Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[GregConstantine]

This is an Orthodox discussion board, not an Anglican one. I'm not a moderator, but my suggestion would be to take the above discussion about the minutiae of Anglicanism over to an Anglican discussion board.

That being said, I would like to say something about apophatic theology. I nor any other Orthodox person here ever said that our theology is or should be 100% apophatic. that was never stated, so it doesn't need a response. However, I think to say such a think is indicative of a lack of understanding of our theology, because our theology must be lived, not studied by reading books, or admiring from afar, or having long, drawn out intellectual discussions about it. Our theology must be lived, for the life of the Church is the life of Christ. There is one Christ, thefore there is one Church. He is not divided, His Church therefore, is not divided. True understanding lies in not how much we know, the Way is a Person that we come to love. Truth is a person, and Truth is relational.

So yes, a very good question FireDragon76, why not seek communion with the Holy Orthodox Church?

 

[FireDragon76]

The whole project of liturgical change was based on premises about tradition, liturgy and scripture that were new. THat is the fundamental problem with the 20th century liturgical movement and why it has been hand in hand with a major philosophical and theological split among Anglicans.

Cranmer's liturgy, at one time, was new... being influenced as much by Geneva as by ancient Christian liturgies.

So yes, a very good question FireDragon76, why not seek communion with the Holy Orthodox Church?

I'm inquiring at this moment. I am a strong supporter of gay rights and have ties to the gay community (I'm planning to go to a friend's wedding at a Metropolitan Community Church in a few months), however, and this belief has come about due to what I see as faithfulness to the Christian tradition, not in spite of my religious beliefs but because of them. So even if I am persuaded by Orthodox worship and spirituality, I still have a cross to bear if I become Orthodox, because I know most Orthodox Christians would not agree with my own personal opinions and might not understand my lifestyle (but then, I know somebody else who also liked to hang out with social outcasts, so I figure I am in good company). My significant other also might have issues with me being an Orthodox Christian, as well- it's not a simple choice for me.

 

[MKJ]

Why not seek communion with Orthodoxy, though?

The 1979 prayer book has it's flaws (too many options), but the form expressed is closer to ancient Christian liturgies. The understanding of Confirmation enshrined in the 1928 and earlier Prayer Books, as a sacrament seperated from Baptism and used for adult confirmation is not in keeping with ancient Christian practice of chrismating the newly baptized.

Working for peace and justice in the world is not un-Christian, nor is that the only thing in the Baptismal Covenant. Rev. Toon seemed more interested in an individualistic religion, that's fine but it's not necessarily more Christian than one focused on collective responsibilities- as Eastern Orthodox theology is full of a corporate and cosmic understanding of salvation.

The idea that the form is closer to ancient liturgies is part of the problem. In many cases it is not true - it is much more difficult than people think to determine such things. And often, our setting is different and what made sense for them does not for us. And finally, the goal is not to reproduce the earliest liturgies, but to be part of a living body.

Many of the changes made to supposedly become closer to the earlier liturgies were really about excuses to incorporate faddish or politically correct ideas. Celebrating facing the congregation is a good example of that. You dont see them going back to the ancient practice of confessing out loud in front of the whole congregation, or even compulsary confession. The people who embraces the liturgical movement were looking to create their own vision of 20th century Christianity, not a return to 1st century Christianity.

What is quite funny, in all that, is their liturgies are now terrible dated in feel. Rather like the bad Catholic music from the 60s.
o
And spaking of Orthodoxy - the type of liturgy represented in the 1979 BCP is about as far from an Orthodox understanding as you can get, the whole idea of liturgical renewal as we saw in that time is very disturbing to them. Most EO people who have seen a traditional Anglican liturgy really like it - if they have any affection for Anglicanism, that is often where it comes from - the liturgy and the approach to it.

 

[MKJ]

This is an Orthodox discussion board, not an Anglican one. I'm not a moderator, but my suggestion would be to take the above discussion about the minutiae of Anglicanism over to an Anglican discussion board.

That being said, I would like to say something about apophatic theology. I nor any other Orthodox person here ever said that our theology is or should be 100% apophatic. that was never stated, so it doesn't need a response. However, I think to say such a think is indicative of a lack of understanding of our theology, because our theology must be lived, not studied by reading books, or admiring from afar, or having long, drawn out intellectual discussions about it. Our theology must be lived, for the life of the Church is the life of Christ. There is one Christ, thefore there is one Church. He is not divided, His Church therefore, is not divided. True understanding lies in not how much we know, the Way is a Person that we come to love. Truth is a person, and Truth is relational.

So yes, a very good question FireDragon76, why not seek communion with the Holy Orthodox Church?

It sounded vou were arguing for a completely apophatic theology - and I was not, I think, the only one who thought so. That may not be what you meant, but that is how it seemed.

