OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 27, 2014, 05:04:31 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Trans, Cons, Who Knows the Difference?  (Read 6142 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« on: April 18, 2003, 04:23:07 PM »

Aren't 'substances' in the Aristotelian sense like Platonic 'forms'? I don't see how science can disprove an abstract notion of a thing's essence - its 'chair-ness' or being Jesus. The apostolic Churches already know that putting the Sacrament under a microscope doesn't disprove the change in substance - it only proves the accidents are still there (duh).

But by the same token, it doesn't prove that there is any reality to "substance" in the first place-- indeed, the only thing that makes the Thomian solution work is that you can't see the substance.

Angry Angry Angry WARNING: Entering full rant mode

"Substance" is, at this point, an intellectual crutch for people who can't live with the REAL answer to the question of "How can be body and blood, when it feels and tastes like bread and wine?" The real answer is, "we haven't the foggiest idea; it just is."

You can make snide comments about what science can and cannot do, but waving around a system of knowledge that otherwise goes unused because it's otherwise wrong isn't defensible. "How the sacraments work" questions don't have to be answered.

(end rant)

You seem to be trying to make an oblique claim that the church fathers support Aquinas. I find this doubtful.

Quote

Quote
As far as Mariology is concerned, the dispute with the Anglicans is not that we reject it (because we don't), but rather the issue of requiring its practices.

Making something an option in a religious smorgasbord isn't the same as positively believing in it and amounts to the same thing as rejecting it. This may be one reason why Catholic-Anglican and Orthodox-Anglican dialogue don't lead anywhere.

The phrase "religious smorgasbord" is more than a little rude, not to mention question-begging. At any rate, you are quite wrong. Never mind that you confound belief and practice; requiring belief in a proposition and demanding disbelief in it don't exhaust the possibilities. And you know that's what happens Anglican churches, if you really know them.

Quote
Catholic/Orthodox: Do you believe in the change of the elements wholly into the Body and Blood of Christ? (Thinking: Do you, as a whole church, require belief that this really and truly happens - like we do - or not?)

Why don't you ask a REAL Anglican that question, instead of making up straw ones?

Real Anglican (me): What do you mean by "change"? We believe what Jesus says: "is body", "is blood". So yes, it once was not body and not blood, and now is. (And even in "real presence", that's still true.)

If you're asking us whether we think it ceases to be bread and wine, you don't have any reason to believe that it does or does not. As modern people talk about material being, the answer would generally be "no". If you want to believe in that Aristotle stuff, go right ahead, but since we've tossed Aristotle as a scientific authority it's going to be a hard sell to demand that we agree with you. (In your specific case, Serge, I don't believe that you've shown that Orthodoxy does demand belief in the Thomian theory, especially since plenty of other Orthodoxy have told me that they don't.)

If you read our liturgies, you will see that we use the language of scripture. We think that's a good enough explanation and a good enough theory. If you want to insist on more, the burden of proof is on you-- you, Serge.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2003, 05:05:38 PM »

Quote
But by the same token, it doesn't prove that there is any reality to "substance" in the first place-- indeed, the only thing that makes the Thomian solution work is that you can't see the substance.

My point stands - thank you. You cannot use science to disprove substance or a change in same.

Quote
"Substance" is, at this point, an intellectual crutch for people who can't live with the REAL answer to the question of "How can be body and blood, when it feels and tastes like bread and wine?" The real answer is, "we haven't the foggiest idea; it just is."

A copout unknown to the early Church and well suited for a compromise church intended to bring as many English people in line with the king's will as possible. Which is exactly what your church is.

Quote
You can make snide comments about what science can and cannot do

What's snide about it? It can't disprove substance.

Quote
You seem to be trying to make an oblique claim that the church fathers support Aquinas. I find this doubtful.

You probably can't find one orthodox one whose belief about the Sacrament goes against him either.

Quote
The phrase "religious smorgasbord" is more than a little rude, not to mention question-begging.

It's true and you can't prove otherwise. Have you read what your bishops today teach, Keble? Maybe it makes you uncomfortable because you know it's true.

Quote
If you read our liturgies, you will see that we use the language of scripture. We think that's a good enough explanation and a good enough theory. If you want to insist on more, the burden of proof is on you-- you, Serge.

Quoting scripture out of the context of the Church means nothing. The devil quoted it (Ps. 90/91) to Jesus during His temptation in the desert.
Logged

Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2003, 07:29:47 PM »

From what I can tell from reading your most recent posts on the topic, it appears to me that you two (Keble and Serge), and possibly others, suffer from PPMT (only slightly tongue in cheek - my verbiage that is).  I find you two actually agreeing with each other on your main points (but maybe not perception of practice of both sides, EO and Anglican/Episcopalian).  Please read the new thread I started before you post again.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2003, 09:00:19 AM »

Quote
But by the same token, it doesn't prove that there is any reality to "substance" in the first place-- indeed, the only thing that makes the Thomian solution work is that you can't see the substance.

My point stands - thank you. You cannot use science to disprove substance or a change in same.

Quote
"Substance" is, at this point, an intellectual crutch for people who can't live with the REAL answer to the question of "How can be body and blood, when it feels and tastes like bread and wine?" The real answer is, "we haven't the foggiest idea; it just is."

A copout unknown to the early Church and well suited for a compromise church intended to bring as many English people in line with the king's will as possible. Which is exactly what your church is.

Quote
You can make snide comments about what science can and cannot do

What's snide about it? It can't disprove substance.

Quote
You seem to be trying to make an oblique claim that the church fathers support Aquinas. I find this doubtful.

You probably can't find one orthodox one whose belief about the Sacrament goes against him either.

Quote
The phrase "religious smorgasbord" is more than a little rude, not to mention question-begging.

It's true and you can't prove otherwise. Have you read what your bishops today teach, Keble? Maybe it makes you uncomfortable because you know it's true.

Quote
If you read our liturgies, you will see that we use the language of scripture. We think that's a good enough explanation and a good enough theory. If you want to insist on more, the burden of proof is on you-- you, Serge.

Quoting scripture out of the context of the Church means nothing. The devil quoted it (Ps. 90/91) to Jesus during His temptation in the desert.

Since I'm now the devil, why are you bothering with these extremely lame attempts at defeating me with arguments?
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2003, 10:36:25 AM »

Quote
Since I'm now the devil, why are you bothering with these extremely lame attempts at defeating me with arguments?

Translation: WAAAAAAAH!

Note that you didn't actually answer any of them. I know, you won't deign to dignify them with such. That's probably because you haven't got any that'll hold up.

And no, I don't think sincere born Anglicans are devils!

Objectively, Anglicanism is built on lies (self-serving ones propping up the English king and nation-state, with the lies of the 'Reformation' added on), and the devil is the father of lies. Lies mixed in with bits of truth (the most dangerous lies of all) that, like its parish churches and cathedrals, it stole from the medieval Catholic Church.

But of course sincere, orthodox, personally catholic-minded folk who through no fault of their own believe the lies aren't demonic.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2003, 10:39:36 AM by Serge » Logged

MartinIntlStud
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134



« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2003, 02:34:20 PM »

"The real answer is, "we haven't the foggiest idea; it just is." "

-Isn't this the Orthodox answer to it? It is a Holy MYSTERY after all.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2003, 07:12:11 PM »

"The real answer is, "we haven't the foggiest idea; it just is." "

-Isn't this the Orthodox answer to it? It is a Holy MYSTERY after all.


Well, that's what I thought the Orthodox position was. I don't understand why Serge is so vehement in insisting that Orthodoxy endorses Thomist ranssubstantiation.

John Donne on the subject:

He was the Word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what that Word did make it,
I do believe and take it.

Now I expect Serge to denounce this as another cop-out, but that's up to him.

(Actually, it is a cop-out, but sometimes that's the right answer, rather than having to have a answer to everything.)
Logged
MartinIntlStud
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134



« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2003, 07:26:47 PM »

Everything I've heard from Priests about "transubstantiation" is that it's trying to use a scientific term to describe the Divine and Mystical and the term isn't appicable. Not that we don't think that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, it's just that we're not going to try and explain something that is a Holy Mystery within the frame of worldly understanding.
Logged
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2003, 11:05:36 PM »

While I agree with Serge's assessment of the CofE (sorry, but he is right on that point), I'm a little hesitant on the issue of "transubstantiation."

In so far as the term goes (taking for granted an Aristotelian metaphysics), it's not horrendous.  However, that is the problem; it does not go far enough.  Like many things western, it's not so much that the idea is horrifically wrong; just that the choice of terminology and the way in which the subject is framed is dreadfully narrow - and unfortunatly, that narrowness can become, with time, very misleading.

imho, one see's this in how the doctrine of original sin developed in the west.  As Fr.Seraphim (Rose) pointed out, it's not that St.Augustine's articulation of original sin was dead wrong - however, it is so narrowly stated (and forced into a legalistic framework), that it can easily lend itself to more sinister ways of thinking on the subject of the economy of salvation.

I feel the same way about transubstantiation.  As far as I've ever been told, the Orthodox Church believes in the true transformation of the bread and wine into the true body and blood of Christ - not via fideism, but as something objective and essential (thus, it is possible for an unbeliever to commit sacrelige against the Holy Gifts, which would be impossilbe without this true change).

However, there are problems with the transubstantiation doctrine.  A key one I see, is on the matter of the duration of the transformation.  According to the RCC, the Gifts remain as the body and blood of the Lord until the accidents cease to be those of bread and wine.  This would mean, some time while they are in the stomach of the communicant.

This definition, unfortunatly is not in line with either Orthodox piety or teaching.  If this part of the "transubstantiation" doctrine were true, then how could the blood of Christ circulate with our own blood?  Or our flesh assimilate His flesh (or in truth, ours assimilated to His)?  As for the piety/praxis end of this, what happens to the precautions Orthodox take after communing, if they should cut themselves?  Is that not an outgrowth of the forementioned teaching?

There is no way for the narrow Aristotelian framework within which "transubstantiation" exists, to accomodate this dimension of the Apostolic faith regarding Holy Communion.

Seraphim
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2003, 09:03:48 AM »

However, there are problems with the transubstantiation doctrine.  A key one I see, is on the matter of the duration of the transformation.  According to the RCC, the Gifts remain as the body and blood of the Lord until the accidents cease to be those of bread and wine.  This would mean, some time while they are in the stomach of the communicant.

This definition, unfortunatly is not in line with either Orthodox piety or teaching.  If this part of the "transubstantiation" doctrine were true, then how could the blood of Christ circulate with our own blood?  Or our flesh assimilate His flesh (or in truth, ours assimilated to His)?  As for the piety/praxis end of this, what happens to the precautions Orthodox take after communing, if they should cut themselves?  Is that not an outgrowth of the forementioned teaching?

Well actually this is pretty much in line with mainstream Anglican teaching on the matter. (Sorry Serge-- there is no way that you are going to successfully defend Bennison as representing the mainstream of Anglican thought.) If you read someone responsible like Mascall or (if your funny bone can take it) Capon, you'll find a high degree of intolerance for the Scholastic need to work everything through like this, precisely because it leads you quickly into absurd issues such as what exactly the digestive system is doing to the "accidents" (do we end up with Holy Electrons being passed around in our mitocondria?).

On the issue of sacrilege: right now I think the prevailing view (though I'm not sure I could find it explicitly laid out) is that there is an objective quality to the Eucharist in that the communicant doesn't, by their moral/religious state, affect the "happening" of the Eucharist. If that were not so, then objective sacrilege would not be possible; fideism would guard the sacrament from happening in the unworthy. That's not what our liturgies say, and it's not what scripture says-- it's right there in St. Paul. By the same token, though, it means that Eucharistic theorizing cannot actually change the sacrament. That's part of how we justify open communion. Now, I'm not entirely sure about this. I'm of mixed feelings about the degree to which a strictly memorialist participant in our Eucharist is really in a right state with the sacrament.

When you start talking about the attitudes of the ministers, then I don't think this kind of reasoning works. There are bishops whose Eucharist I will not participate in; I have to draw the line at Spong's rejection of pretty much any principle of orthodox Christianity. That Spong was never chucked from his office is scandalous, but at least he is retired.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2003, 11:10:11 AM »

Good one, Seraphim! Rather than trying to make Orthodoxy look Protestant in its teaching on the Eucharist (as some Protestants and ex-Protestants try to do), you argue that transubstantiation doesn't go far enough! (Not that it's not true, just not an exhaustive take on the subject. Aquinas would have agreed!) Awesome.

I still don't see the Catholic and Orthodox takes as mutually exclusive, though. (No surprise there.) There is no contradiction in saying the objective Real Presence remains as long as the Elements do, but that the grace of the sacrament remains long afterwards (which explains the wonderful Orthodox piety about avoiding getting cut, etc.).

Quote
Well actually this is pretty much in line with mainstream Anglican teaching on the matter. (Sorry Serge-- there is no way that you are going to successfully defend Bennison as representing the mainstream of Anglican thought.)

I don't need to use Mr Bennison to refute Anglicanism - an honest reading of English history does that for me. About the England that tortured and killed Catholics for believing the same thing about the Eucharist that the Orthodox do. Mainstream Anglican teaching? Oh, you mean like Thomas Cranmer, the main author/compiler of the Prayer Book, who wasn't even a Lutheran but a Zwinglian? Like the Black Rubric in the English version of said book (which I have and use for its psalter and canticles - Morning and Evening Prayer are fine services, too), which goes out of its way to deny an objective Presence? Like the Church of England that until the late 1800s only had communion services four times a year? The Catholic recusants didn't buy the flimflam of the Elizabethan compromise and Articles of Religion, and neither do I.

Quote
That's part of how we justify open communion.

Which is absolute madness from the Orthodox POV. (Elsewhere, Brendan has explained why.) And it's relatively recent in Anglicanism too - historically only confirmed members could commune at your churches.

Quote
When you start talking about the attitudes of the ministers, then I don't think this kind of reasoning works. There are bishops whose Eucharist I will not participate in; I have to draw the line at Spong's rejection of pretty much any principle of orthodox Christianity. That Spong was never chucked from his office is scandalous, but at least he is retired.

Glad you're orthodox when it comes to rejecting Spong. Regarding the attitude of the ministers, the way out of that quandary/trap is to look not at the disposition/orthodoxy or heterodoxy of the ministers but at the context of the church of which the ministers are members. If the bishop or priest is personally a heretic (or even, as in the case of Talleyrand in France, a stone atheist) but is acting in the context, the communion, of an orthodox Church (which the Orthodox would identify positively as part of the Orthodox communion), the Sacrament is unaffected - it is there because of the grace given by the Church, in spite of the minister's blasphemy. From this POV, what's really wrong with Spong and Bennison that makes their communion services not really the Eucharist isn't that they're heterodox but that they belong to a Protestant church.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2003, 11:18:39 AM by Serge » Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 21, 2003, 06:00:26 PM »

Quote
Good one, Seraphim! Rather than trying to make Orthodoxy look Protestant in its teaching on the Eucharist (as some Protestants and ex-Protestants try to do), you argue that transubstantiation doesn't go far enough! (Not that it's not true, just not an exhaustive take on the subject. Aquinas would have agreed!) Awesome.

I think some people take the Orthodox Church's non-acceptance of "transubstantiation" the wrong way - as if this were meant to mean Orthodoxy believes something less than the RCC.

