Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[Gxg (G²)]

.. there are Orthodox aid organizations (like IOCC) that American Orthodox greatly assist. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, look at the work the Antiochian Church - often in partnership with IOCC - does in Syria in terms of providing aid, food, etc. as well as doing humanitarian work to release hostages (Orthodox or not), etc. This brief article is an example.

I'm sure other churches do similar things, even if it isn't apparent or overt in the average American parish.

Spot on - in regards to the differences that often get forgotten..

 

[buzuxi02]

In fairness, there are Orthodox Christians whose faith is not just a garish display of religious sentimentality or anti-intellectual fundamentalism. I've met them, people that put time at homeless shelters and soup kitchens, for instance.

I'm sorry but you are the only one displaying anti-intellectual fundamentalism. Do you even know what your saying? Social justice is a hereticizing principle. What blankets for the poor or soup kitchens will peasants in Siberia volunteer for? So the amish who are self sufficient should " retire" from Christianity?

How about close- knit Arab communities where social problems do not affect them, should they change from being Christian to Muslims?

How about the salvation army, who have rejected all the sacraments and believe charitable work is the only thing required??? Do you see the hereticizing principles??? They reject the saints and those martyred, and have a need for the poor so they can remain dependent upon them. Is the salvation Army who soley rely on the social gospel healthy for a poor community? In fact it is a religious body that cannot function in poor down trodden areas Precisely because it caters to the rich who expect the poor to be their domesticated pets.

Or how about the social justice the Uniates brought to Greece after the wars??? They built a hospital, helped the poor and demanded they convert in the process. The dependency and proselytization got so bad the Greek government stepped in and evicted everyone of them.

What social problems should the Christian community of Instanbul tackle? Obviously there lesser Christians in your estimation as they are just a tiny ghetto without resources. Whether slave or free , rich or poor you are one in Christ and the same set of principles apply to both.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm sorry but you are the only one displaying anti-intellectual fundamentalism. Do you even know what your saying? Social justice is a hereticizing principle. What blankets for the poor or soup kitchens will peasants in Siberia volunteer for? So the amish who are self sufficient should " retire" from Christianity?

There is human brokenness everywhere on earth. I just used soup kitchens as an example. I believe in justification by faith, not justification by social justice. However someone with true faith will care about social justice, absolutely.

You know very little about me. I may live in a wealthy country but you don't know anything about my lifestyle. So I'd urge you to be cautious in making sweeping generalizations about Americans.

 

[buzuxi02]

Same here.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you want to know, I have attended Holy Week and Pascha a few times at a local Orthodox church, including carrying around candles in a procession, and the liturgy is always impressive.

 

[Cappadocious]

Buzuxi,

In many threads you speak a vile hatred.

Your children will not speak the way you do. Your attitude will die with you.

Your children and your nation's children belong to us.

Cast off your phyletism while you still can, and embrace the Christian faith, so that you may share in common with them.

 

[Crandaddy]

His February 17th Pastoral Letter, for example. I believe this was his first such letter after his enthronement. Look especially at section 9, Towards a Full Sacramental Unity of the Christians. The whole letter is nice from what I recall. His enthronement speech, found starting on page 6 of the March 2013 issue of The Word is definitely worth a read. Also worth mentioning, IIRC, His Beatitude was part of the Balamand discussions before becoming Patriarch.

This joint-letter from the previous Antiochian Patriarch, Ignatius IV, and the Syriac Patriarch, Ignatius Zakka Iwas, is also definitely worth reading on the pastoral relations between our sister churches. It discusses the limited intercommunion I mentioned, among other things.

I was able to skim through it, but I'll read it more carefully when I have time. Looks like some good stuff. Thanks!

It sadly looks like they just fell to liberalization after all despite attempts to prevent it. Perhaps the Continuing Anglican groups in particular kept too much of an "open tent" that it just reverted?

