Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

I don't get why you keep posting here Crandaddy, at least in this thread. it seems that you want us to admit that the Anglican Church has Apostolic succession, which it doesn't (historically but not theologically). you want us to admit that there is vaild sacraments in the Anglican Churches, which we have no idea of and is not our place to say.

then when we say things that our Church professes, that the Orthodox Church is the Church, you say that we are thumbing our noses down at you.

Greg asked why we don't enter communion with the Orthodox Church. My question is why should we? What do you have that we don't? What are we missing? For your position that we need to join the Orthodox Church to be convincing, you need to demonstrate that everyone else is deficient in some important way, but I've yet to see what that way is.

Click to expand...

well that is nothing we can answer in a convincing way. we are the Church. if you wanna be in the Body that Christ started, you should join the Church. what we have is the guaranteed fullness of Christ's grace and truth, that He promised to His Apostles. we are that undivided Body that is the Church of the Apostles.

MKJ said:

They are defiantly different in style - though that seems to be true in Orthodoxy too, I have never seen people dancing in North American or European Orthodox churches. I guess a lot might depend on just what you mean by evangelical and low-church, and as far as I know it is not the same throughout Africa and South America (which are after all large places.) Some are very non-structured from what I gather and might be what you mean by evangelical. Others are more low-church but that is normally in Anglicanism still very liturgical and means the BCP. And there are some that have more of a catholic sort of practice.

Click to expand...

"Dancing," or difference in style, isn't a problem to me. The Ethiopians (and Eritreans I believe) do have a sort of "liturgical dance," and are very different in style from the Byzantine tradition. They are nonetheless Orthodox and not "low-church" or remotely evangelical in worship.

By evangelical and low-church I tend to mean that they have an optional view of the episcopacy, non-sacrificial understandings of the eucharist, etc. I've heard many of the African Anglicans can be very non-traditional liturgically, leaning more towards evangelical Protestantism in terms of their services.

In any case, the comment was not that they were not Orthodox, or even orthodox.

It was that they were not Christian. I think that is a pretty extreme statement and really not at all justified looking at global Anglicanism (and rather sticky even for North American Anglicanism.)

Click to expand...

Point taken. I had in mind "orthodox" when I was responding.

Nephi said:

"Dancing," or difference in style, isn't a problem to me. The Ethiopians (and Eritreans I believe) do have a sort of "liturgical dance," and are very different in style from the Byzantine tradition. They are nonetheless Orthodox and not "low-church" or remotely evangelical in worship.

Click to expand...

It's amazing to consider the ways that Orthodoxy can vary in expression depending on location. For across the vast continent of Africa, where there is Ancient Christianity, you find rhythmic movement along with it. In Ethiopia, Eritrea, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, etc. The reasons for this are due to how this is the normal organic development of local Orthodox expression within African cultures - and it'd be wrong and not in keeping with Orthodox tradition to ask native cultures to abandon their customs that CAN be brought into Orthodoxy. Orthodox missionaries have never done that, unlike Western missionaries. African Christianity is truly a rhythmic culture on many levels..and it's beautiful seeing the ways dance/using the body for glorification of the Lord is accepted African and Asian Orthodoxy is truly beautiful...


And with that comes the other reality of African Orthodoxy in the Diaspora - as it is amazing how it takes place in areas like the West Indies (my beloved Jamaica being amazing in how worship chants go with the Rasta culture - with them being very proud of their expressions as well when it comes to Orthodoxy). Of course, what occurs with African Orthodoxy varies from other groups. The way Indian Orthodox Church does things is similar to the Ethiopian when it comes to the use of drums - as well as the ways their chanting style goes.

Easter procession St Thomas Church ATL
St.Thomas Day Procession, ATL


And then there's the fact that their style differs from The Orthodox Church in Mexico (Chants all in Spanish ) and Chinese Orthodox Byzantine Chant.

Orthodoxy from a global stance will vary on many things...



Some have said that the reality of diversity being present is why new expressions should be allowed/presented. In example, with the Algonquin Canadians, it's interesting to see some of the suggestions others have brought up when it comes to showing their cultural perspective within Orthodox parishes - some suggesting that as Orthodox in America, they should develop unique chants/try to marry Orthodox worship and Native American chanting.. Some examples (abeit modern) on the point
I love music (as well as the dance/use of drums ) from American Indian/Indigenious culture - as it's truly beautiful...and it's interesting to see others bring that into wherever they're at - just as other Ethiopian Orthodox have done in addition to others. One time, I was studying up on what another Orthodox minister remarked on in seeing the Orthodox Church as being a "bottom up" affair. In his view:
The individual, who is an Orthodox minister ( Rev. Archpriest Michael J. Oleksa, Th.D ), actully has a ministry on the issue for developing chants with Native America tones and ideas (as it concerns Alaskan Orthodox native chant, liturgy, culture) - which can be found if going www.naocf.org /Native American Orthodox Christian Fellowship . There was another similar one as well, although coming at things from a Polynesian perspective - as seen in Orthodoxy and Hawaiian Culture. Beautiful work, IMHO

And all of it within the realm of being Orthodox.

The Coptic service features cymbals in a rhythmic pattern rather than drums. The chant is high-pitched and generally drawn out. I don't know the language but I can appreciate the expression anyway.

"then when we say things that our Church professes, that the Orthodox Church is the Church, you say that we are thumbing our noses down at you."

In addition to this, you and FireDragon then both try to tell us what we believe and teach (as if we didn't know) and that any differences between Orthodoxy and the West (which are BTW very real) are due to some type of "fundamentalist" understanding of the Faith and then engage in ad hominem attacks.