The subject is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with different manners of speaking.  When St.Paul speaks of the Holy Gifts in the Scriptures, he speaks (oddly enough) in a way more congenial to a modern manner of expression - while insisting that the gifts are the body and blood of the Lord, he also will refer to them as "bread" and "cup".  However, I think in the case of both the Orthodox, and St.Paul, this is speaking of the Gifts according to their appearances... which in a round about way, is what the accidents/substance distinction attempts to address as well.

What is very clear, is that Orthodox Christianity insists upon an actual transformation/change; that is to say, the Holy Gifts are the true body and blood of Christ.  This is something essential, since it is what differentiates the Holy Gifts from say, an Ikon of the Saviour.  This is not to say that one does not encounter Christ when venerating an Ikon...however the Church teaches that when all is said and done, the Ikon itself is a wooden board, in which the composition of paint manifests the image of Christ (and it is this image, belonging to the Lord, which is adored and worshipped, not the substance of the Ikon).  On the other hand, the Holy Gifts (which do not bear a likeness to Christ, save on a symbolic level...the symbolism pertaining to His Holy Sacrifice, the shedding of His Precious Blood) are in essense and truth, aside from appearances, the body and blood of the Lord.

Another area where I find the whole doctrine of transubstantiation troubling, is where it's limitations can land one.  For example, it is only within the framework of transubstantiation that one could insist upon the further idea of concommitance, which was the basis for denying both the body and blood of the Lord to lay communicants in the RCC.  I know this praxis is now changing, but the teaching itself still stands.

For my money, such a speculation (concommitance) goes far beyond what the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church can justify.  It also opens the door to types of piety which have no precedent in the "pre-schism" Church (most tellingly, neither in the East nor in the West), such as "adoration" of the Holy Gifts apart from the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  While St.Augustine states that it is customary to receive the Holy Gifts with adoration (which is due to the body and blood of God), the ultimate purpose for there being such a sacrament, is for these Gifts to be consumed.

All that we are told by the Church, is that the bread becomes Christ's body, the chalice His blood, and that we know this has occured at the consecration via faith.  Speculating beyond this, particularly in the form of drafting dogmas out of these speculations, cannot help but create un-Orthodox results.

Quote
I still don't see the Catholic and Orthodox takes as mutually exclusive, though. (No surprise there.) There is no contradiction in saying the objective Real Presence remains as long as the Elements do, but that the grace of the sacrament remains long afterwards (which explains the wonderful Orthodox piety about avoiding getting cut, etc.).

Mmmm...I've thought of this as a possible means of reconcling the two ideas, but it doesn't suffice.  It still is cutting far too sharp a division between where the Holy Gifts end and where the communicant who has received them begins (sorry if that doesn't sound very clear, but I think you understand what I'm trying to express.)   This is further complicated by RC teaching on grace (which is itself another can of worms), which I think makes such a notion of "transubstantiation" and it's effects even more foreign to Orthodoxy (since at least if one subscribed to the idea you propose with an Orthodox understanding of grace, then at least it could be said God is truly active afterwards in the communicaint via His energies, where as the Latins teach that this "grace" would simply be a created habit.)

I hope this more negative sounding post regarding "transubstantiation" is not leaving you, or anyone else with a false impression regarding my thinking.  I still stand by what I said earlier - transubsantiation's primary flaw is that it is so narrow that it cannot adequately express what really goes on when the Holy Gifts are consecrated, and then received by the faithful.

Another problem are the underpinnings of the definition (transubstantiation) itself.  While there is some truth in the great naturalist's observations (Aristotle), Aristotelianism itself has been dismanteled by too many philosophers since the time of Thomas Aquinas, and it's too shaky a foundation to build dogmas around.

While it's common for people to say the Fathers were "neo-platonists" or something like this, it's very misleading.  While perhaps this tag can be put on a few of them (most conspicuously, St.Augustine), it does not generally apply to their thought life.  Even the adoption of the notion of "essence" doesn't require a slavish devotion to Athens, since the term itself only refers to what something "is" (in english at least, "is" and "essence" have a common root.)  In part, I think it's easier to borrow from Plato (than Aristotle), because Plato (imho) was less of a "true" philosopher (in the modern, logical understanding of what philosophy is about, not in the original sense of being a "lover of wisdom"), and more given to mysticism.

Seraphim
Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2003, 08:18:57 AM »


I think some people take the Orthodox Church's non-acceptance of "transubstantiation" the wrong way - as if this were meant to mean Orthodoxy believes something less than the RCC.

The problem I'm having here is "more what?" Maybe it's a residue of high school physics classes Smiley but "more" and "less" imply quantification of something. What is that thing?

I don't think you are trying to say that the Orthodox believe in Thomian Transsub and more besides.

I'm not convinced by the "bread/cup" explanation, because (at least in the case of the cup) one is surely seeing a rhetorical figure (metonymy in this case). I was thinking more of the key passage in 1st Corinthians: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." It's that word "discerning" (variously translated-- no doubt someone can pull out the Greek word used here, but I don't have it readily to hand). All of the talk about the appearances of the sacrament presupposes that one does not "discern" here with the physical senses. It's quite clear that the discernment involved is of the spiritual sort.

To some extent I think we are somply speaking at cross purposes, and that the disagreements lie elsewhere than on this point. For instance:

Quote
What is very clear, is that Orthodox Christianity insists upon an actual transformation/change; that is to say, the Holy Gifts are the true body and blood of Christ.

Here I don't understand what is meant by the emphasis on "true". As opposed to "false"? Or are you trying to say that materially they are the body and blood?

If the latter is meant, you haven't advanced an opinion which is unanglican. But on the other hand, you are walking out on thin ice. Does "material" mean "composed of matter as we know matter"? I should think not. Again, I don't think this gets anyone out of the "trans/cons/who cares?" issue. Surely we are now beyond the reach of a memorialist view, and perhaps beyond "real presence". Sege can keep at his attempt to hang Cranmer and the Black Rubric around anglican necks, but in doing so he is taking an unanglican attitude, so the effort is (as he likes to say) self-refuting. The modern liturgy flatly says "be the body and blood". I don't see the supposed inconsistency; the language implies change.

Quote
For my money, such a speculation (concommitance) goes far beyond what the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church can justify.  It also opens the door to types of piety which have no precedent in the "pre-schism" Church (most tellingly, neither in the East nor in the West), such as "adoration" of the Holy Gifts apart from the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  While St.Augustine states that it is customary to receive the Holy Gifts with adoration (which is due to the body and blood of God), the ultimate purpose for there being such a sacrament, is for these Gifts to be consumed.

I have no observation to make on concommitance; it's plainly not what Jesus said, so no Protestant group accepts it.

as far as Adoration of the sacrament is concerned, it is curious that in the West it has become, more or less, the final test of Eucharistic theory. Clearly to believe it is appropriate, one has to believe that the sacrament is God; and it is believed to be so because it is Christ, being the body and blood. Therefore only Catholics and some Anglicans do it. I haven't really explored the reasoning about it in the Episcopal Church; I'm sure some of the opposition is just "It's too Catholic", and some follows the reasoning you have given here. It stands out as something for which there is no official rite (well, there's no rite for exorcism either, but at least there is provision for doing one).

I have no specific comment on the remainder of what you write, Seraphim, except to say that in general it follows the sense of Anglican argument on the matter pretty closely.
Logged
MartinIntlStud
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134



« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2003, 10:18:41 AM »

"and it is this image, belonging to the Lord, which is adored and worshipped, not the substance of the Ikon"

I know this is off topic a bit, but this made me go "Whaaa!?"

Ok, You mean the Lord, whose image is depicted is to be worshipped, not the image which is paint and wood, right? I'm having problems understanding how it is possible to worship an image. I understand venerating an image, because it belongs to the Lord, the way we venerate the Cross because Our Lord died upon it or the way we venerate the Bible, because it is his written words.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2003, 01:44:29 PM »

Quote
For example, it is only within the framework of transubstantiation that one could insist upon the further idea of concomitance, which was the basis for denying both the body and blood of the Lord to lay communicants in the RCC.  I know this praxis is now changing, but the teaching itself still stands.

I know of no Eastern Orthodox who would deny that the smallest Particle is God, Seraphim. As for RC practice, the way it 'is now changing' is a step backward, a protestantization. Ironically a way to fix that, beside adopting intinction similar to the Byzantine Rite (which some orthodox RC places do!), is to visit a typical Anglican church and then copy what they do.

Quote
For my money, such a speculation (concomitance) goes far beyond what the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church can justify.  It also opens the door to types of piety which have no precedent in the "pre-schism" Church (most tellingly, neither in the East nor in the West), such as "adoration" of the Holy Gifts apart from the Liturgy of the Eucharist.  While St.Augustine states that it is customary to receive the Holy Gifts with adoration (which is due to the body and blood of God), the ultimate purpose for there being such a sacrament, is for these Gifts to be consumed.

Here you are making Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) theology about the Sacrament sound like Lutheranism, which holds there is a Real Presence only during the communion service (and they're not sure how long afterwards it lasts - I asked a Lutheran pastor). Not what I think you wanted to say, Seraphim. The issue of extraliturgical devotion to the Sacrament is 1) apples and oranges here and 2) strikes me as simply chauvinistic/ethnocentric carping at something that's not Byzantine (you're not in our empire, so you're not in the Church) only for historical, accidental reasons, not theological ones as Bishop Kallistos (Ware) notes in The Orthodox Church. Nobody in the Christian East denied the Presence so no extraliturgical adoration developed in reaction against it, unlike Western Catholicism where this happened (Berengarius and the orthodox reaction against him). The emphasis is the Eastern Rites is exactly the same as in the Fathers' time - the Sacrament exists mainly (here ironically echoing part of the Articles of Religion) to be used.

Anglicanism - 'we're too sophisticated to be bothered with an explanation' - is what comes to mind when Jesus said He will vomit the lukewarm out of His mouth. I respect orthodox apostolic people and I respect honest secular people (even though I don't agree with them) - I don't respect game-playing like yours, Keble. (And I don't think John Keble would have had much respect for such games, either.) It's the same dithering that produced Spong and Bennison, even though you don't agree with them. They talk about the divinity of Christ, His miracles and His resurrection the same way you do about the Eucharist.

As for my being 'unanglican', thank you.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2003, 01:45:08 PM by Serge » Logged

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

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2003, 03:24:44 PM »

[Anglicanism - 'we're too sophisticated to be bothered with an explanation' -

Or it could be like Donne wrote and is simple faith "Jesus said it is and I believe Him."

Why do you have such strong feelings against the Episcopalians/Anglicans?

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2003, 03:35:51 PM »

Quote
Or it could be like Donne wrote and is simple faith "Jesus said it is and I believe Him."

Donne dumped apostolic Christianity for Protestantism.

Quote
Why do you have such strong feelings against the Episcopalians/Anglicans?

Nice try, trying to move the topic to 'feelings'. I like some Anglicans a lot. Anglicanism is manifestly bogus.
Logged

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

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2003, 03:53:48 PM »

It wasn't meant as a try at anything.  Huh

 I'll try a different word. Why do you have such strong opinions against the Episcopal/Anglican Churches?

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2003, 04:51:42 PM »

Here is an excerpt from John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes, New York: Fordham University Press, 1983, pp. 201-206.  The first time I read it I was confused and thought he was in a way denying that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ but when you realize that for the ancients "symbol" means both an example of something AND a PARTICIPATION in that thing, it makes more sense.  In other words, the Eucharist is a "symbol" of the Body of Christ in that it "shows  (as St. Basil's liturgy proclaims) this bread to be the body of Christ."  I offer this not in order to put my opinion in the debate but rather to offer just another point of view.

-----

16. The Eucharist

FORMAL CONSERVATISM was one of the predominant features of Byzantine civilization, affecting both the secular and the sacred aspects of life, and the forms of the liturgy in particular. But if the avowed intention was to preserve things as they were, if the basic structures of the Eucharistic liturgy have not been modified since the early centuries of Christianity and even today retain the forms which they acquired in the ninth century, the interpretation of words and gestures was subject to substantial change and evolution. Thus, Byzantine ritual conservatism was instrumental in preserving the original Christian lex orandi, otherwise often reinterpreted in the context of a Platonizing or moralizing symbolism, though it also allowed in due time—especially with Nicholas Cabasilas and the Hesychast theologians of the fourteenth century—a strong reaffirmation of the original sacramental realism in liturgical theology.

1. SYMBOLS, IMAGES, AND REALITY

Early Christianity and the patristic tradition understood the Eucharist as a mystery of true and real communion with Christ. Speaking of the Eucharist, Chrysostom insists that "Christ even now is present, even now operates";1 and Gregory of Nyssa, in spite of the Platonizing tendencies of his thought, otherwise stands for the same view of the Eucharist as a mystery of real "participation" in the glorified Body of Christ, the seed of immortality.

Quote
By dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose existence comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the Immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He "trans-elements" [metastoicheiosisJ the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing.2

Participation in these sources of immortality and unity is a constant concern for every Christian:

Quote
It is good and beneficial to communicate every day [Basil writes,] and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" [In 6:55]. And who doubts that to share frequently in life is the same thing as to have manifold life? I indeed communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any saint.3

This realistic and existential theology of the Eucharist was, as we have seen,4 challenged by pastoral needs in the post-Constantinian Church: large congregations in large churches caused a lessening of participation by the laity.

It may be argued that the pastoral considerations which prompted this evolution were at least partially justified; the eschatological meaning of the Eucharist implied a withdrawal from the "world," a "closed" community of committed participants. Now that in the empire of Constantine and Justinian, the Church and the world had become indistinguishable as a single society, the Eucharist had to be protected from the "crowd," which had ceased to be the "people of God." More questionable, however, was the theological rationalization of this new situation, which was endorsed by some commentators on the liturgy who began to explain the Eucharist as a system of symbols to be "contemplated"; sacramental participation was thus gradually replaced with intellectual vision. Needless to say, this new attitude was perfectly suited to the Origenistic and Evagrian understanding of religion as an ascent of the mind to God, of which liturgical action was a symbol.

Most influential in promoting this symbolic understanding of the Eucharist were the writings of pseudo-Dionysius. Reducing the Eucharistic synaxis to a moral appeal, the Areopagite calls his readers to a "higher" contemplation:

Quote
Let us leave to the imperfect these signs which, as I said, are magnificently painted in the vestibules of the sanctuaries; they will be sufficient to feed their contemplation. As far as we are concerned: let us turn back, in considering the holy synaxis, from the effects to their causes, and, thanks to the lights which Jesus will give us, we shall be able to contemplate harmoniously the intelligible realities in which are clearly reflected the blessed goodness of the models.5

Thus, the Eucharist is only the visible "effect" of an invisible "model"; and the celebrant "by offering Jesus Christ to our eyes, shows us in a tangible way and, as in an image, our intelligible life." 6 Thus, for Dionysius, "the loftiest sense of the Eucharistic rites and of sacramental communion itself is in symbolizing the union of our minds with God and with Christ. . . . Dionysius never formally presents Eucharistic communion as a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ." 7

Dionysius' symbolism only superficially affected the Eucharistic rites themselves, but it became quite popular among commentators on the liturgy. Thus, the great Maximus the Confessor, whose use of the concept of "symbol" is probably more realistic than Dionysius', nevertheless systematically applies the terms "symbol" or "image" to the Eucharistic liturgy in general and to the elements of bread and wine in particular.8

In the eighth century, this symbolism led to a serious theological debate concerning the Eucharist-the only one Byzantium ever knew. The iconoclastic council of 754, in condemning the use of religious images, proclaimed that the only admissible "image" of Christ is the one established by Christ Himself, the Eucharistic Body and Blood.9 This radical and clear contention, based upon a long-standing tradition, was a real challenge to the Orthodox party; the ambiguity of the Areopagite was evidenced once more, and a clarification of symbolism made necessary.

