop Bruno of LA), amd so on.

This applies in general. I am inclined to regard as true members of the Church the early Methodists, the Scottish Non Jurors, the Puseyites and Anglo Catholics, who desired an Apostolic faith in opposition to Calvinist error.  Actually, I am inclined to regard Anglicanism in general as part of the True Church before it fell into its current errors, albeit a defective part having only de facto and not de jure authority due to apostolic succession having been dampened by de-sacralizing ordination.  I am also willing to believe Anglican apostolic succession is generally dormant, and could be meaningful if an Anglican bishop were ordained using an Orthodox liturgy.  After all, our Orthodox lines of succession do in some cases pass through persons of dubious Orthodoxy; I dont believe ordination to be a magical act, but it is a sacramemt, and muat be reverently celebrated for someone to be properly recognized as a Worthy Successor to the Apostles.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Protostrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,085
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #252 on: June 07, 2015, 06:58:29 PM »
I thought the high church adherents believed in the full range of sacraments?  :o
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist/works Warning: stories have mature content.

"Some people only feel good when they are praising the Lord." - Coptic bishop

Mt. 21:31 Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you."

"Our Lord will *never* stop loving us." - Fr. Michael P.

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #253 on: June 07, 2015, 07:05:32 PM »
I thought the high church adherents believed in the full range of sacraments?  :o

They do but "you are who you are in communion with." In the Church of England, the Anglo-Catholic parish that believes in the Mass and the Evangelical parish that doesn't are both in good standing in that church.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #254 on: June 07, 2015, 07:09:04 PM »
I thought the high church adherents believed in the full range of sacraments?  :o

Some do, especially those who identify as "Anglo Catholic."  However the bar for High Churchmanship has been lowered, so someone who we would a century ago call low church, celebrating the Eucharist in an academic grown or a cassock, surplice and tippet, and saying Mattins and Holy Communion, with simple Protestant hymns, could now be considered high church in comparison to, say, Holy Trinity Brompton or "HTB" as it is known.  Which ironically is adjacent to the Brompton Oratory, where many Tiber-crossing Anglicans have wound up, and which probably has the best liturgical service of any non-Orthodox church in the UK.  Going from HTB down the lane to the Oratory is surreal; its like taking a walk to another planet.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Minnesotan

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,329
  • Milo Thatch is the ONLY Milo for me. #FreeAtlantis
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #255 on: June 07, 2015, 07:25:32 PM »
I am also willing to believe Anglican apostolic succession is generally dormant, and could be meaningful if an Anglican bishop were ordained using an Orthodox liturgy.  After all, our Orthodox lines of succession do in some cases pass through persons of dubious Orthodoxy; I dont believe ordination to be a magical act, but it is a sacramemt, and muat be reverently celebrated for someone to be properly recognized as a Worthy Successor to the Apostles.

Well, yeah. Nearly every Patriarchal throne has been, in the past, occupied by one or more shady characters (either heretics, or morally corrupt individuals). But that didn't cause the thrones to stop existing.
I'm not going to be posting as much on OC.Net as before. I might stop in once in a while though. But I've come to realize that real life is more important.

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #256 on: June 07, 2015, 07:55:11 PM »
It's interesting how high church, low church, middle-of-the-road, and liberal have changed meanings in Anglicanism over the years. High church originally meant a high view of authority, of the church's divine origin, a divine right of bishops if you will as well as supporting the king's authority. Which in a theoretical way resembled Catholicism or Orthodoxy, like them positing itself as the true church, definitely NOT "wanting to be Roman Catholic," including imitating Roman Catholic ceremonial, which, especially as Anglo-Catholicism, it came to mean.

I've been told that classic Evangelicals in the Church of England were like "Presbyterians with Prayer Books," with a low view of episcopal authority but good Anglicans following the text and rubrics in the Prayer Book; Anglican liturgy. And keeping episcopal order (being confirmed and ordained by bishops; not allowing non-episcopal ministers to officiate) without necessarily believing bishops are essential. Today in England it tends to discard that stuff to imitate American evangelicalism: no more vestments, a praise band instead of an organ, etc.

Middle-of-the-road's always been relative to the shifting goalposts of high and low.

