Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[RobNJ]

"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

Now, now,, This IS the debate section: " Debate an Orthodox Christian A place where members can debate with Orthodox Christians"

 

[Crandaddy]

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.

I'm not familiar with these Japanese and Chinese sects, so I can't comment on them. Jehovah's Witness is a heretical sect, but AFAIK, they don't even claim to have apostolic succession (at least not in any sense like the way Anglicans understand it). I fail to see even a hint of hypocrisy in what you cite here.

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!

That there are parts of the Church that you don't recognize by no means entails that Christ's Body is fractured.

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.

Who's competing? I'm not the one here who would claim that the church down the street is a graceless counterfeit, simply because they're not officially and visibly one of 'us.' I would never make such an audacious claim, nor have I ever met any Anglican who has. We realize that no one, save God himself, has any right to make such a claim.

We simply take up our crosses and seek after God the best we know how, and cast no judgment on anyone else. That is as it should be.

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

No, you're not naming an Orthodox parish; you're receiving an already existing Anglican parish into your communion. That you failed to take notice of this seems to me indicative of a pervasive mindset within Orthodoxy of the absolute inferiority, and even worthlessness, of all churches not in visible communion with your own.

If a single parish being received into the Orthodox communion has to change its name, then what if whole Anglican jurisdictions were received? If they have parishes named for St. Charles (or other non-Orthodox saints), would those parishes have to change their names? Where would it stop?

Do you know who St. Charles is and why he's venerated? He was a staunch advocate of the catholicity of the English Church, and a stalwart opponent of Calvinism. He chose to be beheaded, rather than renounce apostolic succession and the episcopacy, and so he's believed to have saved the Church in England.

By making that parish change its name, I'm left with the impression that Orthodoxy could hardly care less if the martyr king, who saved the English Church, were entirely forgotten. Indeed, it seems your church could hardly care less if Anglicanism itself withered on the vine and died completely.

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.

I think the key difference between you and me is that I believe that holiness can be seen independently of visible affiliation with the 'correct' ecclesial body.

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

He didn't say that St. Isaac personally subscribed to the Nestorian heresy. He said that he was a member of a schismatic sect, which he was. He was a bishop in what is today known as the Assyrian Church of the East--which, by the time he died, had been in schism from your church for more than two and a half centuries. That's longer than the United States of America has been separated from the British Crown.

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.

Well, St. Paul wasn't exactly the most savory of characters before his conversion (he was a zealous persecutor of the Church and even a murderer), and he's pretty much universally recognized as one of the Church's greatest saints.

 

[ArmyMatt]

No, you're not naming an Orthodox parish; you're receiving an already existing Anglican parish into your communion. That you failed to take notice of this seems to me indicative of a pervasive mindset within Orthodoxy of the absolute inferiority, and even worthlessness, of all churches not in visible communion with your own.

right, so we are naming a new Orthodox parish. when it ceases to be Anglican and becomes Orthodox, it becomes a new Orthodox parish, and as such, should be named after a saint the Orthodox Church recognizes.

If a single parish being received into the Orthodox communion has to change its name, then what if whole Anglican jurisdictions were received? If they have parishes named for St. Charles (or other non-Orthodox saints), would those parishes have to change their names? Where would it stop?

they would as well, I know you know that.

Do you know who St. Charles is and why he's venerated? He was a staunch advocate of the catholicity of the English Church, and a stalwart opponent of Calvinism. He chose to be beheaded, rather than renounce apostolic succession and the episcopacy, and so he's believed to have saved the Church in England.

um, considering I was raised Anglican....yes. but even if not, it doesn't matter. if he was never Orthodox, and the Orthodox do not recognize him as a saint, we won't name a parish after him. it's prolly why you also never see St Nektarios of Aegina Episcopal Church.

By making that parish change its name, I'm left with the impression that Orthodoxy could hardly care less if the martyr king, who saved the English Church, were entirely forgotten. Indeed, it seems your church could hardly care less if Anglicanism itself withered on the vine and died completely.

well, considering we believe Orthodoxy to be the True Church and Anglicanism to not be, I would say yes, I would like everyone to come home to the True Church. so the English Church that we should want in Orthodoxy would be an Orthodox English Church

I think the key difference between you and me is that I believe that holiness can be seen independently of visible affiliation with the 'correct' ecclesial body.

no it's that you don't read what I actually write. holiness can be seen outside of the Orthodox Church, everyone here who is Orthodox has said this over and over again. however, they should still join the Body that Christ started, because He started it for a reason.

 

[MKJ]

"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

From what I can see, you are pretty consistently the most hostile person here.

 

[Crandaddy]

they would as well, I know you know that.

Well, I know it now (though I did suspect it before).

um, considering I was raised Anglican....yes. but even if not, it doesn't matter. if he was never Orthodox, and the Orthodox do not recognize him as a saint, we won't name a parish after him. it's prolly why you also never see St Nektarios of Aegina Episcopal Church.

In principle at least, I can see no reason why, from an Episcopalian (or Anglican) perspective, an Orthodox parish should not remain named after an Orthodox saint after unifying.