Thus, the defenders of the images, especially Theodore the Studite and Patriarch Nicephorus, firmly rejected it. For Theodore, the Eucharist is not "type," but the very "truth"; it is the "mystery which recapitulates the whole of the [divine] dispensation." 10 According to Nicephorus, it is the "flesh of God," "one and the same thing" with the Body and Blood of Christ,11 who came to save the very reality of human flesh by becoming and remaining "flesh," even after His glorification; thus, in the Eucharist, "what is the matter of the sacrament, if the flesh is not real, so that we see it being perfected by the Spirit?" 12

As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine "Eucharistic realism," clearly departing from Dionysian terminology; was redirected along Christological and soteriological lines; in the Eucharist, man participates in the glorified humanity of Christ, which is not the "essence of God," 13 but a humanity still consubstantial to man and available to him as food and drink. In his treatise Against Eusebius and Epiphanius, Patriarch Nicephorus is particularly emphatic in condemning the Origenist idea that in the Eucharist man contemplates or participates in the "essence" of God.14 For him, as also for later Byzantine theologians, the Eucharist is Christ's transfigured, life-giving, but still human, body, en-hypostasized in the Logos and penetrated with divine "energies." Characteristically, one never finds the category of "essence" (ousia) used by Byzantine theologians in a Eucharistic context. They would consider a term like "transubstantiation" (metousiosis) improper to designate the Eucharistic mystery, and generally use the concept of metabole, found in the canon of John Chrysostom, or such dynamic terms as "trans-elementation" (metastoicheiosis) or "re-ordination" (metarrhythmisis). Transubstantiation (metousiosis) appears only in the writings of the Latinophrones of the thirteenth century, and is nothing but a straight translation from the Latin. The first Orthodox author to use it is Gennadios Scholarios;15 but, in his case as well, direct Latin influence is obvious. The Eucharist is neither a symbol to be "contemplated" from outside nor an "essence" distinct from humanity, but Jesus Himself, the risen Lord, "made known through the breaking of bread" (Lk 24:35); Byzantine theologians rarely speculated beyond this realistic and soteriological affirmation of the Eucharistic presence as that of the glorified humanity of Christ.

The rejection of the concept of the Eucharist as "image" or "symbol" is, on the other hand, very significant for the understanding of the entire Eucharistic "perception" of the Byzantines; the Eucharist for them always remained fundamentally a mystery to be received as food and drink, and not to be "seen" through physical eyes. The elements remain covered, except during the prayers of consecration and during communion; and, in contrast with Western medieval piety, were never "venerated" outside the framework of the Eucharistic liturgy itself. The Eucharist cannot reveal anything to the sense of vision; it is only the bread of heaven. Vision is offered another channel of revelation-the icons: hence, the revelatory program of the Byzantine iconostasis, with the figures of Christ and the saints exposed precisely in order to be seen and venerated. "Christ is not shown in the Holy Gifts," writes Leonid Ouspensky; "He is given. He is shown in the icons. The visible side of the reality of the Eucharist is an image which can never be replaced either by imagination or by looking at the Holy Gifts." 16

As a result of the iconoclastic controversy, Byzantine Eucharistic theology retained and re-emphasized the mystery and hiddenness of this central liturgical action of the Church. But it also reaffirmed that the Eucharist was essentially a meal which could be partaken of only through eating and drinking, because God had assumed the fullness of our humanity, with all its psychic and physical functions, in order to lead it to resurrection.

Byzantine theologians had an opportunity to make the same point in connection with their anti-Latin polemics against the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist. The discussion on the azymes, which started in the eleventh century, was generally entangled in arguments of purely symbolic nature (the Greeks maintained, for example, that the Eucharistic bread had to be leavened in. order to symbolize the animated humanity of Christ, while the Latin use of azymes implied ApolIinarianism, i.e., the denial that Jesus had a human soul), but the controversy also recognized that the Byzantines understood the Eucharistic bread to be necessarily consubstantial with humanity, while Latin medieval piety emphasized its "supersubstantiality," its otherworldliness. The use of ordinary bread, identical with the bread used as everyday food, was the sign of true Incarnation: "What is the daily bread [of the Lord's prayer ]," asks Nicetas Stethatos, "if it is not consubstantial with us? And the bread consubstantial with us is none other than the Body of Christ, who became consubstantial with us through the flesh of His humanity." 17

The Byzantines did not see the substance of the bread somehow changed in the Eucharistic mystery into another substance—the Body of Christ—but viewed this bread as the "type" of humanity: our humanity changed into the transfigured humanity of Christ.18 For this reason, Eucharistic theology played such a prominent role in the theological debates of the fourteenth century, when the basic issue was a confrontation between an autonomous concept of man and the Hesychast defense of "deification." The great Nicholas Cabasilas, though still bound to the old Dionysian symbolism, overcomes the dangers of Nominalism; clearly, for him as also for Gregory Palamas, the Eucharist is the mystery which not only "represents" the life of Christ and offers it to our "contemplation"; it is the moment and the place, in which Christ's deified humanity becomes ours.

Quote
He not merely clothed Himself in a body. He also took a soul and mind and will and everything human, so that He might be able to be united to the whole of us, penetrate through the whole of us, and resolve us into Himself, having in every respect joined His own to that which is ours. . . . For since it was not possible for us to ascend and participate in that which is His, He comes down to us and participates in that which is ours. And so precisely does He conform to the things which He assumed that, in giving those things to us which He has received from us, He gives Himself to us. Partaking of the body and blood of His humanity, we receive God Himself in our souls-the Body and Blood of God, and the soul, mind, and will of God-no less than His humanity.19

The last word on the Eucharist, in Byzantine theology, is thus an anthropological and soteriological understanding of the mystery. "In approaching the Eucharist, the Byzantines began not with bread qua bread, but with bread qua man." 20 Bread and wine are offered only because the Logos has assumed humanity, and they are being changed and deified by the operation of the Spirit because Christ's humanity has been transformed into glory through the cross and Resurrection. This is the thought of Cabasilas, as just quoted, and the meaning of the canon of John Chrysostom: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts, and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ, so that, for those who partake, they may be a purification of soul, a remission of sins, the communion of Thy Holy Spirit, the fullness of the Kingdom of heavenGǪ"

The sacrament of new humanity par excellence, the Eucharist, for Cabasilas "alone of the mysteries perfects the other sacramentsGǪ, since they cannot fulfill the initiation without it." 21 Christians partake of it "continually," for "it is the perfect sacrament for all purposes, and there is nothing of which those who partake thereof stand in need which it does not supply in an eminent way." 22 The Eucharist is also "the much praised marriage according to which the most holy Bridegroom espouses the Church as a bride";23 that is, the Eucharist is the very sacrament which truly transforms a human community into "the Church of God," and is, therefore, as we will see later, the ultimate criterion and basis of ecclesial structure.

Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2003, 05:46:36 PM »


I know of no Eastern Orthodox who would deny that the smallest Particle is God, Seraphim. As for RC practice, the way it 'is now changing' is a step backward, a protestantization. Ironically a way to fix that, beside adopting intinction similar to the Byzantine Rite (which some orthodox RC places do!), is to visit a typical Anglican church and then copy what they do.

I'm not sure how to take this. Are you now saying that the water molecules in the wine and the indigestible fiber in the bread are eternally divine? You know where some of this stuff ends up?

This is drawing nigh unto the point where the Anglican sense of the ridiculous goes off.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2003, 06:58:21 AM by Keble » Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2003, 05:57:12 PM »

Thanks, anastasios. I remember Stuart Koehl taking up this point on the AOL message boards and Canon Hugh Wybrew writing something like this about what the earliest Christians believed about the Eucharist.

But I hardly think that the Edwardine and Elizabethan Anglican bishops who had altar stones put on the pavement for people to trample on and who eventually had communion only four times a year were harkening back to the Eastern Fathers' fuller understanding of 'symbol'!

Quote
I'm not sure how to take this. Are you now saying that the water molecules in the wine and the indigestible fiber in the bread are eternally divine? You know where some of this stuff ends up?

You're about as funny as a chopping-block in the Tower of London. I'm sure your co-religionists torturing and killing Catholics in 16th-century England said the same things. That's your 'tradition'. The answer is in this thread. Eternally divine? No. As long as the appearances of bread and wine are there, It's Him.

Quote
This is drawing nigh unto the point where the Anglicans start laughing hysterically.

And why Anglicanism is not apostolic, Catholic or Orthodox, but Protestant.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2003, 11:14:13 PM by Serge » Logged

Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2003, 06:04:38 PM »

I'm not sure how to take this. Are you now saying that the water molecules in the wine and the indigestible fiber in the bread are eternally divine? You know where some of this stuff ends up?

This is drawing nigh unto the point where the Anglicans start laughing hysterically.


Keble,

First of all, let me remind you that it is not Christian to "laugh hysterically" at someone else'e belief.

As far as the issue of "how small is too small" I think the point that medieval Roman Catholics were trying to make was just that "it is the Body of Christ" and may have made "absurd" defintions like "to the molecule" in an attempt to defend the core belief.

I believe the classic RC teaching is, however, that the Eucharist is the Eucharist as long as it is recognizable as such.  For instance, if I desecrated the Euchrist by dying the body blue, it would cease to be the Eucharist.

As far as the idea that the divine presence ends up in someone's urinary track, so what? Even though that is not what RC's teach, is it so problematic to believe that God is really and truly present EVERYWHERE? His grace (which we Easterners say is Him in his energies) is present everywhere--in stones, dirt, bacteria, a pig, me, and air.

Basically, theological debates aside, you can draw the line thusly: how is the leftover Eucharist treated after the Mass? Anglicans and other Protestants tossed it out traditionally, although I believe that most modern Episcopalians dispose of it by returning it to the ground.  Roman Catholics and Orthodox, on the other hand, worship the Eucharist and consume it completely except for that portion which is reserved.

Of course there are Anglicans who would espouse Serge's views which is what makes Anglicanism so confusing to me: some Anglicans believe like you, Keble, while others believe in Serge's Eucharistic views, and still others don't even believe in God at all (like Spong). I'm not trying to attack your Church, but merely am offering a sincere observation that has troubled me personally in the past.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2003, 06:23:15 PM »

Quote
First of all, let me remind you that it is not Christian to "laugh hysterically" at someone else'e belief.

I think that's true if one is a guest on a message board of a religious group that holds that belief.

Thanks, anastasios. Before this day of religious relativism/'pluriform truths', both the Anglo-Catholics and the ultra-Low Church Evangelicals (the 'Real Absence' folks) believed their belief was the true belief of Anglicanism about the matter. Confusing? Sure is.

Quote
Anglicans and other Protestants tossed it out traditionally, although I believe that most modern Episcopalians dispose of it by returning it to the ground.

To be fair, based on my memory of reading the Book of Common Prayer communion service (1662 and 1928), classical Anglicans didn't/don't do that - I think they were only supposed to bless enough bread and wine for communion, and they consumed everything that was left over, not reserving any.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2003, 06:24:14 PM by Serge » Logged

MartinIntlStud
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 134



« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2003, 06:29:08 PM »

The Episcopal parish I grew up in held a very traditional view of the Eucharist and I remember them making sure everything was consumed.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2003, 06:48:09 PM »

Friends,

Someone has privately remarked to me that they think it is wrong for the issue of Protestants killing Catholics to be brought up without mentioning the equally disgusting killing of Protestants at the stake by Bloody Mary.

I will ask therefore all participants to refrain from bringing arguments "from persecution" into this since both sides killed members of the other side.

In Christ,

anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,390



« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2003, 06:49:01 PM »

Everything is supposed to be consumed except what might be kept as reserved.  For washing the chalice, paten, cruets,etc, there is a special sink/piscina which is "grounded" i.e. the drain goes to the earth.  This sink is only used for that purpose and can be set to one side or with a lockable cover.

Ebor
Logged

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

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2003, 07:03:12 PM »



One more point:

Someone else complained about two issues:

1) That Serge called Anglicanism "bogus".

2) That Serge called Anglicanism "based on lies."

As a moderator, I have to walk a tight rope. I have my personal beliefs and I have my personal friendships with certain posters, as well.

Yet I also have to try and be objective.  It's hard!!!  :'(

I thought about the issue and I'd say this then:

1) Serge has every right to say that Anglicanism is "based on lies" from his point of view since in Serge's point of view Protestantism is false and it was imposed upon the English people.  Other posters have every right to be offended and offer their own responses, which seems to be happening alright.  From my point of view, I am not going to censure anyone at this point.

2) I would ask Serge to clarify, however, his use of the term "bogus" and ask him if it is the most charitable way of describing Anglicanism.  If he means bogus in the sense of "it isn't Catholic even though it claims to be" I'd have to say I agree with him.  If he says bogus in the sense that the Anglican Church is not a real Church, I'd have to disagree with him in the sense that the Anglican Church is a real community of people coming together and worshiping, and they have a right to define themselves and exist.  After knowing Serge personally for several years, however, I believe that he refers to meaning number 1 because if you read his posts he holds a high regard for traditional Anglicanism *per se* but utterly rejects its claim to be Catholic--in other words, if an Anglican says "I am an Anglican" that's okay with him but if an Anglican says "Because I am an Anglican I am Catholic" that's not okay.

I ask all parties to continue discussing the issue, and to pray for charity while writing their posts.

anastasios
ADMIN
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2003, 08:18:24 PM »

Quote
Someone has privately remarked to me that they think it is wrong for the issue of Protestants killing Catholics to be brought up without mentioning the equally disgusting killing of Protestants at the stake by Bloody Mary.

But I'm not trolling a Protestant board, so the complaint doesn't hold up.

Quote
Everything is supposed to be consumed except what might be kept as reserved.

Which Anglicans didn't do for 350 years and most Anglicans still don't do.  

Quote
For washing the chalice, paten, cruets,etc, there is a special sink/piscina which is "grounded" i.e. the drain goes to the earth.  This sink is only used for that purpose and can be set to one side or with a lockable cover.

All that is really Catholic, not Anglican - the Anglo-Catholics started copying it, perhaps in the late 1800s, and now mainstream Anglicans do it too. Catholics also call this special sink the sacrarium.

Quote
I would ask Serge to clarify, however, his use of the term "bogus" and ask him if it is the most charitable way of describing Anglicanism. [1] If he means bogus in the sense of "it isn't Catholic even though it claims to be" I'd have to say I agree with him. [2] If he says bogus in the sense that the Anglican Church is not a real Church, I'd have to disagree with him in the sense that the Anglican Church is a real community of people coming together and worshiping, and they have a right to define themselves and exist.  After knowing Serge personally for several years, however, I believe that he refers to meaning number 1 because if you read his posts he holds a high regard for traditional Anglicanism *per se* but utterly rejects its claim to be Catholic--in other words, if an Anglican says "I am an Anglican" that's okay with him but if an Anglican says "Because I am an Anglican I am Catholic" that's not okay.