Liberals used to look like Evangelicals, following the letter of English law, not wanting high ceremonial because they too didn't believe in popish mumbo-jumbo. An unintended influence of Anglo-Catholicism has been for about 100 years there have been liberal clergy who also love high ceremonial; Catholic minus Rome appeals to them, then ecumenism became fashionable (they thought Catholicism was coming around to their point of view) as did hippie/New Age/shamanism.

I think a lot of Anglicans, including the conservative ones in the Continuum, don't get that the Orthodox don't care about lines of succession outside the Orthodox Church. An Anglican bishop with a hundred claimed Orthodox lines being ordained for the Anglican Church but with an Orthodox liturgy would still not be a bishop, the Orthodox and the Catholics agree. (Even if a Catholic or Orthodox bishop disobeyed his church and co-consecrated him.) Such Anglicans seem not to understand our churches' true-church claims. They think doctrinal orthodoxy and lines of succession qualify them for intercommunion agreements with Catholics and Orthodox, not realizing that our churches don't do intercommunion agreements. They can't "enter communion with Orthodoxy"; Orthodoxy expects them to become Orthodox. Ditto Catholicism. (I think we agree that an Orthodox who goes to Communion at our church becomes a Catholic.)
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #257 on: June 07, 2015, 08:04:42 PM »
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Protostrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,085
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #258 on: June 07, 2015, 08:19:31 PM »
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.

But they won't.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist/works Warning: stories have mature content.

"Some people only feel good when they are praising the Lord." - Coptic bishop

Mt. 21:31 Jesus said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you."

"Our Lord will *never* stop loving us." - Fr. Michael P.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,819
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #259 on: June 07, 2015, 08:31:56 PM »
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.
I don't know enough about Catholic theology to comment on them, but do you have any examples of the Orthodox Church doing such a thing? I've frequently seen the opposite complaint, that they are never willing to change anything and are fossilized, but never the complaint that they change things and then seek justification for doing so.  That is a new one for me.
God bless!

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,481
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #260 on: June 07, 2015, 08:59:18 PM »
The Catholic church is irreformable?  Just wait.  The day they ordain women as priests they will say something like this: "The Catholic church's tradition has always taught, but seldom fully understood..."

Ditto for Orthodox.

Both churches are good at selling romanticism.
I don't know enough about Catholic theology to comment on them, but do you have any examples of the Orthodox Church doing such a thing? I've frequently seen the opposite complaint, that they are never willing to change anything and are fossilized, but never the complaint that they change things and then seek justification for doing so.  That is a new one for me.

I think Daedalus is assuming that the Orthodox Church will eventually cave to the pressure from the world to ordain women. I don't know. I don't think it will; on the other hand, I'm not sure if women's ordination is really wrong. I have yet to see an airtight argument against it... not that I would necessarily support it either. I'm fine with the way things are in any case.

I think the bigger problems for Anglicanism are its blatant heresies, e.g. iconoclasm and Calvinism.
“Steel isn't strong, boy, flesh is stronger! That is strength, boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?  Contemplate this on the tree of woe.” - Elder Thulsa Doom of the Mountain of Power

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline The young fogey

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,181
  • Milhouse van Houten in a Raymond Chandler novel
    • A conservative blog for peace
  • Faith: Catholic
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #261 on: June 07, 2015, 09:15:34 PM »
I think I understand women's ordination's appeal. Equal opportunity, and as a straight man I love women and want them to love me back. If I thought I could invent a church, it would probably look like credally and sacramentally sound and conservative-looking but "open-minded" high Episcopal, like their Order of Julian of Norwich. If I really didn't understand women, I'd probably buy this.

The world, including relations between the sexes and the church, doesn't work that way. We can't invent a church, and giving women power doesn't endear you to them. Think about it: are women turned on by men who don't stand up to them? Women want men to be men. That and, as the conservative Protestants say, the Bible's clear about male headship. Ordaining women doesn't impress secular feminists; the love of my life 25 years ago was one so I know. It doesn't convert the unchurched and drives away most of the religious. Like the other mainline Protestant churches, the Anglicans have done everything the secular world said it wants and they're still cratering.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy can't make that change. Like Hebrew National hot dogs, we answer to a higher power than the king or public opinion including a majority vote.
"You always were a historically illiterate jerk, John." - OicwR doyen Stuart Koehl

Formed by Anglicanism and the traditional Latin Mass. Russian icons and Byzantine prayers at home; occasional Saturday Vespers at Russian Orthodox churches as Communion prep; Ukrainian Catholic parish on Sundays.

