Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[MKJ]

It is doable, but should it be a requirement for being entered into the clergy of the Church?

You must examine the reason that this requirement was made. In the time of the Great Councils, there were many places where there were no scrolls or written scriptures. Sometimes the only "Bible" the Church had was the Priest or Bishop. As the Psalms were and are an integral part of the Orthodox services, knowledge of the Psalms was necessary to the office of the Bishop and Priest.

In today's world, a person can print the entire service onto paper for less than a candy bar. As you can tell, there is not as much need to devote time to memorization of the psalter as there is to, for instance, outreach and intercultural studies. Time that used to be devoted to repetitiously reciting the psalms can be devoted to learning how to best reach the community to which you are being sent. We can devote that time to developing methods to reach new groups of people, like the OCF's new outreach to the Deaf Community at Gallaudet University. We can have our bishops and priests in training obtain practical hands-on training by arranging missions trips.

Instead of learning what to shepherd our flock into, our clergy can learn HOW to shepherd the flock properly, and how to seek the lost sheep.

The Church never changes, but her methods, her actions toward the outside world, those change. Every day, we slowly work toward being better at reaching our community. We, as the people (not the Church), become better at reflecting the peace God gives.

The Church must be stable, unmoving, and strong in doctrine. But it is also called to be dynamic, adaptive, and proactive in outreach. It is truly a Church of and by God, but FOR the people. It is a hospital, a safehouse, a bank, and many other things as the needs of the people change in the ages. But it is timeless in its services.

I am not disagreeing at all. Some kinds of rules are intended for particular circumstances, and some are meant to be general.

 

[sculleywr]

I am not disagreeing at all. Some kinds of rules are intended for particular circumstances, and some are meant to be general.

Regarding the rules relating the validity of a sacrament, those are much more unmoving.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I can inagine some parishes where I am doing it, but I am in an area highly influenced by the Oxford movement which is very compatible with an Orthodox approach. My parish might be a good candidate as it already has a lot of ties to Orthodox groups, but even then it would be a big decision.

I think there are some things that the Orthodox could do to facilitate such things, and a big one is just not saying things that will uselessly get peoples backs up. The issue of the Creed is one - no Anglican alive today had anything to do with the whole political aspect of it, but in general their theology on the filioque is within the bounds of orthodoxy. In some cases, as here in Canada, it is allowed in the rubrics to omit the filioque (although that has some controversy as being a unilateral decision as well,) but the point is that if it isnt made into a challenge many would not object to removing it.

The issue of liturgy is another - the English Church was required to conform to a standard Roman liturgical form after the Synod of Whitby, and in the view of many that was just the beginning of them imposing questionable control on parts of the Church. That is why there tends to be suspicion around those who want to say that the Western Rite should be abolished. I have seen the western Rite pointed out many times as an option for disaffected Anglicans on Anglican forums or in discussions, and someone inevitably points out that they are considered not really Orthodox and many would prefer not to recognize them. It just seems like it is another example of people setting themselves up to use their authority to make everyone conform in every detail. Too much like Rome.

I think it is understandable that people are hesitant to commit to something that will make them feel like they are marginally members, or on the fringes, especially when they have generally come out of years of being at variance with their diocese.

And the general idea that they are beggars with no worthwhile Christian tradition, which again, seems too much like what Rome has always done. Anglicans do have a liturgical tradition that is closely tied to their literary tradition, and a very robust musical tradition, and even a scholarly and monastic tradition, and these have been largely continuous since the church was founded, despite Roman attempts to snuff them out. I think that sometimes non-Anglicans do not recognizze these traditions because they dont have an eye to see them, just as someone totally new to the eastern Church might not at first easily pick out the differenced between the Greek or Russian Church.

Awareness of all these things can make for much more fruitful discussions that could lead to good things, IMO.

In regards to what you've noted, some of what you brought up seemed best expressed by another Anglican - as expressed in the following:

• Ask an Anglican: Escaping Into Eastern Orthodoxy | The Conciliar Anglican...javascript:void(0)

 

[Crandaddy]

In regards to what you've noted, some of what you brought up seemed best expressed by another Anglican - as expressed in the following:

• Ask an Anglican: Escaping Into Eastern Orthodoxy | The Conciliar Anglican...