I suppose that's a possibility. I suppose it's also possible that they were never part of the original Affirmation churches that broke away from the Communion back in the 70s, and just decided to label themselves “continuing” churches for whatever reasons (presumably not because of women's ordination).

What I do know is that there does not appear to be any danger of this happening in my church.

Interesting. More reason to read the article from the OP, I guess. The mention of Old Catholics made me wonder, are Continuing Anglicans in communion with anyone else? Honestly curious. It doesn't seem like they have many others, except maybe groups like PNCC, that would be agreeable to share communion with just yet.

To my knowledge, the United Episcopal Church of North America (my church), the Anglican Catholic Church, and the Anglican Province of Christ the King only have official intercommunion agreements with each other. The Old Catholic Church is in communion with Canterbury, but not with us. They too have started to ordain women. AFAIK, the PNCC retains acceptable standards of orthodoxy, and full intercommunion with them remains a possibility, though no official agreement has been reached as of yet.

Yes, we are a small group, but we fight on. Our God is known for what he does with small and seemingly insignificant things.

OK, we agree. Judging from the openly practising gay bishops ordained in Anglicanism and reading the posts in the anglican subforum, I dont get that perception. From what I see, sin is seasonal. Whats a sin today may not be one tomorrow. That there even seems to be an open hostility to the morals and values of their grandparents, to the point that the moral beliefs of the christians of the past 2000 years were simply the false beliefs of ignorant prudes.

Yes, at least some parts of the Anglican Communion are in pretty sad shape. My church saw this coming back in the 70s (even back in the 60s, according to some), and when the Episcopalians made the move to “ordain” women, we determined that it was time to man the lifeboats.

I've noticed a waivering. The virgin birth is an optional belief, the second coming can be reinterpreted to mean something no one expressed in the last 1900 years. In certain times the real precense was denied.

In my church, an open denier of the Virgin Birth would be excommunicated, and the same goes for an open denier of the Real Presence. I'm not sure what you mean with the Second Coming, unless you're referring to the Rapture. I've actually never met any Anglican who affirms the Rapture. That's more of an evangelical and dispensationalist doctrine.

I just want to get a sense of what is essential. I come from a place where the religious life and the secular are intertwined. For children these feast days, such as a child's name day makes the faith vibrant. A child is not going to understand the doctrine of the two natures or the Trinity. A child understands the celebration of feasts, a child sets his eyes upon an icon and is taught to treat those depicted in his icon corner as holy and as family members, he recognizes the smell of incense, etc.

I'm not sure what to say here except that that's great, and I believe that it should continue and be encouraged. It is lamentable that we've lost much of that in Western society.

I will say, however, that in my church we do observe fasts and celebrate feasts. Icon veneration is practiced, though usually privately and not in a church setting. Incense is used, though it's usually reserved for major feasts.

On ecclesiology. Is it purely branch theory? Is there a litmus test on which sects are twigs and which are heretics cut off?

We recognize as having received the grace of regeneration, and having been made baptized Christians, all who have received what we recognize as acceptable forms of baptism, regardless of the minister. We believe that baptism can be validly performed by anyone (although preferably, it should be performed by validly-ordained clergy), and we take this to be an ancient and received tradition. I'm aware that this was expressly taught by St. Isidore of Seville and Pope Nicholas I, and Sts. Vincent of Lerins and Augustine both believed that re-baptism of converts is unlawful, with Augustine having held that the custom of not re-baptizing is Apostolic in origin.

We recognize the Church to be visibly present wherever a validly-ordained Bishop or one of his validly-ordained Presbyters duly ministers the sacraments and exercises his office. While heresy or other serious sin might serve as grounds for excommunication, it does not serve to invalidate Holy Orders, and such a minister can still perform valid sacramental acts, so long as those acts are still recognizable as sacraments of the Church. This is in line with the Augustinian view of sacramental validity that has held sway in the West since antiquity.

