Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[Crandaddy]

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​

Everything that is rightly called "good" must ultimately come from one Source--and this all men call "God."

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.

Yes, I agree. God will judge all of us by how we respond to the Light that we're able to see, and everyone is able to see the Light to at least some minimal degree, even without explicit knowledge of Christ. Creation itself reveals the glory of God and tells the story of the Incarnation in various ways that even non-Christian pagans are able to recognize. Scripture and reason both clearly attest to this, which is why no one is without excuse.

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

That's not entirely correct. Both Greg and buzuxi have said things that suggest to me that they believe that non-Orthodox are deprived of grace--or at least that we're deprived of sacramental/mysteriological grace. They are free to correct me if I've misunderstood them.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's not entirely correct. Both Greg and buzuxi have said things that suggest to me that they believe that non-Orthodox are deprived of grace--or at least that we're deprived of sacramental/mysteriological grace. They are free to correct me if I've misunderstood them.

okay, well most folks I imagine, myself included, would fall under the category of not knowing, aside from the guaranteed fullness of it.

 

[Crandaddy]

okay, well most folks I imagine, myself included, would fall under the category of not knowing, aside from the guaranteed fullness of it.

Fair enough.

 

[GregConstantine]

@crandaddy, no, I never said that. Grace is everywhere because God is everywhere. I have not said a person or a place is devoid of grace.

what I will not do is back down from the teachings of the Apostolic Orthodox Church Church that there is only one Church, and the completeness of salvation is found within her alone.

If you want to interpret that as anyone outside of the Church as being without grace, that's your prerogative.

 

[Crandaddy]

@crandaddy, no, I never said that. Grace is everywhere because God is everywhere. I have not said a person or a place is devoid of grace.

what I will not do is back down from the teachings of the Apostolic Orthodox Church Church that there is only one Church, and the completeness of salvation is found within her alone.

If you want to interpret that as anyone outside of the Church as being without grace, that's your prerogative.

Alright. But so you know, you can affirm extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation), while at the same time affirming that the boundaries of the Church might not be clearly-defined...

 

[ArmyMatt]

no, the boundaries clearly defined. however, say some pious Anglican person dies, sees Christ as revealed in the Orthodox Church and bows down and worships Him. that person's last act before God's Throne, is his conversion to Orthodoxy. the Church is clearly defined, it's who joins it or leaves it that is not.

so it's best to beat the rush as Fr Peter Gillquist would say, and join her now

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Everything that is rightly called "good" must ultimately come from one Source--and this all men call "God."
.

Indeed...

Yes, I agree. God will judge all of us by how we respond to the Light that we're able to see, and everyone is able to see the Light to at least some minimal degree, even without explicit knowledge of Christ. Creation itself reveals the glory of God and tells the story of the Incarnation in various ways that even non-Christian pagans are able to recognize. Scripture and reason both clearly attest to this, which is why no one is without excuse

How this plays out in our interactions with others is very key, IMHO..

 

[GregConstantine]

Matt is right, the boundaries are clearly defined.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt is right, the boundaries are clearly defined.

thanks Greg. I'd just add that the opposite is also true. you could have some Patriarch who has been a monk for ever, is ascetic, writes a ton, gives to the poor, has the massive beard and amazing vestments, but does it all for show, and would want nothing with the real Christ if He appeared beside him in a service.

the Church is what is solid and defined, because the Cornerstone and Head is Christ, and it has been guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost. it's us who change.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

you could have some Patriarch who has been a monk for ever, is ascetic, writes a ton, gives to the poor, has the massive beard and amazing vestments, but does it all for show, and would want nothing with the real Christ if He appeared beside him in a service.
.

Matters of the heart...intense to remember.

 

[FireDragon76]

no, the boundaries clearly defined. however, say some pious Anglican person dies, sees Christ as revealed in the Orthodox Church and bows down and worships Him. that person's last act before God's Throne, is his conversion to Orthodoxy. the Church is clearly defined, it's who joins it or leaves it that is not.

I do read this and I do think Crandaddy has a point with that phrase "Church Idolatry"

 

[ArmyMatt]

I do read this and I do think Crandaddy has a point with that phrase "Church Idolatry"

well, being Orthodox, we do believe that Orthodoxy is THE Church established by Christ that has not deviated. so that means that it is the God revealed in His Church who does the saving. does not mean that those who were heterodox or even unChristian are damned, it just means that we believe the Church to be a concrete Body. you can be outside of it.

 

[GregConstantine]

"I do read this and I do think Crandaddy has a point with that phrase "Church Idolatry""


That would be true, if the Church and Christ were two separate entities. But they are not. What did Christ asked Paul on the road to Damascus?

You cannot separate Christ from the Church, you cannot have the body without the head, or vice versa.

therefore, the Church is not and, cannot be divided.

There is no "church idolatry" in Orthodoxy

 

[Nephi]

no, the boundaries clearly defined.