Thanks, anastasios. It's not charity to call a lie the truth. Bogus = built on lies. I do mean 1). As for 2), you know that Anglicanism is not a big-C Church in either the Orthodox or the Catholic POV - it is not apostolic; it is Protestant, even though its Anglo-Catholic faction holds apostolic beliefs. I did not mean 'Anglicans by definition aren't Christians' (classical Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans are Christians) or 'all Anglicans are stupid'.

Quote
he holds a high regard for traditional Anglicanism *per se* but utterly rejects its claim to be Catholic--in other words, if an Anglican says "I am an Anglican" that's okay with him but if an Anglican says "Because I am an Anglican I am Catholic" that's not okay.

Exactly.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2003, 08:33:34 PM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2003, 09:37:21 AM »

As far as the issue of "how small is too small" I think the point that medieval Roman Catholics were trying to make was just that "it is the Body of Christ" and may have made "absurd" defintions like "to the molecule" in an attempt to defend the core belief.

This is, I think, a bit of anachronism. Remember that Thomism does not arise in the context of Eucharistic controversy (and certainly not as a defense against Protestantism, which was a few hundred years in the future, Jan Hus notwithstanding). There's a quality in Scholastic discourse, in general, of intellectual inquiry being pursued for its own sake, and not necessarily (or even generally) in the defense of an "orthodox" position.

The era is also characterized by a lack of real distinction between the sacred and the secular, which leads to a lot of aspects that moderns find quite peculiar because they cannot avoid the distinction (it's right there in the constitution of the USA, after all). Therefore there is no distinction made between sacred talk about "substance" and secular talk of the same. Also, a lot of the limitations on discourse that moderns acknowledge as a matter of course (most especially Occam's Razor) were not yet known. The result of this is that the Scholastics boldly venture into areas of speculation where moderns tend to fear to tread.

A sense of this can be gathered from The Name of the Rose. Brother William in this story feels like an anachronism precisely because he embodies many of reservations about thinking that moderns have and which the scholastics lacked, but at the same time he speaks in the metaphysic of the day even in expressing hese reservations.

Quote
I believe the classic RC teaching is, however, that the Eucharist is the Eucharist as long as it is recognizable as such.  For instance, if I desecrated the Euchrist by dying the body blue, it would cease to be the Eucharist.

This is a point well taken, and I think it refers well back to some of what Meyendorff says (or quotes) about the elements being taken into the body. Again, it seems to me that the issue of the physicality of this can be taken too far. In The Handmaiden (a magazine for Orthodox women) in an article on the issue (please to be pardoning making of pun) of menstruation, we have the following passage:

Quote
Quote
... like when a woman told me that Christ might leave her body if she communed and then menstruated! What about the fact that menstrual blood accumulates in the body at least a week before it is expelled, so women in fact are discharging old blood that is no longer connected with the mainstream of our bodies? Wouldn't we go mad not only trying to determine our cycles, but trying to determine whether the Eucharist had become part of the blood being expelled? Also, did not the Holy Communion of all our "members, heart, and veins" so that any bodily excretion (including sweat) still was bound to leak out some of the sacrament now connected to our every cell? The woman told me I was being too "scientific."

Deborah Malacky Belonick, "The Issue of Blood", The Handmaiden Vol. III No. 1 (Winter 1998), p. 13


Obviously I am in agreement with Ms. Belonick here, but I might go a step further. To me it seems that the notion of watching the molecules of the bread be broken down and metabolized, and the molecules of wine be absorbed into the blood stream, takes this issue of incorporation too physically. It is enough for us that we "are made members of the body" and that "he (Jesus) dwells in us". And that the sacrament really does this, and is not simply a symbol of this.

Quote
Basically, theological debates aside, you can draw the line thusly: how is the leftover Eucharist treated after the Mass? Anglicans and other Protestants tossed it out traditionally, although I believe that most modern Episcopalians dispose of it by returning it to the ground.  Roman Catholics and Orthodox, on the other hand, worship the Eucharist and consume it completely except for that portion which is reserved.

My old parish didn't have a piscina, and typically breads were used there that produced crumbs, so, when all that could be eaten was eaten, the crumbs were tossed into the cemetery. They didn't do this out of a lack of reverence, but because it was the best they could do. All the wine was consumed, somehow; if there was more than could be stored, then someone had to drink the excess. (I remember encountering a member of the altar guild in the passage between the sanctuary and the sacristy. She handed me a nearly full chalice of wine and had me drink it all. Fortunately in those days I could handle it.) Then they rinsed out the vessels as the circumstances permitted.

Unless someone specifically states a particular attitude, it is a mistake to infer disrespect here. Indeed, the trend for a long time was innovation in practice based on scrupulosity. That's one of the ways we got wafers (my parish uses them as a last resort and for reservation). It's a litle implausible to suggest that Jesus didn't have any crumbs to "worry" about (and if you think he used unleavened bread, try breaking a matzo in half sometime). Personal scruples are one thing; there is one particular vacuum cleaner at our church which is used only to cleam around the altar, and it was selected specifically because it uses a cup which can be emptied rather than a bag which has to be thrown out. I respect the altar guild's choice in the matter, but I'm not going to jump all over someone else who doesn't pay attention to such a nicety. At my old parish the crumbs went into the cemetery not out of a lack of respect, but because they had to go somewhere, and the cemetery was the most respectful destination anyone could think of.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2003, 10:03:59 AM »

Quote
This is, I think, a bit of anachronism.

Just like Spong and Bennison think the core beliefs shared by Orthodoxy, Catholicism and classical Protestantism are 'a bit of anachronism, old boy'. All of you use the same false judgement of the faith - you just draw your line in a different place in the sand, closer to us, but there's really no difference between you all.

Since you are so obviously a Broad Churchman, why did you choose a High Churchman for your screen name?

Quote
Remember that Thomism does not arise in the context of Eucharistic controversy (and certainly not as a defense against Protestantism, which was a few hundred years in the future, Jan Hus notwithstanding).

Thomism and practices such as Benediction arose after Berengarius denied the Real Presence. That never happened in the Christian East so none of those ancient Churches came up with a definition in reaction against it, nor did any of them need to come up with practices such as Benediction to counteract it.

Quote
My old parish didn't have a piscina, and typically breads were used there that produced crumbs, so, when all that could be eaten was eaten, the crumbs were tossed into the cemetery.

It definitely wasn't Anglo-Catholic - sounds like it could be Broad or Low Church. Presbyterians would toss crumbs from communion into the garden to be eaten by the birds - 'like St Francis' as one American minister patronizingly told an Italian Catholic immigrant. Cranmer definitely would have no problem with that, but to be fair, what you describe sounds too Low even for classical Anglicanism, as the rubric in the Book of Common Prayer calling for consumption of the the leftover elements indicates. I think unleavened wafers are an Anglo-Catholic copying of Catholicism, of about 150 years' standing.

Quote
Unless someone specifically states a particular attitude, it is a mistake to infer disrespect here.


You don't believe our Communion or your communion is really Him - we believe the Sacrament is Him, and you look down on that. I really think you're here either to 1) argue/find or manufacture proof that Orthodoxy backs your Protestant views vs. Catholicism on the Sacrament and/or 2) make fun of the w*gs for our 'superstitions' about the Sacrament. (A lot like the way Spong looks down on African Anglicans for still being Christians - sigh, the white man's burden.) In a word, TROLLING.

Quote
Personal scruples are one thing; there is one particular vacuum cleaner at our church which is used only to cleam around the altar, and it was selected specifically because it uses a cup which can be emptied rather than a bag which has to be thrown out. I respect the altar guild's choice in the matter, but I'm not going to jump all over someone else who doesn't pay attention to such a nicety.

An example of WASP condescension just like I parodied earlier. 'If that belief works for you, jolly good, but we're above all that.'
« Last Edit: April 23, 2003, 10:10:48 AM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2003, 09:59:30 AM »

Quote
This is, I think, a bit of anachronism.

Just like Spong and Bennison think the core beliefs shared by Orthodoxy, Catholicism and classical Protestantism are 'a bit of anachronism, old boy'.


A nice piece of wordplay, but a fallacy.

Quote
All of you use the same false judgement of the faith - you just draw your line in a different place in the sand, closer to us, but there's really no difference between you all.

Drawing a line at zero is still drawing a line. In that sense there's no difference between any of us.

Quote
Since you are so obviously a Broad Churchman, why did you choose a High Churchman for your screen name?

Please, Serge. If you really know that much about the Episcopal Church, then you know that the old factionalism of "churchmanship" has gotten extremely blurred. Parishes do not live out their whole life anchored in the same "churchmanship", and they haven't for decades.

I chose Keble not for his churchmanship, but for his pastoring. And also because he's easy to spell, and because nobody would mistake him for anything but an Anglican.

Quote
Quote
Remember that Thomism does not arise in the context of Eucharistic controversy (and certainly not as a defense against Protestantism, which was a few hundred years in the future, Jan Hus notwithstanding).

Thomism and practices such as Benediction arose after Berengarius denied the Real Presence.


That may well be true, but the whole form of Thomism indicates that there isn't a causal connection. Thomism reeks of the Benedictine monastery, monks disputing with other monks, and without a lot of care about anything outside the cloister.

Quote
Quote
My old parish didn't have a piscina, and typically breads were used there that produced crumbs, so, when all that could be eaten was eaten, the crumbs were tossed into the cemetery.

It definitely wasn't Anglo-Catholic - sounds like it could be Broad or Low Church. Presbyterians would toss crumbs from communion into the garden to be eaten by the birds - 'like St Francis' as one American minister patronizingly told an Italian Catholic immigrant.

Well, I don't know where you get your information about Presbyterians from. When I was a Presbyterian, there weren't any crumbs. We used the little "chiclet" crackers, and I have no idea what happened to the leftovers. (The Elders took care of that; 12 year olds were not privy to this info.)

It is certainly true that there is a an element of "epatez les Catholiques" that pops out of some Protestant practice (the pew controversy stands in for this in Orthodoxy). How much of this is executed in practice is unclear (because nobody bothers to talk about it absent some controversy).

My old parish was certainly not built as an Anglo-Catholic building, nor would they have (then or now) considered themselves Anglo-Catholic. Mostly they didn't worry about the issue, though I think probably (based on the emphasis on social action) you might have considered them broad church. My current parish has a piscina now, but it didn't when it was built in the 1880s (in the winter, the old sacristy didn't even have running water).

There are certain practices that will clearly get you tagged as Anglo-Catholic (votive candles before statues, specially statues of His Late Martyred Majesty) and certain practices that will get you tagged as Low (priests who insist on "Mr." as a title). Outside of this there is no clear pattern anymore, other than a general drift "upward". What used to be thought of as exclusively Anglo-Catholic practices are popping up all over the place, "1st & 3rd" is dieing out, and the general trend in ceremonial has been towards more. I've heard sacring bells in Montana, and incense is now the norm at the National Cathedral. The one contrary motion is the whole "praise song" movement, but I'm betting that's going to pass eventually.

Nobody tosses out large pieces of bread in the Episcopal Church, not anywhere that I know of. But unless you are using hosts, breaking bread implies making crumbs. If you have a piscina, you can empty them in it; if you don't, you can't. My old parish has since built a new sanctuary, and who knows? the new may well include a new sacristy with a piscina-- I've never been in the new building, and certainly not in the sacristy.

The point remains that you are passing judgement on their reverence based on your standards of practice. The parish is 150 years old, and I think the sacristy dates from the 1950s or so. It's more likely than not that the altar guild tossed the remaining crumbs into the cemetery because that's what they "always" did, not specifically out of any act of reverence or irreverence. Any manageable piece of bread got eaten, but at times of the year a basket was substituted for the paten, and there's no way to magically suck all the crumbs out of that. The only other choice would be to use hosts, and most Episcopalians don't like hosts and have pretty good and definite reasons for not liking them (they aren't "real" bread, they aren't broken....). A lot of parishes do use hosts to a limited degree, as a backup, because some people do prefer them, because they work better in reservation..... For a long time we had hosts at 8:00 and pita bread or a specially made bread at 10:00, but a few hosts were consecrated at 10 for intinction or just because some people preferred them.

Quote
Quote
Unless someone specifically states a particular attitude, it is a mistake to infer disrespect here.


You don't believe our Communion or your communion is really Him - we believe the Sacrament is Him, and you look down on that.

If you mean specifically "me", you are dead wrong. I do believe it to be Him, and when I receive the bread, I address it in acts of adoration before I consume it. But you know, I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't have a piscina, and unleavened or no, I'll bet there were crumbs at the Last Supper. There is such a thing as due reverence, and there is also such a thing a scrupulosity. My personal preference is for small pieces of a soft bread on a silver paten, with a silver chalice, using a piscina, but I'm not on the altar guild and at some point I have to trust the reverence of the altar guild. (I happen to know what goes on simply because I talk to the person who runs it, and because I happen to have more or less frequent business in the sacristy.)

Quote
I really think you're here either to 1) argue/find or manufacture proof that Orthodoxy backs your Protestant views vs. Catholicism on the Sacrament and/or 2) make fun of the w*gs for our 'superstitions' about the Sacrament. (A lot like the way Spong looks down on African Anglicans for still being Christians - sigh, the white man's burden.) In a word, TROLLING.

Serge, You are not very good at guessing motives. You've already failed to guess my "churchmanship", and you've completely misjudged my personal Eucharistic piety. As far as Orthodox Eucharistic piety is concerned, I've said hardly a thing. You've failed to convince me that the Thomian theory is what Orthodox believe, and other people have chimed in to confirm that it isn't what Orthodox believe. That's consistent with everything I've ever read on the subject.

I am on record, at length, as opposing Spong and everything that he stands for. I can't do anything about the lack of ecclesiastical discipline against him (other than refuse his sacraments, which I do), and that's just something I have no choice but to live with. I can't say much about Bennison's theology because he isn't extensively published by Harper/Collins (and I don't live in Philadelphia), but I dislike his treatment of his conservative parishes and have said so at length.

You don't seem to understand that a semi-rural, theologically conservative, non-Anglo-Catholic parish can do stations of the cross and have incense at the Great Vigil (but not at the main service Sunday-- one can only get away with so much) and reserve the sacrament. Unde the last rector there was an icon of Christ in the sanctuary, and it was venerated (not that most people realized this), and at Good Friday this year there was veneration of the cross. You don't understand how someone who learned his Anglicanism in Low Church Delaware (well, I suppose that strictly speaking my high school would be considered high-and-wide) could be comfortable with Benediction and with the liturgy at All Saints Convent.

None of this fits your theory of me (or Episcopalians in general) as Presbyterians with delusions of liturgical grandeur. Maybe that fits Spong, a little (after all, he did start out as an ultra-conservative Presbyterian), but otherwise, I think not. I could almost be a Western rite Antiochian except that I'm too tied to Anglican theological process (and besides, the constant "it's western so it's no good" miasma around such parishes is off-putting).