But although we might still recognize the sacraments of heretics as valid (depending on the circumstances), heretics themselves are still cut off from communion with us until they renounce their heresy. Excommunication is rarely exercised only because it is rarely needed, but it can be (and has been) enforced.

OK, but as I said theres certain segments in Anglicanism where morality is a non-issue. Obviously JW hold to traditional moral values which are more accurate than those sects that reject them. Your communion and mine are closer to the JW than we are too these other anglicans, shouldnt they have a place on the tree then?

I honestly don't know enough about their baptism to say whether or not it would be considered valid, so I can't say whether or not we would recognize them as baptized Christians.

But I'm pretty sure that JWs have nothing like what we consider valid Apostolic Succession (and thus no validly-ordained Bishops or Presbyters), so the sect itself would not be considered a branch of the Church.

On a side note certain moral beliefs in Orthodoxy are indeed dogmatic.

We recognize certain morals as dogmatic as well. Abortion and homosexuality (for a couple of examples) are categorically denounced as sinful.

Sacraments, the mysteries- is the very mystical life of the church. I must hold the position of only One, holy, catholic and apostolic church because as you quoted Vincent of Lerins, its what has always been held. No Father speaks of branches of christianities. St Irenaeous, St Cyprian, St Basil are all clear on this and countless other Confessors.

Three points:

1) It is hardly clear that the consensus of the Fathers is that grace cannot possibly be present beyond the visible canonical boundaries of a particular ecclesial body.

2) It is certainly not clear that such a doctrine has been held dogmatically since the very beginning of the Church.

3) It is simply appalling--and even downright blasphemous--to suppose that someone ought to seek official initiation into 'the Club' simply in order to 'get their grace,' as if grace were some sort of commodity that can only be dispensed by those who have exclusive rights to it.

I am obligated to love God with all my heart, with all my soul, and with all my mind. I am obligated to love my neighbor as myself. I am NOT obligated to seek official membership in 'the Club' because the two greatest commandments aren't quite great enough.

Any church that tells me otherwise I am quite certain cannot be the Church that Christ founded.

There are even ancient canons that forbid visiting the cemeteries of heretics and their martyrs.

Why? Because they're haunted by undead wraiths who'll drag you down to hell? I'm sorry, but it is exceedingly difficult to see how this could be an original, Apostolic proscription. It just looks to me like it smacks of Dark Age superstition, rather than authentic Christian Tradition.

For one thing, just because someone is a member of a sect that espouses what we recognize as heterodox doctrine does not mean that that person is a true heretic. Just as young children can hold honestly mistaken beliefs, so can adults who lack sufficient knowledge and the ability to acquire it (for whatever reason).

And for another, martyrdom for the sake of an honestly-held conviction is surely a virtuous act, even if the content of that conviction is ultimately false. I find it utterly contemptible that someone who died for something he honestly believed in would be shunned like some sort of accursed monster, simply because he didn't officially subscribe to a correct list of propositions.

If God wishes to save someone, great. As Christ said, In my Fathers house there are many mansions.' But I cannot reject that which has been handed down to me from my descendants from the beginning.

I expect you to do what you honestly believe is right, and I'm absolutely convinced that God does as well.

 

[buzuxi02]

Cran,

Well then we agree on some things but disagree on others. Culturally we are radically different, but to each his own. I'm atleast encouraged your communion hasn't buckled under the modernist pressures.

 

[buzuxi02]

If you want to know, I have attended Holy Week and Pascha a few times at a local Orthodox church, including carrying around candles in a procession, and the liturgy is always impressive.

Glad you enjoyed it and hope you were blessed. And regardless I always like a good debate even if it does transgress to a pointless 'you know what' contest. Makes things less boring.

 

[buzuxi02]

Buzuxi,

In many threads you speak a vile hatred.

Your children will not speak the way you do. Your attitude will die with you.

Your children and your nation's children belong to us.

Cast off your phyletism while you still can, and embrace the Christian faith, so that you may share in common with them.