I realize that Orthodox theology does not say that - I was suggesting that you were wrong.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Unfortunately, "forensic" and "juridical" understandings of sin and the atonement, at least on this side of the pond, have been so taken up by, and identified with, the Calvinistic and evangelical teachings on penal substitution, that those words are often used to refer exclusively to that theory of the atonement itself. I think that's where a lot of the confusion arises, especially among converts from those traditions.

.

Good analysis..

 

[Crandaddy]

Why not seek communion with Orthodoxy, though?

I'm not privy to the dialogue that has occurred between the Continuing Anglican and Orthodox churches, so I can't really comment on it. Suffice it to say that I can see no reason to believe that dialogue is actively avoided by either side.

I will say, however, that part of the problem might be a fear that the terms that Orthodoxy requires for unification might entail dissolution of our distinctive Anglican identity. For example, I once read a story of a Continuing Anglican parish that sought to unify with Orthodoxy, and one of the terms that was required of it was that it change its name, as it was named for St. Charles the Martyr. The implication was that since St. Charles is not an approved Orthodox saint, his veneration would no longer be allowed.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not privy to the dialogue that has occurred between the Continuing Anglican and Orthodox churches, so I can't really comment on it. Suffice it to say that I can see no reason to believe that dialogue is actively avoided by either side.

I will say, however, that part of the problem might be a fear that the terms that Orthodoxy requires for unification might entail dissolution of our distinctive Anglican identity. For example, I once read a story of a Continuing Anglican parish that sought to unify with Orthodoxy, and one of the terms that was required of it was that it change its name, as it was named for St. Charles the Martyr. The implication was that since St. Charles is not an approved Orthodox saint, his veneration would no longer be allowed.

I have also heard of a number of parishes who converted as Western Rite parishes, and then felt under constant pressure to become Eastern, or felt looked down upon.

Now, I do not know that this is actually common, or even happened to more than one parish, or at all. But the impression that it is a very likely thing to happen seems very well established.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The implication was that since St. Charles is not an approved Orthodox saint, his veneration would no longer be allowed.

well personal veneration can be anybody. there are many who honor Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Francis of Assisi, etc, and even some pre Christian pagans like Socrates and Lau Tsu. there is just no official Church stamped veneration since they were not in the Orthodox Church in this life, and therefore are in God's hands.

 

[Crandaddy]

well personal veneration can be anybody. there are many who honor Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Francis of Assisi, etc, and even some pre Christian pagans like Socrates and Lau Tsu. there is just no official Church stamped veneration since they were not in the Orthodox Church in this life, and therefore are in God's hands.

But if your church wouldn't mind if each individual member of that parish should choose to venerate St. Charles, then why would she mind if they should choose to venerate him by naming their parish for him? I don't see why only certain types of veneration would be acceptable and others not.

Furthermore, is being a visible communicant in good standing at the local Orthodox parish sufficient by itself to be guaranteed of salvation? Is merely going through the right motions and being visibly accepted by the right ecclesial body all it takes? If not, then aren't even Orthodox in God's hands?

And finally, why in the world should anyone believe that holiness is exclusively confined to a single visible ecclesial body? Why can't Charles be a saint, and why couldn't the Orthodox Church come to recognize this?

 

[FireDragon76]

And finally, why in the world should anyone believe that holiness is exclusively confined to a single visible ecclesial body? Why can't Charles be a saint, and why couldn't the Orthodox Church come to recognize this?

You make a good point- St. Isaac the Syrian is venerated by Orthodox and yet he was technically in a schismatic sect. He was venerated because people recognized holiness and yet they were probably unaware he wasn't Eastern Orthodox.

I know in the Anglican Ordinariate, there has been no demands that Charles the Martyr not be venerated.

 

[buzuxi02]

The problem is trying to understand the church through the schisms of the last few centuries. The Church has always been recognized through its visible boundaries and/or the level of recognition local churches gives to others.

Protestantism changed this, but only apply it to themselves. They afford the luxury of considering themselves an apostolic church but not to the christian sect of Japan or some obscure chinese Jesus sects, nor to the jehovahs witnesses etc. In wanting to rationalize there schism , they also become hippocrites.

The faith handed down from the apostles teaches us there are no fractures in the Body of Christ, not a bone of His was broken. Jesus Christ is not the Head of a fragmented earthly organization. If it were so, that would mean the gates of Hades has prevailed against her and christianity being proven a fraud. God forbid!

There is only one visible Church and only a falling away from that Church. There are counterfeit sects and gnostics and Nicolatians, but Christ is not the head of a syndicate of competing divisions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But if your church wouldn't mind if each individual member of that parish should choose to venerate St. Charles, then why would she mind if they should choose to venerate him by naming their parish for him? I don't see why only certain types of veneration would be acceptable and others not.