Part of why I am here is specifically to stand in opposition to your deprecation and (often enough) misrepresentation of Anglicanism. If people are to form opinions about Anglicanism, they should at least hear about it from an Anglican. And most certainly not from you, who are implacably opposed to it.

Quote
Quote
Personal scruples are one thing; there is one particular vacuum cleaner at our church which is used only to cleam around the altar, and it was selected specifically because it uses a cup which can be emptied rather than a bag which has to be thrown out. I respect the altar guild's choice in the matter, but I'm not going to jump all over someone else who doesn't pay attention to such a nicety.

An example of WASP condescension just like I parodied earlier. 'If that belief works for you, jolly good, but we're above all that.'

Maybe it's "tolerance means putting up with things you don't like." I don't come from an upper class background; my mother's family were farmers in Ohio, and my father's family was mill workers on the one side and lower management on the other (and failing to maintain their class-- I frankly think the millworker side were classier people, but hey....). I am the first Episcopalian in my family as far back as anyone knows; the others were all Methodist or Presbyterian. As an outsider at a boarding prep school I know plenty about condescension, from the receiving end, and I know it well enough to see it coming from you. You have spent this entire topic directing a stream of ridicule and disdain at me, and putting offensive language in my mouth. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe others may set me straight on this. But not you.
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2003, 12:27:25 PM »

I still think you might be a Broad Churchman, Keble - closer to us and to classical Anglicanism than to Spong, but still Broad. But:

Quote
You don't seem to understand that a semi-rural, theologically conservative, non-Anglo-Catholic parish can do stations of the cross and have incense at the Great Vigil (but not at the main service Sunday-- one can only get away with so much) and reserve the sacrament. Unde the last rector there was an icon of Christ in the sanctuary, and it was venerated (not that most people realized this), and at Good Friday this year there was veneration of the cross. You don't understand how someone who learned his Anglicanism in Low Church Delaware (well, I suppose that strictly speaking my high school would be considered high-and-wide) could be comfortable with Benediction and with the liturgy at All Saints Convent.

I do understand that - see below. Interesting. Here again you sound closer to us than to Spong - more like a classical Anglican than a Broad Churchman. (Classical Anglicans hold to credal orthodoxy and say no to lady clergy and the gay lifestyle - where do you stand?) But I see that position as untenable and on the same continuum as Broad Churchmanship. Though Christian, it was a political compromise and is Protestant.

Quote
the old factionalism of "churchmanship" has gotten extremely blurred

Superficially but not really true - what's happened is some formerly Anglo-Catholic churches are now Broad and retain a lot of their old externals, and Broad churches now affect High trappings. But they're still a different animal from real Anglo-Catholics, a small number of whom still exist.

To see the two extremes, still, do some searching in England - where some Anglican churches use the Roman Missal or even the Tridentine Mass in English and others are so Evangelical as to be almost Baptist (no vestments, 'praise music', etc.).

Quote
Thomism and practices such as Benediction arose after Berengarius denied the Real Presence.

That may well be true

Thank you.

Quote
Thomism reeks of the Benedictine monastery, monks disputing with other monks, and without a lot of care about anything outside the cloister.

He was a Dominican friar, and Benedictinism is actually far older than Scholasticism - it's more like Orthodox monasticism because it's so old (long before the Orthodox/Catholic split) and because, like Orthodox monks, there almost is no 'Benedictine order' - each abbey is pretty independent. And the emphases are on liturgical prayer in community and on work to support the community (monastic obediences, in Orthodox parlance) - ora et labora - not really on 'scientific' study of the faith.

Quote
I think probably (based on the emphasis on social action) you might have considered them broad church

Social action doesn't necessarily mean Broad Church. Real Anglo-Catholics did 'social action' too (the slum priests) - only their inspiration was orthodoxy, not the 'social gospel' like Broad Churchmen.

Quote
Well, I don't know where you get your information about Presbyterians from.

That anecdote came from the writing of a former Episcopal priest who heard that conversation back in the 1940s.

Quote
There are certain practices that will clearly get you tagged as Anglo-Catholic (votive candles before statues, specially statues of His Late Martyred Majesty) and certain practices that will get you tagged as Low (priests who insist on "Mr." as a title). Outside of this there is no clear pattern anymore, other than a general drift "upward". What used to be thought of as exclusively Anglo-Catholic practices are popping up all over the place, "1st & 3rd" is dieing out, and the general trend in ceremonial has been towards more. I've heard sacring bells in Montana, and incense is now the norm at the National Cathedral. The one contrary motion is the whole "praise song" movement, but I'm betting that's going to pass eventually.

I know exactly what you mean, Keble, about things appearing to be higher overall in the Episcopal Church - I mention that on my Anglo-Catholicism page - but what really happened is that although the Anglo-Catholics failed to convince Anglicanism as a whole about their beliefs (they thought ACism WAS Anglicanism rightly understood and everybody else was wrong), a lot of their trappings are now widely accepted - and affected by Broad Churchmen, who both are in charge and are the mode in the Episcopal Church. And churches that formerly were really Anglo-Catholic are now Broad Church but retain the trappings. A formerly Low church turned Broad might affect some High trappings, but they've been stripped of their meaning.

Quote
Maybe it's "tolerance means putting up with things you don't like."

I don't like Greek church music or very abstract-looking Byzantine icons but they're orthodox. Making fun of apostolic belief that the smallest Particle of the Sacrament is God and positing that tossing crumbs of communion in a cemetery is orthodox (I'm not judging the sincere Protestants who did that) and consistent with Orthodox belief compared to Catholic belief goes beyond 'what I don't like' - it's heterodoxy; it's falsehood.

You seem to claim that I claim that Eastern Orthodox normally use the Thomistic explanation of the Eucharist. I never said that. I do say that essentially EOs believe the same thing (the Catholic Church agrees), even though for 'hysterical raisins' they never needed to come up with such an explanation and so normally don't use one. Nobody apostolic here has denied what I say - Seraphim Reeves just took it to another step and said the EOs outdo the Thomistic belief when it comes to belief in the total, objective Presence.

Quote
the constant "it's western so it's no good" miasma around such parishes is off-putting

Chuckle. As much as I like the Christian East, I know what you mean and have commented on it before. If Giovanni Giangiulio said it, it's cr*p, but if Ioannikos Ioannides or Ivan Ivanovich said the same thing it's oh so original and profound. LOL.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2003, 12:30:27 PM by Serge » Logged

SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2003, 01:23:35 PM »

Chuckle. As much as I like the Christian East, I know what you mean and have commented on it before. If Giovanni Giangiulio said it, it's cr*p, but if Ioannikos Ioannides or Ivan Ivanovich said the same thing it's oh so original and profound. LOL.

The profundity increases exponentially with the presence of a marketable accent as well.  Hence Swami and kin.  

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2003, 01:35:49 PM »

Quote
The profundity increases exponentially with the presence of a marketable accent as well.  Hence Swami and kin.

Ha ha, true. In my life I've met exactly one American Orthodox priest who faked an accent. (To his credit, he also did actually speak the language.) It's not unknown among Anglicans either - my guess is a cleric is more likely to be accepted, despite issues or views, by Episcopalians if that person is English and sounds the part. (Even if he's from Manchester or Birmingham.) Scottish accents might have a similar cachet with Presbyterians, and if a psychologist has a German accent he might even be able to jack up his fees and get away with it!

<-Speaks with what is pretty much a neutral, network-TV-news American accent. The different influences I've picked up over the years pretty much balance and flatten each other out. As long as I make myself understood. I only use a Russian accent when speaking Russian - it's actually harder for me to try to speak it using the same sounds I use for English.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2003, 01:38:32 PM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2003, 05:00:36 PM »

I still think you might be a Broad Churchman, Keble - closer to us and to classical Anglicanism than to Spong, but still Broad.

Well, I don't think calling Spong a "broad churchman" is accurate. Once he started off the rails, he very quickly went down a path directed by people who weren't Anglicans, and both they and he set themselves up in opposition to people who certainly were Anglicans. His notorious theses are a sort of theological train wreck which is more Unitarian than anything else.

Quote
Here again you sound closer to us than to Spong - more like a classical Anglican than a Broad Churchman. (Classical Anglicans hold to credal orthodoxy and say no to lady clergy and the gay lifestyle - where do you stand?)

My issue with this is that you're doing taxonomy the wrong way. You're trying to define "Classical Anglicanism" in terms of a fixed tradition. Not too long after my rector was one of the authors of the Baltimore Declaration, I was talking to the chaplain at All Saints Convent, and he offered (among other opinions) that confessional statements (which the B.D. certainly was) is not something Anglicans do. Not that I think he disagreed with any particular statement in the B.D.-- it was the whole idea that struck him as being outside our tradition.

My personal view is that the liturgical use of the Creeds most certainly binds people to acceptance of them. As for the other two issues, frankly at this point I don't care to discuss either per se. The important issue is whether they may be discussed at all. You've presented them as litmus tests. That's not, for the most part, how we do things in Anglicanism.

Quote
But I see that position as untenable and on the same continuum as Broad Churchmanship. Though Christian, it was a political compromise and is Protestant.

But insofar as that view is rooted in Orthodoxy, it's not really of much relevance to Anglicanism.

Quote
Quote
the old factionalism of "churchmanship" has gotten extremely blurred

Superficially but not really true - what's happened is some formerly Anglo-Catholic churches are now Broad and retain a lot of their old externals, and Broad churches now affect High trappings. But they're still a different animal from real Anglo-Catholics, a small number of whom still exist.

Well, your concession that one has to travel to England to find these rare creatures is in essence an admission that this taxonomy doesn't work in the USA. Grace & St. Peter's in Baltimore is clearly a different creature from St. Johns Ellicott City or (shudder) The Gathering, Walkersville, but although the last is certainly (and thankfully) a subspecies unto itself, assuming you don't believe that the first is "really" Anglo-Catholic (and everyone around here is convinced that it is), then your taxonomy is next to useless here-- and yet this one diocese has about as much range on any subject as you could care to look for.

And in saying that you have to go to England to find it, you've as much as said that this factionalism is dead in the USA. My point exactly.

Quote
I know exactly what you mean, Keble, about things appearing to be higher overall in the Episcopal Church - I mention that on my Anglo-Catholicism page - but what really happened is that although the Anglo-Catholics failed to convince Anglicanism as a whole about their beliefs (they thought ACism WAS Anglicanism rightly understood and everybody else was wrong), a lot of their trappings are now widely accepted - and affected by Broad Churchmen, who both are in charge and are the mode in the Episcopal Church. And churches that formerly were really Anglo-Catholic are now Broad Church but retain the trappings. A formerly Low church turned Broad might affect some High trappings, but they've been stripped of their meaning.

But which meaning? If you mean their meanings as signs of factional division, well, of course. If you mean their ritual meanings, I disagree. Or rather, I would say that the whole issue of what their ritual meanings are was clouded from the start. (This is something I find in Orthodoxy too. What does the Iconostasis mean? Ask enough times and you'll get some quite contradictory answers.)

The problem with calling them "trappings" is that this is deprecatory language. It implies that they are adopted purely out of a sense of aesthetics or theatre. Certainly that does happen, but for the most part I see people giving reasons for practices being adopted or discontinued. There's no "Broad Church Board" or "Association of Anglo-Catholics" to decide what the practices mean or who they belong to. What happens in actuality is that, as in Orthodoxy, people don't know what they mean, or they assign different meanings. Priests try to steer things one way or another, and they may succeed or they may not.

Quote
Making fun of apostolic belief that the smallest Particle of the Sacrament is God and positing that tossing crumbs of communion in a cemetery is orthodox (I'm not judging the sincere Protestants who did that) and consistent with Orthodox belief compared to Catholic belief goes beyond 'what I don't like' - it's heterodoxy; it's falsehood.

Well, you most certainly are judging those that tossed the crumbs in the cemetery. You are saying that if their Eucharist had been genuine, they would have been committing an objective act of sacrilege. Since you hold that what they tossed out was just crumbs anyway, I'm not sure how you can escape having to confront their intended reverence. Your attempt to back-calculate from your perception of it as an act of insufficient respect (and thus reach a Eucharist theology which they therefore can be understood to hold) is not valid reasoning. It may simply be the case that their Eucharist theology isn't properly realized in their acts. Indeed, laying all of this on the shoulders of the poor altar guild member is giving them a responsibility that they simply cannot bear, since they can control neither the priest nor the facilities.

And you missed the point entirely about sacred atoms. Once you are talking sacred atoms, you are at a level where the "I can't recognize it as bread anymore" rule applies. Judging from what I'm seeing, it isn't Orthodox to hold that the benefit of the Eucharist comes from having Sacred Atoms being distributed about the human body. If you are going to keep going down this attack upon the "broad church", let me remind you that it was this supposed "broad church" which made the language of the new rites quite unequivocable-- that the consecrated elements are, without qualification, the Body and the Blood.

Quote
You seem to claim that I claim that Eastern Orthodox normally use the Thomistic explanation of the Eucharist.

What you seem to be claiming is the the EO position implies that, if you approach the question that Thomism answers, you have to give the Thomist answer. I don't see that this word "outdo" is helping us here, because it implies that the EO position is the RC position with more stuff added. That's clearly not accurate, and it isn't consistent with what Seraphim said either. What I'm seeing is the EO position appears to be that the "how does it work?" question is a bad question, and that everything can be extrapolated from the assertion that it really is the Body and Blood, and not just some sort of a metaphor.

My point is that this is exactly what mainstream Anglicans say! All of this discussion of crumbs isn't about Eucharistic theology. It's about how the reverence implied by this theology should be realized in practice. And differences of opinion on that notwithstanding, it is totally invalid to assume that people's practices derive rationally from their beliefs. People aren't like that. I never asked the altar guild ladies why they did what they did, and at 19 or so I wasn't at a point in my life where it was of interest. Also, it would have been presumptuous of me to demand of them an accounting of their piety. I assumed at the time that the practice was intended to be reverent, and I see no reason to change that assumption.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2003, 05:08:39 PM »

Quote
The profundity increases exponentially with the presence of a marketable accent as well.  Hence Swami and kin.

Ha ha, true. In my life I've met exactly one American Orthodox priest who faked an accent. (To his credit, he also did actually speak the language.) It's not unknown among Anglicans either - my guess is a cleric is more likely to be accepted, despite issues or views, by Episcopalians if that person is English and sounds the part.

Oh no-- you have to have an Oxbridge accent to gain that kind of status.

Spong is from North Carolina, but has basically suppressed his accent. But then lots of emigrant Carolinians do (my father certainly did). It's not a patrician accent. Mine is heavily Baltimore-flavored; I guess I'm devalued.  Sad Smiley
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2003, 05:29:45 PM »

The different influences I've picked up over the years pretty much balance and flatten each other out. As long as I make myself understood. I only use a Russian accent when speaking Russian - it's actually harder for me to try to speak it using the same sounds I use for English.