Capp,
Sorry if I hurt you but I see alot of wishy washy stances. I rather just be blunt and put politeness aside rather than sound like I'm an author of hallmark cards.

I'm also the first to admit that I may have the zeal of a saint, but that I certainly do not have the holiness of one.

And the whole thing about my children's nation??? , your free to have it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Crandaddy, you should read Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World. I don't believe all Orthodox see themselves as a club with a right to dispense sacramental grace, some see the Church as a sacramental sign of the Incarnation (indeed, the point of much of the book is that real life itself is sacramental in nature, not being confined to religious rites). According to many of the Russian-emigre theologians like Florovsky, though, that doesn't necessarily mean the boundaries of the Church are confined to canonical Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Crandaddy]

Crandaddy, you should read Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World. I don't believe all Orthodox see themselves as a club with a right to dispense sacramental grace, some see the Church as a sacramental sign of the Incarnation (indeed, the point of much of the book is that real life itself is sacramental in nature, not being confined to religious rites). According to many of the Russian-emigre theologians like Florovsky, though, that doesn't necessarily mean the boundaries of the Church are confined to canonical Eastern Orthodoxy.

I've heard of Schmemann. Never read him before, but I might check it out and see what he has to say. Thanks, FireDragon.

I do realize that not all Orthodox have the exclusive club mentality. I'm now trying to determine how far the disease has progressed.

 

[FireDragon76]

You might also want to look up Georges Florovsky- I believe his views were akin to the Roman Catholic views towards Protestants- "separated brethren". He stated that the traditional agnosticism towards the West by the East was not warranted intellectually, that the divine economy is not necessarily limited to the canonical boundaries of Eastern Orthodoxy.

In my opinion the Paris School of Orthodox theologians is a better source for thoughtful Orthodox theology on the issues of how the East relates to other churches. Many Orthodox are being influenced more by centuries of totalitarianism, or more recently, Communism, to be able to articulate an answer to these issues that isn't shaped more by Erastian, xenophobic, or Phylitistic tendencies. That's not to say the Paris School wasn't deeply critical of the West at times, but it was in a self-conscious and reflective way (many of them were not above trying to critique their own traditions Latinizing accretions).

 

[GregConstantine]

"You might also want to look up Georges Florovsky- I believe his views were akin to the Roman Catholic views towards Protestants- "separated brethren". He stated that the traditional agnosticism towards the West by the East was not warranted intellectually, that the divine economy is not necessarily limited to the canonical boundaries of Eastern Orthodoxy.

In my opinion the Paris School of Orthodox theologians is a better source for thoughtful Orthodox theology on the issues of how the East relates to other churches. Many Orthodox are being influenced more by centuries of totalitarianism, or more recently, Communism, to be able to articulate an answer to these issues that isn't shaped more by Erastian, xenophobic, or Phylitistic tendencies. That's not to say the Paris School wasn't deeply critical of the West at times, but it was in a self-conscious and reflective way (many of them were not above trying to critique their own traditions Latinizing accretions)."

You also might want to look up and read the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and read the lives of the saints. I believe their views was that the Church is One, and all must repent of the errors of their ways and come to the One Church and be baptized into Christ, who is and cannot be divided. Their view is also that no one is prohibited from coming to Christ, but that the Father desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

In my opinion, I believe the Fathers and the Saints is a better source of the faithful witness to the life in Christ and His Church, and to the restoration of union between God and man. I believe many today are being influenced by the philosophies of Egalitarianism and Individualism to be able to articulate the Gospel of love and redemption found only in the one Christ and His One Body. The Fathers and the saints stood as a steadfast witness to the Truth, and did not concern themselves with worldy matters or the approval of men.