It might seem a little odd to see a St. Nektarios of Aegina Episcopal Church, but I can see no reason in principle why it couldn't ever happen. But then, an Anglican wouldn't see the reception of an Orthodox parish into communion as the complete destruction of one parish and the creatio de novo of another.

well, considering we believe Orthodoxy to be the True Church and Anglicanism to not be, I would say yes, I would like everyone to come home to the True Church. so the English Church that we should want in Orthodoxy would be an Orthodox English Church

In what way might an “Orthodox English Church” remain in any meaningful sense “English”?

no it's that you don't read what I actually write. holiness can be seen outside of the Orthodox Church, everyone here who is Orthodox has said this over and over again. however, they should still join the Body that Christ started, because He started it for a reason.

Where else have you or any other Orthodox explicitly told me that true holiness can be seen (as in recognized) outside of the Orthodox Church? Show it to me, and I'll apologize.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In principle at least, I can see no reason why, from an Episcopalian (or Anglican) perspective, an Orthodox parish should not remain named after an Orthodox saint after unifying.

It might seem a little odd to see a St. Nektarios of Aegina Episcopal Church, but I can see no reason in principle why it couldn't ever happen. But then, an Anglican wouldn't see the reception of an Orthodox parish into communion as the complete destruction of one parish and the creatio de novo of another.

because he was never an Anglican saint, his writings and his life are not indicative, nor do they support, Anglican theology.

In what way might an “Orthodox English Church” remain in any meaningful sense “English”?

language would be English, commemorate British saints that the Orthodox commemorate, keep unique local customs that are English that would keep personal piety, etc.

Where else have you or any other Orthodox explicitly told me that true holiness can be seen (as in recognized) outside of the Orthodox Church? Show it to me, and I'll apologize.

the Church as a whole does not, that is God's business and not ours. but as far as personal devotion of individuals, which the Church is fine with, people have mentioned in the past Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, Francis of Assisi, and, and I know I said this on some thread earlier, even pagans like Socrates and Lau Tsu.

but the Church, does on comment one way or the other, on the salvation of those outside the Orthodox Church. that is why our Churches are not named for non-Orthodox.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.
.

It is very true that the basis behind much of the Reformation and Protestant culture is something which opened the door for certain camps in the Protestant world to develop their views (even if/when they were cult like) - with other Protestants saying they could not claim to be "orthodox" even when they divorced themselves also from Orthodox history....and it does lead to a lot of inconsistency when seeing that where others choose to go further than another group will always be deemed "going too far" by the previous group which tried to set limits past itself - even when it was the case that they may've been deemed "out of bounds" by a group preceding them.

There was actually another thread elsewhere on the matter which went more in-depth on the issue - entitled Protestant Reformation vs Primitive Restoration ( #208 #215 #552 #776 ) and The Renaissance vs Reformatiom: Which One Advanced Mankind Further?

But on the issue, I think it should be noted that even within Orthodoxy there have been battles where others wondered if the Church was lost - seeing the many times the Church was used (sadly) by others to do terrible wrongs to others. Part of me was honestly thinking about the ways that some parts of EO seemed to get too connected with the State and there was sharp disagreements, such as what occurred with the COmmunist Regime/the Church being used by the Secret police to find out those who were secret/underground believers. For Soviet Communism was adamant in it's oppression of Catholicism/other groups and many Orthodox leaders worked hard to minimized Catholic influence in Russia, finding themselves helping the Communists locate members of the underground Catholic Church for interrogation (torture) or death, while other Orthodox members who disagreed with the ways the Russian Orthodox Church was being misused by the State were also persecuted. There were many righteous Catholics and other Non-Orthodox who represented the Lord - and helped other godly Orthodox in their struggle....and thus, there was no need saying "You're not as highly esteemed as I am in the Lord simply because you're not Orthodox" .......for they both suffered for the name of Christ. And the Church - be it those in Orthodoxy or those outside of it who were believers/preaching the Word - stood strong.

But mess nonetheless went on. The same goes for examining where there has been persecution of pagans and Evangelicals via the use of an institution (i.e. Orthodoxy) in Greece--something many have noted to be a form of discrimination...and the same goes for how other Non-ROC are treated in Russia today ( more shared in#209 #212 / discussed here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc). There's also the terrible persecutions under the Russian Orthodox Church of the Old Believers, such as the protopope Avvakum, finally burned alive after years of prison.

Some of the severe reactions done by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Old Believers, such as the protopope Avvakum, were never the best of times in Church history - in light of the resistance he led against the the CHurch in opposition to many reforms that were made in 1652 by Nikon, as Patriarch of the Russian Church, who initiated a wide range of reforms in Russian liturgy and theology...mostly intended to bring the Russian Church into line with the other Orthodox Churches of Eastern Europe and Middle East.

For many, the individual would be deemed as "saint" ( more shared in #2 #4 #5 on OLD Believers still alive today) - even if others in EO would never have thought of himself as such.....and even those within Orthodoxy may not always act Orthodox while others outside of the camp may be more so in spirit/lifestyle and faithfulness to the Early Church than others who grew up in it - but act just like others in the world.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not familiar with these Japanese and Chinese sects, so I can't comment on them.