Furthermore, is being a visible communicant in good standing at the local Orthodox parish sufficient by itself to be guaranteed of salvation? Is merely going through the right motions and being visibly accepted by the right ecclesial body all it takes? If not, then aren't even Orthodox in God's hands?

And finally, why in the world should anyone believe that holiness is exclusively confined to a single visible ecclesial body? Why can't Charles be a saint, and why couldn't the Orthodox Church come to recognize this?

because we are naming an Orthodox parish. we don't name Orthodox parish after non Orthodox saints. that would be silly and confusing.

you know the answer to your second question is no. you know, from past discussions, that we do not make any statements on anyone unless God as revealed it to us. that is the main reason there is no St Thomas Aquinas Orthodox Church, God has not revealed to us that he is a saint. if He did reveal him to be a saint, it might be different, but He has not yet revealed to us that he is one.

and you also know that holiness goes where God wills. God promised the guaranteed fullness of His grace and truth to the Body He started. in Acts, everyone, even after they believe, joined that Body. he very well may be a saint, but until God tells us that He is one, then we commit his memory to personal piety. that is not us making a judgment of his holiness, but differing the judgment to God until He tells us otherwise.

seriously, we have had these talks before, you know what our answer is to these questions concerning the non-Orthodox.

 

[Constantine_Orthodox]

You make a good point- St. Isaac the Syrian is venerated by Orthodox and yet he was technically in a schismatic sect. He was venerated because people recognized holiness and yet they were probably unaware he wasn't Eastern Orthodox.

I know in the Anglican Ordinariate, there has been no demands that Charles the Martyr not be venerated.

Was St. Isaac the Syrian really a Nestorian?
MYSTAGOGY: Was St. Isaac the Syrian a Nestorian?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Personally, I wonder how the issue would've been handled by the 1st century church if seeing those given sainthood within Orthodoxy which many in the camp have long debated on. People often wonder how someone like Rasputin could be considered by some parts of Orthodoxy for sainthood - and the same with Constantine in much of the corruption he was noted for.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Was St. Isaac the Syrian really a Nestorian?
MYSTAGOGY: Was St. Isaac the Syrian a Nestorian?

a buddy of mine told me that he once appeared to a guy in a dream who refused to venerate him, and St Isaac told him emphatically that he never left what is today the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

Well the links to the blog does say he was Assyrian and mentions Assyrian monasteries and bishoprics that ST. Issac was associated with. To say he wasn't Nestorian doesn't say much as no Assyrian considers themselves Nestorian just like Copts don't consider themselves monophysites. Regardless, it's safe to say ST. Isaac did not accept the 5th ecumenical council, and did not think highly of Alexandrian theology which spawned the non-Chalcedonians.

 

[MKJ]

a buddy of mine told me that he once appeared to a guy in a dream who refused to venerate him, and St Isaac told him emphatically that he never left what is today the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I once had a dream that I was Satans child and had magic powers.

 

[RobNJ]

I once had a dream that I was Satans child and had magic powers.

Ohh...it's TOOO easy!!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

St. Isaac the Syrian is venerated by Orthodox and yet he was technically in a schismatic sect. He was venerated because people recognized holiness and yet they were probably unaware he wasn't Eastern Orthodox..

Seeing how much he was involved in the world of Oriential Orthodoxy, I don't think it's a stretch to note how many saints actually were used amongst many differing circles ..an ecumenical aspect to it since who they were transcended the group they belonged to.

The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (more here and here/here) by (now Metropolitan) Hilarion Alfayev notes how many wonderful contributions he offered (more shared here on that ) - and it was amazing to see how St. Isaac was very representative of others in Syrian world who were very distinct/expressive when it came to the stories they shared to give truth...those stories or parables not having to be broken down like breaking down a math formula - but certain things inherent in them spiritually.

Some say it's problematic that St. Isaac was considered a Nestorian - but IMHO, even if St. Isaac were a Nestorian, that wouldn't shake my faith in the slightest since what matters is the life he lived and what he inspired others to do. The book by Hilarion Alfayev addresses the question of whether St Isaac was a Nestorian quite directly and effectively - and gives a balanced look at his life, background and teaching – including how a Nestorian Bishop came to be venerated by the Chalcedonians

And in being Nestorian, it's technically the case that he's “Nestorian” only in the sense that St. Isaac himself was a part of the Assyrian Church of the East, and not in visible communion with the Eastern Orthodox in his lifetime. One of the best scholars around on Syrian culture and the Syriac Orthodox Tradition - Dr. Sebastian Brock - did some good reviews on the issue as it concerns the ways that some things are not as easily understood when considering how terminology can get lost in translations. For more, one can go here or online/check out the book entitled Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology And Liturgy.

 

[GregConstantine]

"I once had a dream that I was Satans child and had magic powers."

Nice (sarcasm alert) response.

May I ask why you and some other Anglicans are on this board? I sense a bit of hostility from you and Crandaddy, et al