 

[FireDragon76]

In my opinion, I believe the Fathers and the Saints is a better source of the faithful witness to the life in Christ and His Church, and to the restoration of union between God and man. I believe many today are being influenced by the philosophies of Egalitarianism and Individualism to be able to articulate the Gospel of love and redemption found only in the one Christ and His One Body. The Fathers and the saints stood as a steadfast witness to the Truth, and did not concern themselves with worldy matters or the approval of men.

Who interprets the Fathers and the Bible? The Church doesn't exist apart from the individuals that embody it, so interpretation of the Fathers is done by individuals within the community- there is no mind over the individual. A hard realism in the question of universals is philosophically untenable in this day and age.


Egalitarianism of the European Enlightenment is firmly rooted in the principle that human beings are created in the image of God and have certain rights fitting them because of this. Justice demands everyone is treated according to this truth. It's statements like these that lead me to think certain Eastern Orthodox are spiritually bankrupt. We will be judged as individuals, it is fitting we take individual responsibility in matters of our salvation.

 

[Crandaddy]

You might also want to look up Georges Florovsky- I believe his views were akin to the Roman Catholic views towards Protestants- "separated brethren". He stated that the traditional agnosticism towards the West by the East was not warranted intellectually, that the divine economy is not necessarily limited to the canonical boundaries of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I like Florovsky, from what I've read of him. Like me, he was a fan of Augustinian sacramentology, and he didn't seem to think too highly of the Westerners-are-all-graceless-heretics school of Orthodox thought.

You also might want to look up and read the Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and read the lives of the saints. I believe their views was that the Church is One,

No one here disputes that the Church is One, Greg. In my church, we confess every single Sunday that we believe in "one Catholic and Apostolic Church." Our disagreement revolves around what this means.

and all must repent of the errors of their ways and come to the One Church and be baptized into Christ, who is and cannot be divided.

Again, our disagreement revolves around what this means.

For one thing, it is simply false that Baptism exists only and exclusively within visible, canonical Orthodoxy. I have been baptized, and I absolutely refuse to ever be re-baptized.

Their view is also that no one is prohibited from coming to Christ, but that the Father desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.

Indeed.

In my opinion, I believe the Fathers and the Saints is a better source of the faithful witness to the life in Christ and His Church, and to the restoration of union between God and man. I believe many today are being influenced by the philosophies of Egalitarianism and Individualism to be able to articulate the Gospel of love and redemption found only in the one Christ and His One Body. The Fathers and the saints stood as a steadfast witness to the Truth, and did not concern themselves with worldy matters or the approval of men.

Well, whatever the Orthodox Church is, she does not have an exclusive Cyprianite monopoly on all Divine Grace, so that the limits of Grace strictly coincide with her visible, canonical jurisdiction. That's not liberal modernism. That's just a plain fact, and the West has recognized it since antiquity.

In fact, Rome identifies Cyprian's sacramentology as heresy, and she is correct in so doing.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I like Florovsky, from what I've read of him. Like me, he was a fan of Augustinian sacramentology, and he didn't seem to think too highly of the Westerners-are-all-graceless-heretics school of Orthodox thought.

To be clear,

I would think that God's grace is present in all believers - and even unbelievers to a good degree - when it comes to the fact that every good/perfect gift comes from above and is from His bounty:

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
James 1:16-18
​

Some of this was shared more so in How does one become a saint? (as well as here in #11/ #23 /#34 #37 #39 when seeing all the ways the West has contributed much to the advancement of humanity ) - and on the issue, Cornelius in Acts 10 seems to be an excellent example to consider. And there are other examples besides that to consider...

As scripture notes:

G
Acts 10/Acts 10:19

Cornelius Calls for Peter

1At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, "Cornelius!" 4Cornelius stared at him in fear. "What is it, Lord?" he asked.