I'm afraid the boundaries are not clearly defined if one insists on the Church consisting solely of those visible, intercommuning episcopacies.

I'm certain I gave the example before of some autocephalous Church somewhere severing communion with the rest of visible, canonical Orthodoxy. They then, after a century or so, wish to reconnect with it. So they enter communion with the only canonical Orthodox Church that they're able to contact with (this hypothetical assumes a lack of modern technology), and finally re-enter communion with them while retaining their ecclesial body.

Then say the primate, or synod, of the already canonical Orthodox Church decides to (for an arbitrary, unsound reason) excommunicate that just-turned-Orthodox-Church and their laity. Now they're back to being out of communion with any Orthodox Church despite their desire to be otherwise - are they now back outside the Church boundaries once again? If yes, that's absurd and means our Church has weak boundaries. If not, then it means the Church boundaries are not solely determined by intercommunion with at least one visible, canonical Orthodox Church.

That is, unless you meant they're clearly defined in some other sense.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, that excommunication would take a council because said just turned Orthodox Church was espousing something wrong, and the Church as a whole would have to accept it. so yeah, the Church boundaries are clearly defined, fortunately for us, there are checks and balances as it were to maintain them.

 

[Nephi]

well, that excommunication would take a council because said just turned Orthodox Church was espousing something wrong, and the Church as a whole would have to accept it. so yeah, the Church boundaries are clearly defined, fortunately for us, there are checks and balances as it were to maintain them.

Your first sentence changed my hypothetical, which loses the intent. Say that Church's Synod was taken over, Soviet Russia style. Those hierarchs excommunicate said Church (which they can do, by their own Synod, without reference to the other Churches - just look at the various excommunications between Orthodox Churches), and so that newly-Orthodox Church is now a non-church.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Syriac Church were to go on its own (which of course it has agreed not to do, with its fellow OO Churches) and enter communion with the Antiochian Church, there's nothing stopping the Antiochian Church from doing it even if no other EO Church entered communion with them as well. Antioch could likewise severe communion with them by itself. And so on.

Likewise, ROCOR was not recognized by "the Church as a whole" until it went under the MP. Was it outside the Church boundaries until then? If yes, weak boundaries again. If not, then what about the Old Calendar schismatics that ROCOR officially communed with during that time?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm afraid the boundaries are not clearly defined if one insists on the Church consisting solely of those visible, intercommuning episcopacies.

I'm certain I gave the example before of some autocephalous Church somewhere severing communion with the rest of visible, canonical Orthodoxy. They then, after a century or so, wish to reconnect with it. So they enter communion with the only canonical Orthodox Church that they're able to contact with (this hypothetical assumes a lack of modern technology), and finally re-enter communion with them while retaining their ecclesial body.

Then say the primate, or synod, of the already canonical Orthodox Church decides to (for an arbitrary, unsound reason) excommunicate that just-turned-Orthodox-Church and their laity. Now they're back to being out of communion with any Orthodox Church despite their desire to be otherwise - are they now back outside the Church boundaries once again? If yes, that's absurd and means our Church has weak boundaries. If not, then it means the Church boundaries are not solely determined by intercommunion with at least one visible, canonical Orthodox Church.

That is, unless you meant they're clearly defined in some other sense.

The complications in things must always be remembered...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Your first sentence changed my hypothetical, which loses the intent. Say that Church's Synod was taken over, Soviet Russia style. Those hierarchs excommunicate said Church (which they can do, by their own Synod, without reference to the other Churches - just look at the various excommunications between Orthodox Churches), and so that newly-Orthodox Church is now a non-church.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Syriac Church were to go on its own (which of course it has agreed not to do, with its fellow OO Churches) and enter communion with the Antiochian Church, there's nothing stopping the Antiochian Church from doing it even if no other EO Church entered communion with them as well. Antioch could likewise severe communion with them by itself. And so on.

Likewise, ROCOR was not recognized by "the Church as a whole" until it went under the MP. Was it outside the Church boundaries until then? If yes, weak boundaries again. If not, then what about the Old Calendar schismatics that ROCOR officially communed with during that time?

yeah but ROCOR is different. we are talking about the Anglican communion which has never been in communion with Orthodoxy. not in part like ROCOR or your hypothetical Syriac situation.

so yes, the boundaries of the Church are clearly defined. there is a difference between a schismatic, who still believes in Orthodox dogmas and never fully schisms like ROCOR, and the Anglican communion which has never been in communion

 

[FireDragon76]

The Church of England was in communion with the East for many centuries- at one time in fact there was a dispute because the English church used the eastern dating for Easter. Your communion even recognizes many british saints that are also venerated in the Church of England.

 

[Crandaddy]

The Church of England was in communion with the East for many centuries- at one time in fact there was a dispute because the English church used the eastern dating for Easter. Your communion even recognizes many british saints that are also venerated in the Church of England.

And to this I might add that in the early 20th century, Orthodox were granted special permission to commune with Anglicans when an Orthodox church was not available. This is discussed in the article I linked in the OP.