My father developed somewhat of a hybridized British/American accent (unusually enough, no German accent, and he studied German in Germany).  That has influenced me somewhat.  My education pushed me towards a "generic" American accent, but I unwittingly rotate between the two forms or have them balance out. Also, living in an area of immigrants as a student who interacts with different nationalities, I speak in many different accents, usually with the same one employed by the person I am addressing.  This becomes second-nature, so I'll instinctively speak as a Greek in my favourite Greek restaurant (and pronounce a few Greek words as a proper Greek) or as a Russian with my Russian co-student without noticing the change  (and as I take phonetics seriously, I loathe exaggerated stereotyped "trying-too-hard" gimmicks).  Such habits give good practice to the tongue and facial muscles, and conditions the former to reproducing sounds accurately without much effort.  It has sometimes worked with me to the point where at times I find myself unable in the span of a minute to revert back to American pronunciations.  To better your pronunciation, in addition to speaking to folks on a continous basis, you would do well to try to pronounce a few sentences in the foreign  language itself (which helps to prevent a resultingly annoying stereotypical accent that usually offends a foreigner), as it is the manner of pronouncing the foreign tongue itself that creates the accent one uses when speaking English (so I wonder where the difficulty lies for you in speaking English as Russians would if you are capable of speaking Russian properly; if you can speak Irish Gaelic, you won't sound like a "plastic Paddy" when speaking English). Music is an essential instrument.  Speech and musical pronunciations differ, but the latter still functions as a good learning tool.  Greek songs helped immensely in pronouncing Greek properly and effecting to the best of my ability a Greek sounding English.  

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
SamB
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 784

Crates of araq for sale! *hic*


« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2003, 05:32:58 PM »

I must say that Mel Gibson made quite the transition in his English.  Never thought that an Aussie could master American English so excellently.

In IC XC
Samer
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2003, 06:15:14 PM »

I must say that Mel Gibson made quite the transition in his English.  Never thought that an Aussie could master American English so excellently.

In IC XC
Samer

He's from the States actually, and moved Down Under as a kid (don't know what age). Curiously, a woman who lives across the street from us has a distinct Aussie accent (having married one and lived all over thereafter) though she grew up in a different house on the same street.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2003, 09:21:49 PM »

To be fair, based on my memory of reading the Book of Common Prayer communion service (1662 and 1928), classical Anglicans didn't/don't do that - I think they were only supposed to bless enough bread and wine for communion, and they consumed everything that was left over, not reserving any.

I was confirmed in 1976 (I think, might have been '77) so I never used the 1928 book. My impression from those older than I and from some observation is that a lot of the rubrics in the 1928 book were almost entirely disregarded well before its replacement by the 1979 book. (I'm told that one bishop finally suppressed usage of the 1928 book by demanding strict adherence to its rubrics!) My high school chapel, built in the early '50s, has an aumbry (which i'm pretty sure has never been used), and it was always there. I think at least one of the chapels in the National Cathedral has an aumbry too (but I forget which-- I'm thinking it might be in the Bethlehem chapel, which was built in the 'teens).

Now, the 1979 book talks about reservation a lot. There is specific provision for reservation of the sacrament from Maundy Thursday to Good Friday, and the additional instructions provide for reservation in general. (They also authorize intinction.) Communion of the sick is written with the expectation that it will be done from the reserved sacrament. It's quite hard, after the fact, to straighten out the controversies surrounding the 1979 BCP (especially since some of the controversy is based on taking it as a symbol of liberalism in general). My sense is that the substantial rubrical and structural differences slipped through fairly easily in comparison to the tremendous battles over the language,and the fact that Rite I retains the old language but goes for all the new ordering and rubrics tends to suggest that the rubrical changes in the 1979 book were not surprising. (I don't buy Marion Hatchett's description of Prayer C as having Eastern influences for a moment, though. It has an unmistakable feel of about 1972. And it's terrible.)
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2003, 11:17:41 PM »

Keble:

Quote
Well, I don't think calling Spong a "broad churchman" is accurate. Once he started off the rails, he very quickly went down a path directed by people who weren't Anglicans, and both they and he set themselves up in opposition to people who certainly were Anglicans. His notorious theses are a sort of theological train wreck which is more Unitarian than anything else.

Sure he's a Broad Churchman - like a lot of mainline Protestantism and modernist 'Catholicism' (not real Catholicism) it's sort of a changing station from Christianity into Unitarianism.

Quote
My issue with this is that you're doing taxonomy the wrong way. You're trying to define "Classical Anglicanism" in terms of a fixed tradition. Not too long after my rector was one of the authors of the Baltimore Declaration, I was talking to the chaplain at All Saints Convent, and he offered (among other opinions) that confessional statements (which the B.D. certainly was) is not something Anglicans do. Not that I think he disagreed with any particular statement in the B.D.-- it was the whole idea that struck him as being outside our tradition.

It always was the wiftiest of the classical Protestant churches - that ambiguity being deliberate to get as many Englishmen as possible in line with the king's will - but it had standards - creeds, Prayer Book and Articles of Religion.

Quote
My personal view is that the liturgical use of the Creeds most certainly binds people to acceptance of them. As for the other two issues, frankly at this point I don't care to discuss either per se. The important issue is whether they may be discussed at all. You've presented them as litmus tests. That's not, for the most part, how we do things in Anglicanism.

Okey-doke, I'll take that as an affirmative (as in 'Affirming Catholicism' - ugh) on both issues. So ISTM you are a Broad Churchman who likes worshipping at a classical Anglican parish.

Quote
But I see that position as untenable and on the same continuum as Broad Churchmanship. Though Christian, it was a political compromise and is Protestant.

But insofar as that view is rooted in Orthodoxy, it's not really of much relevance to Anglicanism.

Translation: 'I can't deny what you said so I'll affect a haughty attitude and pretend not to listen to you.'

Quote
Well, your concession that one has to travel to England to find these rare creatures is in essence an admission that this taxonomy doesn't work in the USA.

You can find them in the States but they're a little easier to find over there. All that shows is that, like I said, Broad Church is both what's in charge and is the mode, on both sides of the pond.

Quote
But which meaning? If you mean their meanings as signs of factional division, well, of course. If you mean their ritual meanings, I disagree.

You might call 'factional division' what I call 'the same beliefs as the ancient apostolic Churches' such as the Catholic Church, which was what the Anglo-Catholics set their watches to. You seem to be trying to play the liberals' game of associating orthodoxy with uncharity. 100 years ago, even 50 years ago, if an Anglican church used chasubles and had communion every Sunday, to use two examples, you knew where it stood on the issues - it shared basic credal orthodoxy with mainstream Anglicanism but it also believed in the Mass. Now, no. Practising homosexual lady clergy who believe in reincarnation affect both those things. Claims that 'the Anglo-Catholics won' because most Anglicans now affect a lot of their externals are stupid.

Quote
It implies that they are adopted purely out of a sense of aesthetics or theatre.

Yeah, pretty much. Or they think they're being ecumenical. Or they're putting on a deliberate travesty of the Catholic Church.

Quote
You are saying that if their Eucharist had been genuine, they would have been committing an objective act of sacrilege.

Yes, and I'm sure there isn't an Eastern Orthodox on this forum who'd disagree.

Quote
And you missed the point entirely about sacred atoms. Once you are talking sacred atoms, you are at a level where the "I can't recognize it as bread anymore" rule applies. Judging from what I'm seeing, it isn't Orthodox to hold that the benefit of the Eucharist comes from having Sacred Atoms being distributed about the human body.

OK, you're just putting down Orthodox/Catholic belief again. Predictable.

Quote
If you are going to keep going down this attack upon the "broad church", let me remind you that it was this supposed "broad church" which made the language of the new rites quite unequivocable-- that the consecrated elements are, without qualification, the Body and the Blood.

No, it means Broad Churchmen believe in nothing, so they believe in everything.

Quote
Oh no-- you have to have an Oxbridge accent to gain that kind of status.

True for people in the know, but I think it's not unfair to say most Americans can't tell most English accents apart - I admit I can't distinguish a lot of them other than U and non-U (RP/Oxbridge/BBC vs. Estuary [modified Cockney, which is becoming the middle-class voice] vs. 'EastEnders' Cockney) and some basic northern vs. southern pronunciations, and I lived there. I can hear a Welsh accent, too. I've heard the Beatles' Scouse voices described by Yanks as 'Cockney'! A recent example I came across of Americans' tin ear was the trashy Fox TV program 'Joe Millionaire', which put an Aussie bloke (actually a retired diplomat, but with a broad, flat, nasal Aussie twang) in a butler's uniform, holding a snifter of brandy and sitting by a fireplace with a roaring fire - a getup and setup that would have most English people laughing at their incongruity but I'm sure most American viewers thought oh so posh.

Quote
Spong is from North Carolina, but has basically suppressed his accent. But then lots of emigrant Carolinians do (my father certainly did). It's not a patrician accent.

When I met him 20 years ago I noticed he had a marked Southern accent. Maybe he got rid of it.

Quote
I must say that Mel Gibson made quite the transition in his English.  Never thought that an Aussie could master American English so excellently.

He's from the States actually, and moved Down Under as a kid (don't know what age).

Yes, he's from Peekskill, NY and moved to Australia when he was 12. I thought it was so cool in the '80s that he kept his Aussie accent in real life (heard in interviews and on chat shows); sorry to hear he seems to have got rid of it.

Quote
it is the manner of pronouncing the foreign tongue itself that creates the accent one uses when speaking English (so I wonder where the difficulty lies for you in speaking English as Russians would if you are capable of speaking Russian properly)

You misunderstood me, Samer. You're right that a 'foreign accent' is caused by using one's native phonemes to approximate another language's sound, and if I put my mind to it (based on listening to lots of Russians over the years use Russian phonemes to speak English) I probably could fake a passable-to-non-Russians 'Russian' accent speaking English. (But unless I was trying out for an acting gig, why would I want to?) But that's not what I meant. I meant I find it easier to speak Russian with something approximating a Russian accent than to try to speak Russian using my own accent.

Quote
...a lot of the rubrics in the 1928 book were almost entirely disregarded well before its replacement by the 1979 book.... Now, the 1979 book talks about reservation a lot. There is specific provision for reservation of the sacrament from Maundy Thursday to Good Friday, and the additional instructions provide for reservation in general. (They also authorize intinction.) Communion of the sick is written with the expectation that it will be done from the reserved sacrament. It's quite hard, after the fact, to straighten out the controversies surrounding the 1979 BCP (especially since some of the controversy is based on taking it as a symbol of liberalism in general). My sense is that the substantial rubrical and structural differences slipped through fairly easily in comparison to the tremendous battles over the language,and the fact that Rite I retains the old language but goes for all the new ordering and rubrics tends to suggest that the rubrical changes in the 1979 book were not surprising. (I don't buy Marion Hatchett's description of Prayer C as having Eastern influences for a moment, though. It has an unmistakable feel of about 1972. And it's terrible.)

That's just an example of how Anglo-Catholic externals spread far more than Anglo-Catholic beliefs ever did - because of that, by the '70s most clergy didn't follow the old BCP to the letter anymore. You're right that this explains some of the changes that produced the '79 book. I can take or leave thous and thees, as I write on my site's Faith page, but the language of 1662, 1928 US and Rite I 1979 is objective, deferential and Godward, just like the traditional Latin in the Roman Mass (whence Cranmer got his model for translating and writing at least some of the prayers) and the Byzantine Rite used by the Orthodox. I don't actually know the Prayer C to which you refer but I've heard from others it's really yucky.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2003, 11:38:41 PM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2003, 09:04:17 AM »

Keble:

Quote
Well, I don't think calling Spong a "broad churchman" is accurate. Once he started off the rails, he very quickly went down a path directed by people who weren't Anglicans, and both they and he set themselves up in opposition to people who certainly were Anglicans. His notorious theses are a sort of theological train wreck which is more Unitarian than anything else.

Sure he's a Broad Churchman - like a lot of mainline Protestantism and modernist 'Catholicism' (not real Catholicism) it's sort of a changing station from Christianity into Unitarianism.

I'm going to continue to insist that he isn't a "churchman" of any type. He's clearly stepped outside of Trinitarian Christianity.

And if it is a "changing station" for Unitarianism (and again, you're overgeneralizing), often enough it would seem to be a changing station the other way too, and I don't hear you complaining about that.

Quote
Quote
My issue with this is that you're doing taxonomy the wrong way. You're trying to define "Classical Anglicanism" in terms of a fixed tradition. Not too long after my rector was one of the authors of the Baltimore Declaration, I was talking to the chaplain at All Saints Convent, and he offered (among other opinions) that confessional statements (which the B.D. certainly was) is not something Anglicans do. Not that I think he disagreed with any particular statement in the B.D.-- it was the whole idea that struck him as being outside our tradition.

It always was the wiftiest of the classical Protestant churches - that ambiguity being deliberate to get as many Englishmen as possible in line with the king's will - but it had standards - creeds, Prayer Book and Articles of Religion.

But we have no king here. There has been no king here for two hundred years. What is with all these anachronisms? Those of us who are Anglicans see a totally different set of divisions that are far more important than "churchmanship". Lumping them all into one big "broad church" blob is inaccurate. Also, you keep leaving out two of the classical parties; you are basically saying that everyone is either a noble and pure Anglo-Catholic or a one-step-from-apostasy Broad Churcher. Of old, people had more categories, and nobody measured everything from the A-C party (except maybe A-Cs).

Quote
Quote
My personal view is that the liturgical use of the Creeds most certainly binds people to acceptance of them. As for the other two issues, frankly at this point I don't care to discuss either per se. The important issue is whether they may be discussed at all. You've presented them as litmus tests. That's not, for the most part, how we do things in Anglicanism.

Okey-doke, I'll take that as an affirmative (as in 'Affirming Catholicism' - ugh) on both issues. So ISTM you are a Broad Churchman who likes worshipping at a classical Anglican parish.

You're jumping to some quite self-serving conclusions based on quite insufficient evidence. You've not been to my parish, you don't know as much about my parish as you think you do, and you are presuming reasons behind my refusal to submit to your interrogation without considering what other reasons I might have for that refusal. At least part of the problem with saying anything about either topic is that I expect that you, and maybe others, would pile on what I said even if I came to a conclusion which was "orthodox", because (somehow) it would deemed UnOrthodox, because I'm a Unitarian-leaning Broad Church Protestant. There's not a lot of hope of continuing this exchange if every single controversial topic eventually gets raised in it.

Quote
Quote
But I see that position as untenable and on the same continuum as Broad Churchmanship. Though Christian, it was a political compromise and is Protestant.

But insofar as that view is rooted in Orthodoxy, it's not really of much relevance to Anglicanism.

Translation: 'I can't deny what you said so I'll affect a haughty attitude and pretend not to listen to you.'

You're stating that Anglicanism has to be formed out of the same dogmatism as Orthodoxy is. If you want to defend that thesis, you're going to have to abandon Orthodoxy as an authority for your statements.

Instead, the impression I get from you is that you express some tolerance for the Anglo-Catholics because it's easier to pretend that they look like a dogmatic party and because, well, they look a lot like what the RC church ought to look like liturgically. All Saints Convent is about as Anglo-Catholic as anything ever gets, and I don't think they endorse this attitude. And in any case, everything I hear from other Orthodox sources says that this kind of opinion isn't Orthodox anyway. It's just your private opinion.

Quote
Quote
But which meaning? If you mean their meanings as signs of factional division, well, of course. If you mean their ritual meanings, I disagree.

You might call 'factional division' what I call 'the same beliefs as the ancient apostolic Churches' such as the Catholic Church, which was what the Anglo-Catholics set their watches to.