The angel answered, "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

​

Cornelius was a Gentile who attached himself to Judaism but chose not to undergo formal conversion, which included public circumcision and public immersion (proselyte baptism). This class of Gentiles, known in Judaism as "proselytes of the gate", was quite large at this time. They were attracted to the nobility of the Jewish worship and truth of the one God who had revealed himself in the Bible....but for various reasons did not become Jews. There is the reality ot others who are "GOD-Fearers", who are in no way following all things Jewish--and yet they're still cool with God. The same is true for our times today. Acts 15:23-29 makes it clear that in order to become a child of God, a Gentile does not need to undergo conversion rites to Judaism in order to be accepted...nor are they bound to be concerned at all with whether they are allowed to eat Kosher foods.....and in fact, Paul takes it one step further in saying that Gentiles should remain as they are and not seek to become part of Israel in the flesh (I Corinthians 7:18-24) ---but if one wishes to live in a specific way, that is their decision.

Being "Jewish" was never what the Lord was concerned on for Gentiles, for as Peter said, " in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." ( Acts 10:34-35 ) - and thus, you see the concept of God's grace being present even in people we may not think have it.

For another example, . As Yeshua noted:

G
Luke 7

The Faith of the Centurion

1When Jesus had finished saying all this in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum. 2There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this, 5because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue." 6So Jesus went with them.

He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."


9When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, "I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel." 10Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.

Matthew 8:4-6 is the place where the other version is given....and of course, in Luke's account, others came to Jesus on his behalf while Matthew's account does not mention them at all. The accounts may seem contradictory--but Matthew, as he often does, simply abbreviates the story. For in Matthew, he actually reports what the centurion said through the messengers, based on the idea that what the person does through an agent is what the person himself does. Regarding the text, when the Roman centurion addresses Jesus as "Lord", he shows a remarkable sensitivity for Jewish traditions...saying he's unworthy of receiving Jesus into his Gentile home, as a Jew who entered the home of a Gentile became ceremonially unclean ( Acts 10:27-29 / ).

Some other interesting things from the text are that the normal relationship between Romans and Jews, as is usual between conquerors and conquered, was not one of love and trust---from either side. But this pagan Roman officer had demonstrated a love for the Jewish people which moved the Jewish leaders to plead on his behalf before Yeshua, whose primary ministry was not to Gentiles but to Jews..especially as evidenced in his interaction with the girl whose daughter was possessed/was a Gentile ( Matthew 10:4-6 / /Matthew 15:25-27/ ). Love was demonstrated to be a matter of deeds--"he built the synagogue for us!"--not mere words or feelings; and this is its primary meaning throughout Scripture. Similarly, in modern times "Righteous Gentiles" have been honored by trees planted along the road to Israel's Yad VaShem Memorial of the Holocaust because they risked their own death to save Jewish lives. Examples of such would be people such as Chiune Sugihara, a Japanese individual who saved many Jewish people during his time in China and was a rescuer of Jews during the Nazi Holocaust.....one of the greatest example of what it means to be a "God-Fearer" and others can do memorable acts of righteousness by the Lord's power/what He has given to ALL Mankind - even if they may not be on the same level as another.

Sugihara - The Conspiracy of Kindness 1/6 ​

In regards to Matthew 8:4-6 and the Roman Centurion, the point of the story was not exclusion. Rather, it was inclusion......as here Yeshua clearly states that Gentiles from ALL OVER (from the east and the west), even an army officer of the hated Roman Empire, can by virtue of trusting in God join God's people Israel and take their places at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Issac and Jacob - and I'd also argue that even those who may not have HEARD of the name of Christ (or understood it properly) can still meet the Lord in some kind of way.

I note this in light of how there does seem to often be a lot of antagonism between the East and the West - and although I think the West has much to learn from the East more so than reverse, I don't think it's the case that there can be an antagonistic relationship of claiming "There is no grace where they're at" when I see differently in the very history of the Jewish people and how the Lord responded to them in their issues.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

"no one is prohibited from coming to Christ, but that the Father desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth.
.

Amen

 

[ArmyMatt]

Crandaddy, I don't get why you keep posting about the West being totally devoid of grace. none of us have said that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Intense...