Good article. Thanks, G².

 

[MKJ]

Hmm, overall I didn't like it much. Especially the bit about justification - I think it missed the boat by a fair margin. I think that compared to Catholicism Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are far far closer on that issue.

I akso thought it was interesting that in the section on Scripture he did not connect the problems he describes in modern Anglicanism with the understanding of Tradition (or in the section on reformation for that matter.)

 

[Crandaddy]

Hmm, overall I didn't like it much. Especially the bit about justification - I think it missed the boat by a fair margin. I think that compared to Catholicism Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are far far closer on that issue.

I akso thought it was interesting that in the section on Scripture he did not connect the problems he describes in modern Anglicanism with the understanding of Tradition (or in the section on reformation for that matter.)

What's wrong with Catholic justification?

 

[Cappadocious]

Hmm, overall I didn't like it much. Especially the bit about justification - I think it missed the boat by a fair margin. I think that compared to Catholicism Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are far far closer on that issue.

I akso thought it was interesting that in the section on Scripture he did not connect the problems he describes in modern Anglicanism with the understanding of Tradition (or in the section on reformation for that matter.)

It also doesn't understand how the Scriptures are used in the Church and have been used historically.

The Fathers "standing on merits" independent of the Scriptures? Since when did any Father write that way?

 

[MKJ]

What's wrong with Catholic justification?

It may be ok on its own, but I think it gets tied up - contradicted really - in the way they talk about purgatory, merits, mortal sin, and so on.

I should say I have no problem with the idea of purgatory as a kind of undefined final purification after death, but I think the CC attempted to define it too closely and are now not really able to walk away from it (although I suspect their better theologians would like to.)

 

[MKJ]

It also doesn't understand how the Scriptures are used in the Church and have been used historically.

The Fathers "standing on merits" independent of the Scriptures? Since when did any Father write that way?

Yes, that too.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting...

 

[ArmyMatt]

It may be ok on its own, but I think it gets tied up - contradicted really - in the way they talk about purgatory, merits, mortal sin, and so on.

I should say I have no problem with the idea of purgatory as a kind of undefined final purification after death, but I think the CC attempted to define it too closely and are now not really able to walk away from it (although I suspect their better theologians would like to.)

I have to agree here. they added and defined things that should not have been, and then they had to add or define others to cover the problems that already arose.

 

[Crandaddy]

It may be ok on its own, but I think it gets tied up - contradicted really - in the way they talk about purgatory, merits, mortal sin, and so on.

I should say I have no problem with the idea of purgatory as a kind of undefined final purification after death, but I think the CC attempted to define it too closely and are now not really able to walk away from it (although I suspect their better theologians would like to.)

Alright, I won't challenge this. But his main point in that section is that, unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy doesn't take a clear stance on the necessity of justification (with some Orthodox even denying the need for justification outright). I myself have seen Orthodox cast aspersions on forensic soteriology (which they deem a distinctively "Western" soteriological approach). This runs perilously close to heresy at best. God is perfectly just, and his perfect justice must be satisfied.

Forensic soteriology is not the only way that we might understand the mystery of salvation, but it is an indispensable part of a comprehensive orthodox soteriology.

 

[GregConstantine]

nope.

God does not "need" anything. If he "needed" anything, He would not be God!

Also, the West has for many 100's of years forgotten or ignored the Patristic approach to theology called apophaticism, or the way of negation. So basically, we talk about God by saying what He is not. So if we say He is "just", we have to say he is not "just" because the concept of justice is human, finite, and fallen, and we cannot ascribe fallen, human, finite, concepts to God is is above and beyond anything our fallen, finite, human minds can grasp.

So, yes, we do reject the Western concepts of justification because it is not bibical, it is not patristic, and its is simply not correct (aka, "Orthodox")

To the original poster, we are glad you have come here to have this discussion with us, but I have to be honest about something. This discussion is not going to go very far until you at least admit that Orthodoxy and Western Christendom are not the same. I think this conversation will just keep going in circles until you come to that acknowledgement.

 

[Cappadocious]

Greg, that's a bit polemical, wouldn't you say?