Well, one could point out that they couldn't very well do that entirely, because doing that implies submitting to Rome and dumping "Anglo-" over the side. Being an Anglo-Catholic still implies holding Orthodoxy and Catholicism up to some standard and finding them wanting. So I don't believe that you are characterising them accurately.

Quote
You seem to be trying to play the liberals' game of associating orthodoxy with uncharity. 100 years ago, even 50 years ago, if an Anglican church used chasubles and had communion every Sunday, to use two examples, you knew where it stood on the issues - it shared basic credal orthodoxy with mainstream Anglicanism but it also believed in the Mass.

If I read that from an Anglican source, I might believe you. Now a hundred years ago-- the first photograph of a group of bishops in copes and miters taken in the USA is barely a hundred years old. Fifty years ago-- the East end of the National Cathedral is basically all that old or older; so are a lot of muscular Gothic buildings that express Oxfordian principles but are not per se Anglo-Catholic in intent.

Quote
Quote
It implies that they are adopted purely out of a sense of aesthetics or theatre.

Yeah, pretty much. Or they think they're being ecumenical. Or they're putting on a deliberate travesty of the Catholic Church.

You are engaging in a fantasy. That's simply not what happened. I read people talking about this practice or that, and I don't think that all of their reasoning on the matter can be so blythely dismissed. I've seen the process of innovation take place, up close and personal. To the degree that an Anglo-Catholic party even exists, it is surrounded on one side by a group of theological conservatives whose practice ranges widely, and on the other by a group which adopts Catholic practices for a variety of reasons, superficial or otherwise, but don't see a dissonance between this and their liberal theology. You call it "trappings"; I see it as the inevitable result of the Oxford Movement knocking down the notion that Anglican practice must be kept in reaction to Catholic practice. The irony is that, once freed of this, Anglican and Catholic practices have evolved to the point where the part of the Episcopal Church that most resembles modern American Catholicism is in "low" places like The Gathering, where most of the music and liturgical style is taken from the Catholics, minus the votive candles and prayers for the Pope. (of course, at the Gathering the congregation sings, whereas at most Catholic parishes they do not.)

Quote
Quote
You are saying that if their Eucharist had been genuine, they would have been committing an objective act of sacrilege.

Yes, and I'm sure there isn't an Eastern Orthodox on this forum who'd disagree.

But of course, you've cut out the point. You've dodged the real issue: that this sacrilege may not have been intentional, not on any level. You cannot deduce an attitude from these actions-- other than that the person in question doesn't share your own scruples.


Quote
Quote
If you are going to keep going down this attack upon the "broad church", let me remind you that it was this supposed "broad church" which made the language of the new rites quite unequivocable-- that the consecrated elements are, without qualification, the Body and the Blood.

No, it means Broad Churchmen believe in nothing, so they believe in everything.

That's what you say, but I have no confidence in you as an observer of Anglicanism. Anglicanism simply isn't as you depict it, and it hasn't been for a long time.

The truth is that Orthodoxy rejects the Anglo-Catholic position too. And it rejects it simply because it isn't Orthodoxy. Your attempt to portray it as some sort of pure, Orthodox Anglicanism is just not the case. Anglo-Catholics who go over to Orthodoxy abandon the "Anglo-" and adopt an Orthodox supporting theology, even those who manage to get a Western Rite permitted to them. If an Anglo-Catholic rite can be grafted onto Orthodoxy, it was already grafted onto its old Protestant church as well.
Quote
« Last Edit: April 25, 2003, 09:07:03 AM by Keble » Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2003, 11:12:03 AM »

Quote
I'm going to continue to insist that he isn't a "churchman" of any type. He's clearly stepped outside of Trinitarian Christianity.

Yes, he has, but he is still a retired bishop in good standing in your church. Until they throw him out, I'll say he's a Broad Churchman.

Quote
And if it is a "changing station" for Unitarianism (and again, you're overgeneralizing), often enough it would seem to be a changing station the other way too, and I don't hear you complaining about that.

Sure it can. But that doesn't mean I will defend Broad Churchmanship for its own sake like you seem to want me to.

Quote
But we have no king here. There has been no king here for two hundred years. What is with all these anachronisms?

Because they're why Anglicanism exists and why it's the way it is.

Quote
Those of us who are Anglicans see a totally different set of divisions that are far more important than "churchmanship". Lumping them all into one big "broad church" blob is inaccurate. Also, you keep leaving out two of the classical parties; you are basically saying that everyone is either a noble and pure Anglo-Catholic or a one-step-from-apostasy Broad Churcher. Of old, people had more categories, and nobody measured everything from the A-C party (except maybe A-Cs).

Scroll and click back on this thread, Keble. I do mention Evangelical Anglicans, the more moderate of whom (the ones who don't reject episcopacy as of the esse of the church) one could consider a subspecies of classical Anglican. They are Christians, holding the same basic orthodoxy as all classical Protestants, but even more like other Protestants than classical Anglicans per se are. Also, I know the old, pre-1800s High Churchmen like the Carolines and Non-Jurors were a different flavor than Anglo-Catholics, but similar and obviously a forerunner of the latter.

Quote
You're jumping to some quite self-serving conclusions based on quite insufficient evidence. You've not been to my parish, you don't know as much about my parish as you think you do, and you are presuming reasons behind my refusal to submit to your interrogation without considering what other reasons I might have for that refusal. At least part of the problem with saying anything about either topic is that I expect that you, and maybe others, would pile on what I said even if I came to a conclusion which was "orthodox", because (somehow) it would deemed UnOrthodox, because I'm a Unitarian-leaning Broad Church Protestant.

Nonsense. I've acknowledged you when you tell the truth - such as when you reject Spong.

Quote
There's not a lot of hope of continuing this exchange if every single controversial topic eventually gets raised in it.

Translation: 'I know my church has sold out on these issues and can't answer you on that.'

Quote
You're stating that Anglicanism has to be formed out of the same dogmatism as Orthodoxy is. If you want to defend that thesis, you're going to have to abandon Orthodoxy as an authority for your statements.

Comparing it to Eastern Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it. A secular historian would say the same thing I did about how and why Anglicanism exists.

Quote
Instead, the impression I get from you is that you express some tolerance for the Anglo-Catholics because it's easier to pretend that they look like a dogmatic party and because, well, they look a lot like what the RC church ought to look like liturgically. All Saints Convent is about as Anglo-Catholic as anything ever gets, and I don't think they endorse this attitude. And in any case, everything I hear from other Orthodox sources says that this kind of opinion isn't Orthodox anyway. It's just your private opinion.

I like the Anglo-Catholics because they share at least most of the apostolic Churches' beliefs and are acting sincerely, thinking they are in those Churches. Yes, they do look like what RCs ought to look like - understandable, because they use the same source material for their beliefs.

Quote
Well, one could point out that they couldn't very well do that entirely, because doing that implies submitting to Rome and dumping "Anglo-" over the side.

Some claimed to!

Quote
If I read that from an Anglican source, I might believe you.

Now who's fallen for the pathetic fallacy? 'I won't believe you because I don't like you.'

Quote
Now a hundred years ago-- the first photograph of a group of bishops in copes and miters taken in the USA is barely a hundred years old. Fifty years ago-- the East end of the National Cathedral is basically all that old or older; so are a lot of muscular Gothic buildings that express Oxfordian principles but are not per se Anglo-Catholic in intent.

All of which agrees with what I wrote - Anglo-Catholic externals spread much farther and wider than Anglo-Catholic beliefs ever did. Copes and mitres (which appeared on Anglican bishops by the coronations and royal weddings of the 1920s) and altar-centered Gothic architecture became the house style by the mid-1900s (and, with modifications from copying modern Roman reordering of church furniture, still are), but 50-100 years ago, chasubles and weekly communion told you unequivocally that a church was Anglo-Catholic. Today, however, gay Gaia-worshippers affect those things, as do people from most other shades of churchmanship.

Quote
To the degree that an Anglo-Catholic party even exists

It never was big and has shrunk but yes, it does.

Quote
it is surrounded on one side by a group of theological conservatives whose practice ranges widely

Bingo. Real Anglo-Catholics or 'the party'.

Quote
and on the other by a group which adopts Catholic practices for a variety of reasons, superficial or otherwise, but don't see a dissonance between this and their liberal theology.


Broad Churchmen playing Anglo-Catholic - not real ACs.

Quote
You call it "trappings"


Yeppers.

Quote
I see it as the inevitable result of the Oxford Movement knocking down the notion that Anglican practice must be kept in reaction to Catholic practice. The irony is that, once freed of this, Anglican and Catholic practices have evolved to the point where the part of the Episcopal Church that most resembles modern American Catholicism is in "low" places like The Gathering, where most of the music and liturgical style is taken from the Catholics, minus the votive candles and prayers for the Pope. (of course, at the Gathering the congregation sings, whereas at most Catholic parishes they do not.)

True and yes, it is ironic - this exists because by and large modern American Catholicism has gone completely barmy. It's as if self-hating Jews took over the local synagogue.

Quote
You've dodged the real issue: that this sacrilege may not have been intentional

OK, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was intentional.

Quote
The truth is that Orthodoxy rejects the Anglo-Catholic position too. And it rejects it simply because it isn't Orthodoxy.


True and true. Anglicanism is not Orthodox. The ACs' claim to be the English 'branch' of the big-C Church is rejected automatically by the Orthodox.

Quote
Your attempt to portray it as some sort of pure, Orthodox Anglicanism is just not the case.


The ACs themselves thought it was, and that every other Anglican group was wrong, even though classical Anglicans and later Broad Churchmen far, far outnumbered them - and still do. It's orthodox but I don't think I ever wrote that it is really Anglican. Scroll back, friend - I myself wrote that in fact they chucked Anglicanism as a belief system. Most simply copied Catholicism, and some concocted their own intellectual brew using various orthodox sources, Roman and Eastern.

Quote
Anglo-Catholics who go over to Orthodoxy abandon the "Anglo-" and adopt an Orthodox supporting theology, even those who manage to get a Western Rite permitted to them. If an Anglo-Catholic rite can be grafted onto Orthodoxy, it was already grafted onto its old Protestant church as well.

True, but externally and in their core beliefs - Trinity, Eucharist, apostolic ministry - they aren't that much different from when they were ACs (my sources: church websites and meeting two Western Rite priests in the Antiochian Greek Orthodox archdiocese in the US). No Western Rite Orthodox church copies Broad or Low Episcopal usage! (What would be the point of converting?) So you're wrong - ACism is closer to EOxy than other kinds of Anglican churchmanship.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2003, 11:25:08 AM by Serge » Logged

Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,404



« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2003, 09:27:29 AM »

Quote
I'm going to continue to insist that he isn't a "churchman" of any type. He's clearly stepped outside of Trinitarian Christianity.

Yes, he has, but he is still a retired bishop in good standing in your church. Until they throw him out, I'll say he's a Broad Churchman.

You can call a tail a leg and say that a camel has five legs, too.

Quote
Quote
And if it is a "changing station" for Unitarianism (and again, you're overgeneralizing), often enough it would seem to be a changing station the other way too, and I don't hear you complaining about that.

Sure it can. But that doesn't mean I will defend Broad Churchmanship for its own sake like you seem to want me to.

What I want you to admit is that your classification scheme here reflects an idealized vision you seem to have of Anglo-Catholics, rather than reflecting reality.

Quote
Quote
But we have no king here. There has been no king here for two hundred years. What is with all these anachronisms?

Because they're why Anglicanism exists and why it's the way it is.

It may be why it exists at all (and why Orthodoxy exists too), but I don't see how you can argue that the Broad Church has won and is utterly rootless and then argue that it is really rooted in Tudor politics!

Quote
Quote
Those of us who are Anglicans see a totally different set of divisions that are far more important than "churchmanship". Lumping them all into one big "broad church" blob is inaccurate. Also, you keep leaving out two of the classical parties; you are basically saying that everyone is either a noble and pure Anglo-Catholic or a one-step-from-apostasy Broad Churcher. Of old, people had more categories, and nobody measured everything from the A-C party (except maybe A-Cs).

Scroll and click back on this thread, Keble. I do mention Evangelical Anglicans, the more moderate of whom (the ones who don't reject episcopacy as of the esse of the church) one could consider a subspecies of classical Anglican.

But they aren't a party unto themselves, not in this country. They are found in all camps-- The Gathering is about as evangelical as anything gets, but it has no ties to the conservatives. When the Bishop of Quincy tells me that he sends some of his seminarians to Trinity rather than Nashotah, it tells me that the lines between them do not runs so straight. The reality is that the division between the theological radicals and everyone else dominates all other divisions. Even when you look at the two hot issues you want push-- women and homosexuals-- you see that these divide people in two utterly different ways.

Quote
Quote
You're jumping to some quite self-serving conclusions based on quite insufficient evidence. You've not been to my parish, you don't know as much about my parish as you think you do, and you are presuming reasons behind my refusal to submit to your interrogation without considering what other reasons I might have for that refusal. At least part of the problem with saying anything about either topic is that I expect that you, and maybe others, would pile on what I said even if I came to a conclusion which was "orthodox", because (somehow) it would deemed UnOrthodox, because I'm a Unitarian-leaning Broad Church Protestant.

Nonsense. I've acknowledged you when you tell the truth - such as when you reject Spong.

You've pretty much declared my rejection of Spong as beside the point, actually.

Quote
Quote
There's not a lot of hope of continuing this exchange if every single controversial topic eventually gets raised in it.

Translation: 'I know my church has sold out on these issues and can't answer you on that.'

Serge, I don't know whether you have to hold down a job, but I do. And I have three children to raise, and sleep, and all that stuff. I've been on the net a lot longer than you have, and I know how topics can die of amplification. I've come back around to recheck this before posting, and I've spent at least 2 hours writing this, never mind thinking about it in the car and the like. If you raise an extra point to every one I raise, as well as replying to the original, I will have to prune things down just to be able to sustain replying.

You don't know that the church has sold out on homosexuality. We don't have homosexual marriages, and the way things are going right now we aren't going to have them any time soon. And I'll bet if the GC bucks all the forces pushing against this, there will be a genuine schism, and we'll see who ends up on each side. And Cantuar has all but announced which side will get to stay in the communion. Louie Crew is an embarrassment, but he's still baptized.

Quote
Quote
You're stating that Anglicanism has to be formed out of the same dogmatism as Orthodoxy is. If you want to defend that thesis, you're going to have to abandon Orthodoxy as an authority for your statements.

Comparing it to Eastern Orthodoxy has nothing to do with it. A secular historian would say the same thing I did about how and why Anglicanism exists.

A secular historian would no doubt raise the salient point that denying Henry an annulment made excellent political sense to the papacy. A secular historian (say, for instance, Barbara Tuchman), would discuss at length the folly and carnal corruption of the papacy and how they basically brought the Reformation on themselves. (Her brief summary of the English situation occurs at the top of p. 120 of The March of Folly, at least in the hardback edition.) A secular historian would make similar statemnts about Constantine and Nicea, so I don't think you are doing Orthodoxy any favors by inviting them in.

Quote
Quote
If I read that from an Anglican source, I might believe you.

Now who's fallen for the pathetic fallacy? 'I won't believe you because I don't like you.'

You are claiming to speak as an authority on Anglicanism. It is up to me whether to accept that authority or not.