High-church libertarian
Blog

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #262 on: June 09, 2015, 12:05:21 AM »
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 12:09:01 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #263 on: June 09, 2015, 10:40:43 AM »
I don't know enough about Catholic theology to comment on them, but do you have any examples of the Orthodox Church doing such a thing? I've frequently seen the opposite complaint, that they are never willing to change anything and are fossilized, but never the complaint that they change things and then seek justification for doing so.  That is a new one for me.

I could give many examples.  Usury, serfdom, slavery, those things have been discarded.  On these your church has changed its position.   The practice of confession in your church is also not the same as in the ancient church, neither is the liturgy exactly the same, in fact its much longer and has more litanies and other features.  And the early Church didn't have the Palamist theology.  Etc. etc.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 10:42:10 AM by Daedelus1138 »
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #264 on: June 09, 2015, 10:57:52 AM »
Usury, serfdom, slavery, those things have been discarded.

Is it, though?

The practice of confession in your church is also not the same as in the ancient church

The sacrament is essentially the same, but the practice has been modified a bit in externals. Shouting your sins to the priests with everyone around you is a bit awkward.

neither is the liturgy exactly the same, in fact its much longer and has more litanies and other features.

It's actually shorter. It's been shortened multiple times, notably by St. Basil who brought it down from 5 hours. But what has a change of externals to do with a change of beliefs?

And the early Church didn't have the Palamist theology.  Etc. etc.

'Palamism' was there, notably in Scripture itself. It was a bit less pronounced, but it was there. The Cappadocian fathers clearly taught it.

« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 10:59:25 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #265 on: June 09, 2015, 11:16:50 AM »
The sacrament is essentially the same, but the practice has been modified a bit in externals. Shouting your sins to the priests with everyone around you is a bit awkward..

I don't see evidence the early Church taught that confession to a priest was mandatory.  This was a practice that started in the west in Ireland and Britain among monastics and spread to the laity over centuries.  Then in the 13th century with the 4th Lateran Council it became an obligation and mandatory.

The modern Orthodox practice you saw in some Russian churches of tying communion to confession seems to me to be a Latinization.   Not surprising since  19th century Russian theology was influenced by contact with Roman Catholic Scholastic thought.  Most Orthodox started increasingly focusing their theology on Scholasticism in the wake of the Reformation, doubling down to defend what they perceived as historic doctrines in the face of new "threats" from Protestant faith (hence the denunciation of Calvinism and the Council of Dositheos in Jerusalem.)

"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #266 on: June 09, 2015, 11:27:16 AM »
I don't see evidence the early Church taught that confession to a priest was mandatory. 

Read the writings of the early Church, starting with the Didache and the letter of Barnabas. Confession is there. Early canons had very heavy penances, disbarring people for years on end from communion for some sins.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 11:29:31 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Daedelus1138

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 991
  • Faith: Lutheran
  • Jurisdiction: ELCA
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #267 on: June 09, 2015, 11:41:58 AM »
Read the writings of the early Church, starting with the Didache and the letter of Barnabas. Confession is there. Early canons had very heavy penances, disbarring people for years on end from communion for some sins.

Penances are a separate issue from the Scholastic understanding that confession to a priest works ex opere operatio, and was therefore necessary for the forgiveness of sins.  That idea did not exist in the early Church.  Certain church fathers encouraged confession of sins, but only to unburden ones conscience.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 11:42:17 AM by Daedelus1138 »
"I have held many things in my hands, and I have lost them all; but whatever I have placed in God's hands, that I still possess."   - Martin Luther

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #268 on: June 09, 2015, 11:43:42 AM »
ex opere operatio

Not this discussion again.

It's ex opere operato btw.

The Anglican (and Lutheran?) understanding of the issue is donatist.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 11:45:14 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,089
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Convince me that Anglicanism is false
« Reply #269 on: June 09, 2015, 11:59:29 AM »
ex opere operatio

Not this discussion again.

It's ex opere operato btw.

The Anglican (and Lutheran?) understanding of the issue is donatist.

How is it Donatist? They don't even believe that Confession is a condition for forgiveness. They just believe it's a nice gesture.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.