 

[GregConstantine]

no, not based on how this conversation has been going.

 

[Cappadocious]

Relax.

 

[GregConstantine]

I am relaxed, no need to say "relax", its the reality of the nature of the conversation reg the original poster, based on how he responds and what he says. He needs to come to terms with the fact that the East and West are not the same. I said the conversation will not get anywhere, not because I'm wound up about something, but because I think acknowledging and accepting that we are not the same is needed in order to make the conversation bear any fruit.

Also, this is an internet discussion forum, you cannot tell if I need to relax or not.

 

[Crandaddy]

God does not "need" anything. If he "needed" anything, He would not be God!

Where did I say that God “needs” anything?

Also, the West has for many 100's of years forgotten or ignored the Patristic approach to theology called apophaticism, or the way of negation. So basically, we talk about God by saying what He is not.

The West hasn't forgotten or ignored apophaticism, and I am familiar with it. I also understand that not balancing it out with some cataphaticism wreaks utter havoc not only on Christian theology, but on any revelational theology that relies upon effable dogmas. You'd have to say that God is not Tripersonal, that he is not Incarnate, etc. Basically, you'd have to negate every single proposition of the N-C Creed (and every other effable dogma of your church). Apophaticism unchecked by any cataphaticism at all is simply untenable. This is crystal clear.

So if we say He is "just", we have to say he is not "just" because the concept of justice is human, finite, and fallen, and we cannot ascribe fallen, human, finite, concepts to God is is above and beyond anything our fallen, finite, human minds can grasp.

It is not the case that we are so profoundly fallen that our ability to have any (positive) knowledge of God at all is completely destroyed. We can know that God exists. We can know that He alone is supremely, perfectly good. Related to our ability to know that He is the supreme Good is our ability to know that He is the supreme Lawgiver and the supreme Standard of righteousness, Whose natural law we transgress when we commit sin.

So, yes, we do reject the Western concepts of justification because it is not bibical, it is not patristic, and its is simply not correct (aka, "Orthodox")

So let me get this straight. When I commit sin, I am not willfully violating God's perfect standard of righteousness, I am not therefore justly deserving of appropriate consequences for my sin, and it is not the case that Christ offers me mercy from these consequences by offering Himself as the satisfaction of God's requirement of perfect righteousness that I could never offer by myself? Is this what you're saying?

To the original poster, we are glad you have come here to have this discussion with us, but I have to be honest about something. This discussion is not going to go very far until you at least admit that Orthodoxy and Western Christendom are not the same. I think this conversation will just keep going in circles until you come to that acknowledgement.

I'll acknowledge differences as I see them, and if it is true that Orthodoxy rejects justification as I have described it, then I'll acknowledge that Orthodoxy has gone off the rails into heresy. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but this is how I see it.

 

[GregConstantine]

you asked where did you say God "needed" anything.

You said:

"and his perfect justice must be satisfied."

you didn't use the word "need",but "must" implies something similar to "need".

You also confuse God's actions with his attributes, God became incarnate, we would positively say that, but we will not say God has fallen human attributes or that he is lacking something and is swayed by the passion, or that he "must" do something or be "satisfied".

I don't mean to sound harsh when I say this, but Orthodoxy is the plumb line in determining heresy, not Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism.

 

[Crandaddy]

you asked where did you say God "needed" anything.

You said:

"and his perfect justice must be satisfied."

you didn't use the word "need",but "must" implies something similar to "need".

I'm talking about the satisfaction of God's justice; I'm not saying that God himself has need of anything. If God has a perfect standard of justice, then would it not need to be satisfied? If not, then how could we call it justice?

You also confuse God's actions with his attributes, God became incarnate, we would positively say that, but we will not say God has fallen human attributes or that he is lacking something and is swayed by the passion, or that he "must" do something or be "satisfied".

Again, I'm saying that God's justice must be satisfied. Besides that, I'm not really sure what your point is.

I don't mean to sound harsh when I say this, but Orthodoxy is the plumb line in determining heresy, not Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism.

Alright, but Orthodoxy wouldn't set the standard of orthodoxy by virtue of the meaning of her name alone.