Quote
Quote
Now a hundred years ago-- the first photograph of a group of bishops in copes and miters taken in the USA is barely a hundred years old. Fifty years ago-- the East end of the National Cathedral is basically all that old or older; so are a lot of muscular Gothic buildings that express Oxfordian principles but are not per se Anglo-Catholic in intent.

All of which agrees with what I wrote - Anglo-Catholic externals spread much farther and wider than Anglo-Catholic beliefs ever did. Copes and mitres (which appeared on Anglican bishops by the coronations and royal weddings of the 1920s) and altar-centered Gothic architecture became the house style by the mid-1900s (and, with modifications from copying modern Roman reordering of church furniture, still are), but 50-100 years ago, chasubles and weekly communion told you unequivocally that a church was Anglo-Catholic.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think this is true. The only non-altar-centered building in the entire area that I know of is Old St. Anne's in Middletown Delaware, which by a fluke of history is a very rare example of a surviving colonial church in its original furnishing. It is the very archetype of Georgian Low Church; the box pews face the triple decker pulpit on the north wall, and the altar is on the east wall under a magnificent Palladian window. Every other building in the area has an altar square in the center of the "east" wall, with the pews facing it. I don't think all of these were put there in 1920 (much less 1960); I'm absolutely certain that there's been an altar at the "east" end of St. Mark's Highland ever since it was built in the 1880s for the very simple reason that there was no place else for it to go!

I can't make the same claim about vestments because I don't have enough evidence to go on. Maybe if I went back into old Living Church issues (or for that matter, old high school yearbooks in my case) I might be convinced.

It's your assertion that this convergence of form is just aesthetic that is both offensive and inaccurate. What really happened is that Anglicanism as a whole began to adopt, not just some of Catholicism's practice, but some of its thinking. But in doing so they did not believe that they had to agree with Anglo-Catholicism as an indivisible system. Indeed, it proved highly divisible, to the point where not only its practices but the reasons for those practices were pulled into the rest of the church. You may like to look upon this as "trappings", but that's not what the mainline Anglican view was, and it isn't what it is now.

Not only that, but the same reasoning proved to point off in different directions in different hands. Anglo-Catholics were scrupulous because medieval Catholics were scrupulous; since Anglicanism, from the start, criticized medieval practice and theory, rearguing the issues didn't always come to the same conclusions. All of this was written about copiously, most notoriously in Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy, which was hugely influential in its day. Again, this is your Orthodoxy speaking, not observation. Your statement that the others are just "playing" at being A-C isn't true. I don't think it is even true to assert that they want to look like A-Cs. What's happening is that, on a lot of practice issues, the A-C positions are winning. On others, they are not. And even then these demarcations aren't permanent. It's pretty clear that communion every Sunday is going to remain the established practice, not because the Catholics do it (and the reality of Catholic practice is infrequent communion-- or at least it used to be-- with church attendance being the important part) but because the A-C/Tractarian/Orthodox reasons for doing it are overwhelmingly better than the reasons for not doing it. Facing "west" is one battle the A-Cs have, for the moment, lost, but my hope is that eventually other reasons may prevail in the long run and the priest will end back up on the other side of the altar. Chasubles will continue to be governed, to an extent, by the realities of North American weather (and in some places, by the lack of air conditioning). I don't think Marian devotions have a chance in the face of Fatima and Coredemption, but you never know. Some of the changes people try to work in that I object to the most (such as saying "It is right to give God thanks and praise") are plainly being put in for theological reasons which I disagree with.

I've seen priests do things for the sheer sake of theater, but they have been exceptional. I retain a mistrust of Anglicans doing Tenebrae precisely because I think the big attraction of it is that it is theatrical.

Quote
Quote
I see it as the inevitable result of the Oxford Movement knocking down the notion that Anglican practice must be kept in reaction to Catholic practice. The irony is that, once freed of this, Anglican and Catholic practices have evolved to the point where the part of the Episcopal Church that most resembles modern American Catholicism is in "low" places like The Gathering, where most of the music and liturgical style is taken from the Catholics, minus the votive candles and prayers for the Pope. (of course, at the Gathering the congregation sings, whereas at most Catholic parishes they do not.)

True and yes, it is ironic - this exists because by and large modern American Catholicism has gone completely barmy. It's as if self-hating Jews took over the local synagogue.

Well, Catholic commentators on the phenomenon disagree with you. Generic American Roman Catholicism doesn't sing and, except in ethnic areas which brought over a tradition of singing, largely never has.

Getting back to the point of all this:

Quote
Quote
You've dodged the real issue: that this sacrilege may not have been intentional

OK, now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said it was intentional.

OK, let me clarify. You're trying to advance the argument that she didn't believe that the leftover sacrament was still the Body. You're doing so on the basis that tossing the crumbs into the cemetery, since it would be (from your point of view) objectively sacrilegious, was not something she would have done if she had held that the sacrament was still the body (because if she did, she would have believed that it was sacrilege).

But half of this is, at best, conjecture. It is easy enough for me to come up with a list of different interpretations of what is happening here, and they all branch off from your hypothesis at the point where you expect her to duplicate your reasoning. That isn't a reasonable expectation, especially since it hinges upon her applying meaning to her actions.

I never interrogated the altar guild as to why they did things as they did, but I least I knew them. You don't even have that. And I do know more about matters in my current parish, and why we have a piscina and etc.-- but the same people run the altar guild as did back in the old sacristy, which represented the facilities of a poor farm parish that had to make do with what they had. I cannot say precisely what their Eucharistic piety was in those days, but then, neither can you, for the same reason: you didn't know them, and you can't ask them now.

Quote
Quote
Anglo-Catholics who go over to Orthodoxy abandon the "Anglo-" and adopt an Orthodox supporting theology, even those who manage to get a Western Rite permitted to them. If an Anglo-Catholic rite can be grafted onto Orthodoxy, it was already grafted onto its old Protestant church as well.

True, but externally and in their core beliefs - Trinity, Eucharist, apostolic ministry - they aren't that much different from when they were ACs (my sources: church websites and meeting two Western Rite priests in the Antiochian Greek Orthodox archdiocese in the US). No Western Rite Orthodox church copies Broad or Low Episcopal usage! (What would be the point of converting?) So you're wrong - ACism is closer to EOxy than other kinds of Anglican churchmanship.

Depends on what you mean by "close".

"Core beliefs" is a dangerous notion-- it's how Bishop Tennis managed to get Righter off the hook for ordaining Robert Williams. It also leads to the question of where the core is, because if you start talking about a set of precepts as core, you're headed into something which you are labelling "broad church".

Western Rite churches copy A-C practice because that is what the Antiochians demand. What this seems to mean is that the practices are not deeply rooted in one theological system, but in fact can be worked out out of a Caroline system, or out of a Thomian system, or out of an Orthodox system. Or at least that they can be fitted into any of the the three without breaking anything too badly, or better still, synthesized out of the three of them in many varying proportions. Indeed, if one felt sufficiently cynical, one might wonder whether it is the practices and the theological conclusions that are the important part and that it doesn't matter much how they get to them. Not that I wish to accuse them of that, but it's the flip side of you speculating about the theology of the altar guild. It's a matter of empirical fact that people are able to maintain, in their own minds, a variety of relationships and motivations in all of this.

On the other hand, the reason why you won't see a low church Western rite in the Antiochian church is surely because the Antiochians won't let them have one. To maintain a low church position, you must actively reject a lot of practices that Orthodoxy holds dear and that Orthodox practice won't let you do without.

It's quite clear that part of the reason to convert is often to get to a dogmatic church. I've seen this happen in altogether too many priests; they give up hope of prevailing in the Episcopal Church, and it frees them to seek out another church which will ratify the positions they hold. In the process, they have to give up one basis for justifying these positions and accept whatever basis they are given (or they end up in continuing churches, in which case they have to give up a solid polity instead).
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #44 on: April 26, 2003, 11:33:23 AM »

Quote
It may be why it exists at all

Thank you.

Quote
(and why Orthodoxy exists too)

Is this the western Catholic criticism that Eastern Orthodoxy was caesaropapist, putting the emperor above being in the universal Church (by which they at least implicitly mean Roman) or is this the liberal and Protestant criticism that Christianity was corrupted by Constantinian acceptance? (Strange view for conservative Protestants to take, since they believe in the Trinity, and the Constantinian Church defined it for them - and later, it compiled the New Testament for them, too.)

Quote
I don't see how you can argue that the Broad Church has won and is utterly rootless and then argue that it is really rooted in Tudor politics!

I mean it isn't rooted in apostolic Christianity and that it is rooted in Tudor politics. No contradiction.

Quote
You've pretty much declared my rejection of Spong as beside the point, actually.

Actually, while I support your rejection of Spong, I'm also pointing out that your position is only a jump or two removed from his, built on the creaky foundation of the Renaissance English monarchs' made-up church, and that your attitude to the Sacrament is the same as his to the Trinity.

Quote
But they aren't a party unto themselves, not in this country.


You may have a point there, but check out the Church of the Apostles in Atlanta. Before they left to get away from liberalism, they were an Episcopal congregation. (Now I think they're under the Anglican diocese of Sydney, Australia, where their Egyptian-born minister was ordained.) So Low they seen Baptist - just like some Church of England parishes. They're (Evangelicals) rarer in America than in England.

Quote
When the Bishop of Quincy tells me that he sends some of his seminarians to Trinity rather than Nashotah, it tells me that the lines between them do not runs so straight. The reality is that the division between the theological radicals and everyone else dominates all other divisions. Even when you look at the two hot issues you want [to] push-- women and homosexuals-- you see that these divide people in two utterly different ways.


I see your point, which has been stated by many conservative Episcopalians and Continuing Church people themselves.

(Even the ultra-Prot Reformed Episcopal Church, a 19th-century Low Church reaction against Anglo-Catholicism, is getting in on the act, presenting itself as a pioneer Continuing Church. Dishonest IMO since it not only opposed ACism but broke with classical Anglicanism - its hot issues were preaching at and intercommuning with non-episcopal Protestant churches; it seemed to believe the claim to apostolic succession was nonessential. It also was Calvinist - they described themselves as Presbyterians with Prayer Books. I've visited one of its churches - a fascinating time travel to what pre-Tractarian Anglicanism was really like.)

ISTM though that such a position, while understandable (and it's true that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are united on those hot issues vs. the radicals), is a sellout of the Anglo-Catholic position, from promoting it as the true version of Anglicanism (and I can agree that, for all their orthodoxy, good intentions and wishful thinking, it wasn't - classical Anglicanism and moderate Evangelicalism were/are) to classical Protestantism, in essentials the same as classical and Evangelical Anglicanism, with Catholic trappings.

Quote
You don't know that the church has sold out on homosexuality. We don't have homosexual marriages, and the way things are going right now we aren't going to have them any time soon. And I'll bet if the GC bucks all the forces pushing against this, there will be a genuine schism, and we'll see who ends up on each side. And Cantuar has all but announced which side will get to stay in the communion. Louie Crew is an embarrassment, but he's still baptized.

If it communes practising homosexuals, it has sold out, and I understand (P)ECUSA does that. Good news about no 'gay marriage'. I really want to know - which side has Dr Williams said gets to say in the Anglican Communion of ECUSA votes for gay marriage? Your sentence about Mr Crew is puzzling - seems like an endorsement, even though at face value it's true.

Quote
A secular historian would no doubt raise the salient point that denying Henry an annulment made excellent political sense to the papacy. A secular historian (say, for instance, Barbara Tuchman), would discuss at length the folly and carnal corruption of the papacy and how they basically brought the Reformation on themselves. (Her brief summary of the English situation occurs at the top of p. 120 of The March of Folly, at least in the hardback edition.) A secular historian would make similar statemnts about Constantine and Nicea, so I don't think you are doing Orthodoxy any favors by inviting them in.

You have a point, but Constantine and Nicaea didn't involve people breaking away from the church for self-serving reasons. Rather, the Church spoke and Arius was out. Re: the condition of the Catholic Church in the 1500s, check out Eamon Duffy's work - the CC in late-medieval and early-Renaissance England was very healthy. The 'Reformation' killed it - it didn't die of disease. The 'R' was forced on the English people.

Quote
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't think this is true. The only non-altar-centered building in the entire area that I know of is Old St. Anne's in Middletown Delaware, which by a fluke of history is a very rare example of a surviving colonial church in its original furnishing. It is the very archetype of Georgian Low Church; the box pews face the triple decker pulpit on the north wall, and the altar is on the east wall under a magnificent Palladian window. Every other building in the area has an altar square in the center of the "east" wall, with the pews facing it. I don't think all of these were put there in 1920 (much less 1960); I'm absolutely certain that there's been an altar at the "east" end of St. Mark's Highland ever since it was built in the 1880s for the very simple reason that there was no place else for it to go!

St Peter's in Philadelphia, not too far a drive for you, is similar - box pews, triple-decker pulpit at one end of the building and communion table at the other (the cross and candles on it obviously aren't colonial practice but probably date at the earliest from the very late 1800s - just another example of High practices spreading farther than ACism ever did).

Quote
But in doing so they did not believe that they had to agree with Anglo-Catholicism as an indivisible system.

Which is what I mean by 'this was not really Anglo-Catholicism'.

Quote
It's pretty clear that communion every Sunday is going to remain the established practice, not because the Catholics do it (and the reality of Catholic practice is infrequent communion-- or at least it used to be-- with church attendance being the important part)

OK, you partly misunderstood me but I see why - the use of the word 'communion'. What I meant by 'communion every Sunday' was 'having the communion service every Sunday' (which the ACs would ID as Mass), not how often people went to communion.

I see two contradictory, simultaneous things going on among western Christian groups, one a move apostolicwards and the other away. Mainline Protestants are admitting that sola scriptura doesn't hold up, are reading the Fathers and in ways becoming high church - using an alb and stole (and sometimes even a chasuble), having communion every Sunday and, in the case of the mainline Lutheran church, having an anaphora/Canon of the Mass-like prayer (doctored, however, to exclude oblation) instead of just the words of institution.  But at the same time these same denominations are undermining the foundations of Christian faith with new theologies that deny Jesus was God, knew who He was or founded a church. So, because of that, at the end of the day all the new high-churchery is only theater, or some cruel attempt to deceive people by setting up a bogus, alternative 'catholic' church.

Quote
Well, Catholic commentators on the phenomenon disagree with you.


How?

Quote
Generic American Roman Catholicism doesn't sing and, except in ethnic areas which brought over a tradition of singing, largely never has.

Funny, I never disagreed with you on that point. I like Thomas Day's books a lot. He's right - they didn't and don't sing, with the exception of some ethnic groups.

Quote
It's quite clear that part of the reason to convert is often to get to a dogmatic church.

'Those who reject the Councils of the Holy Fathers, and their traditions which are agreeable to divine revelation, and that which the Orthodox Catholic Church piously maintains, ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA!' - the early Church

Sounds pretty 'dogmatic' to me. You seem pretty proud of not being in a dogmatic church, which means, in the POV of the folks who brought you the New Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity, etc., you're not in the Church, period (except, western Catholicism would say, by your baptism).
« Last Edit: April 26, 2003, 02:11:38 PM by Serge » Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  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 0.246 seconds with 72 queries.