Guys, please, we are Orthodox, we know what we believe, and we do not believe the same things the West believes about salvation, period.

Call me and Matt and any other Orthodox person who contributes to this forum any name you want.

Accusations of being revisionist in expressing the real differences between East and West by MKJ:

I think many feel that the tenor of modern and popular Orthodox sources on the history of the relationship between Eastern and Western theology is simply historically inaccurate and even revisionist”

Accusations of being a “fundamentalist” and not knowing what our own faith teaches by FireDragon:

“Your fundamentalist views do not fit with the mystical theology of the East.”

Accusations that we are being this exclusive “club” that looks down on others for upholding that the Church is One by Crandaddy:

“What else do you have to offer that we could possibly want? Official card-carrying privileges of the Club? Lessons in learning how to look at all other "Christians" by looking down one's nose at them?”

We have told you the differences, please go back and look at earlier treads.

So what's different?

Click to expand...

for one, that there was one Church that has maintained the Faith of the Apostles to today. not one branched by many, not one shared, but one visible and concrete Body, established in time for man's salvation. and since it was established for man's salvation, every human that has ever walked the earth should join it.

Crandaddy said:

How's that different than what Rome claims for herself?

Click to expand...

well, Rome makes that claim as well, but I would put forth that they have added to the faith. they have not maintained it (the filioque, the Pope's role, indulgences to name a few things). so they are NOT the faith of the Apostles.

but don't just take my word for it. look at the Pope in the early centuries and see if you see anything close to infallibility and unversal jurisdiction.

ArmyMatt said:

well, Rome makes that claim as well, but I would put forth that they have added to the faith. they have not maintained it (the filioque, the Pope's role, indulgences to name a few things). so they are NOT the faith of the Apostles.

Click to expand...

They have had indulgences in the East: Indulgence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The method that the East uses to receive communion- usually through a spoon, is not the ancient practice of the Church, which was to receive by hand, with the right hand placed over the left hand. This is still done in some non-Chalcedonian churches, and Protestants and Roman Catholics have revived the practice as well.

The Jesus Prayer in modern form, along with the Hesychastic theology assosciated with it, developed in the early middle ages. This is the reason it is not found in the West until modern times. There were short prayers by some of the Desert Fathers but they did not have the mysticism or repetition of the Jesus Prayer.

So there is plenty of "innovation" in the East as well. This is not to condemn the East and its practices but a great deal of this rhetoric of innovation is not helpful to dialogue.

Indulgences? Nope, read very carefully again the article you posted:

"
The Eastern Orthodox Churches believe one can be absolved from sins by the Sacred Mystery of Confession. Because of differences in the theology of salvation, indulgences for the remission of temporal punishment of sin do not exist in Eastern Orthodoxy, but until the twentieth century there existed in some places a practice of absolution certificates (συγχωροχάρτια – synchorochartia).

Matt is not talking about practices changing (we learn about how the liturgy developed in seminary), but Doctrine.

The method that the East uses to receive communion- usually through a spoon, is not the ancient practice of the Church, which was to receive by hand, with the right hand placed over the left hand. This is still done in some non-Chalcedonian churches, and Protestants and Roman Catholics have revived the practice as well.

Click to expand...

not doctrinal

The Jesus Prayer in modern form, along with the Hesychastic theology assosciated with it, developed in the early middle ages. This is the reason it is not found in the West until modern times. There were short prayers by some of the Desert Fathers but they did not have the mysticism or repetition of the Jesus Prayer.

Click to expand...

right, but that prayer at it's core is found in Scripture, in the Prayer of the Publican. the practice developed, but seeking silence and direct communion with God through that silence goes back to the OT.

So there is plenty of "innovation" in the East as well. This is not to condemn the East and its practices but a great deal of this rhetoric of innovation is not helpful to dialogue.

Click to expand...

right, but only in terms of practice, not in terms of belief. the belief has not changed.

"So there is plenty of "innovation" in the East as well. This is not to condemn the East and its practices but a great deal of this rhetoric of innovation is not helpful to dialogue."

it is not rhetoric, its the truth.

What is not helpful in dialogue is to ignore, brush aside, or justify away the very real, concrete, and fundamental differences between the East and West.

GregConstantine said:

"So there is plenty of "innovation" in the East as well. This is not to condemn the East and its practices but a great deal of this rhetoric of innovation is not helpful to dialogue."

it is not rhetoric, its the truth.

What is not helpful in dialogue is to ignore, brush aside, or justify away the very real, concrete, and fundamental differences between the East and West.

Click to expand...

right, the only way that people come to know Truth is acknowledge that for whatever reason, they are different. someone is correct, someone is incorrect, or both are incorrect. but both cannot be correct if they profess differing and sometimes opposing things.

ArmyMatt said:

right, the only way that people come to know Truth is acknowledge that for whatever reason, they are different. someone is correct, someone is incorrect, or both are incorrect. but both cannot be correct if they profess differing and sometimes opposing things.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really fit with apophatism, since anything that can be said about God is ultimately incorrect in the strict sense.

FireDragon76 said:

That doesn't really fit with apophatism, since anything that can be said about God is ultimately incorrect in the strict sense.

Click to expand...

not unless He reveals it. He can reveal His Truth to anyone who has a willing heart.

and we are not talking about apophatism. the fact that He established one visible Body on earth, and one visible Body has maintained that actually has nothing to do with apophatism.