There was actually more discussion elsewhere on the issue - in regards to some of the Japanese sects that developed in intense points of time/history...as seen here:

For 40 Years, This Russian Family Was Cut Off From All Human Contact, Unaware of World War II | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine

The experience of the Lykovs seemed similar to what has happened with Crypto-Christianity where groups are forced to go underground to practice their faith---and it has been interesting to see how many strains/variations there are with others having the same experience..such as groups like Kakure Kirishtan , hidden Japanese believers in Japan who went underground after MASSIVE persecution began against believers in the time prior to Japan locking itself away from the world (during the life of St.Francis Xavier and prior when others, Nestorian Believers especially, were trailblazers in making serious inroads into Japan with the Gospel) - and in going underground, they actually developed into something radically different from those who helped in their foundations since they were cut off from access to the outside world for centuries

Amazing to consider the ways that going into hibernation physically when the world changes can change you and cause you to emerge much differently than how you were before going underground. The nature of environments causing you to evolve in ways to match your environment.''

I say that in light of a documentary I saw recently that intrigued me - in regards to studies I've been doing on Japan/Christianity's development there.

Hidden Christians - Japan​

Kakure Kirishtan , hidden Japanese believers in Japan who went underground after MASSIVE persecution began against believers in the time prior to Japan locking itself away from the world (during the life of St.Francis Xavier and prior when others, Nestorian Believers especially, were trailblazers in making serious inroads into Japan with the Gospel with St.Francis Xavier setting the way as it concerns Inculturation/finding ways of presenting the Gospel in cultural terms that the local populace would understand...and thus, helping them to better understand Christ) - and in going underground, they actually developed into something radically different from those who helped in their foundations since they were cut off from access to the outside world for centuries. The Hidden Christians have been amazing to me in light of their serious loyalty to St.Francis Xavier for helping them in their growth and also their actions in how they tried to cope with persecution.​

• Lack of Oppression Hurts Christianity in Japan" ( )
• - "Photo-Documentary of Christian history in Japan with Concentration on Hidden Christians" (

​

​

​

​

There are others who feel that what the Japanese did is to be condemned without any sympathy...as others feel that the “Hidden Christians” of Japan have let our faith become so intertwined with our culture that it no longer bears much resemblance to true Christianity. Of course, its sad to see how over time the Crypto-Christians confused their Christian beliefs and their Japanese disguises, resulting in the emergence of a hybrid religion no longer resembling the orthodox faith of the missionaries. However, I think that its interesting to see how the Japanese strategy of adopting Japanese cultural forms to mask their Christian faith continued for 240 years and yet their survival plan backfired...

When I look at the Hidden Christians, I'm saddened by what they experienced - and also not surprised by their reactions. It is perhaps more interesting to look at the Hidden Christians who rejected the Church once it arrived, or to scoff at the erroneous teachings that came up during the centuries of hiding. I probably would've too if I didn't grow up with a Bible/had all the facts for so long of a time..

To my knowledge, many of the early Japanese Christians were not very well catechized simply because there weren't enough priests. Towards the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate, it seemed that Christianity was seen as a perilous foreign influence - due partially to the fact that it was seen (fairly or unfairly) as an attempt by the Portuguese to weaken the traditional structures. Adding to the issue was the fact that things became worse when a group of persecuted Christians actually did rebel...and Christianity became outlawed for Japanese, with the priests being expelled and a very long and very harsh era of persecution beginning.

As a practical matter the Church had to go underground since the government was putting a lot effort into completely rooting out and destroying the Church - setting up check-points where people would be required to stomp on a sacred Christian image, usually of the crucified Christ, or else be apprehended as a secret Christian..with the sentence for being a Christian usually being death after torture.

It seemed like the situation was complicated further by the fact that the action of Christian practices having to underground was done simultaneously with the actions of the West when the Vatican didn't really have a high priority in sending more priests to aid them. Many have noted that the intense persecution the Church was undergoing was more or less unknown on the other side of the world and the Latin Church was focused on how there was much to do throughout Asia. Trying to smuggle in new priests into the country seemed even more problematic since it was a very rare occurrence.

With the global isolation that the persecuted Japanese Church faced, it seemed like the Hidden Christians had to do the best they could with what they possessed - whether that be practicing the prayers they remembered or praying to Jesus and hoping for the day the Church would be properly established in Japan. The realization of how their struggle would last for a long time led them to pass whatever information they could to their children - but this got complicated with being a Crypto-Christian group that knew that anything that they fashioned had to resemble, at least in part, something properly Buddhist or Shintoist to avoid persecution.

Although much of the world had long forgotten the Japanese in their struggle and a remnant did hold out as long as they could, it seems that what evolved was a culture where they had never seen a priest or heard the Bible directly from a printed copy - leading to information getting lost in translation

Sad to witness how they were on the back-burner..though even in places such as China, there were (to my knowledge) many complaints given by other missionaries there who felt that Asian nations generally were treated the same way as it concerns disrespect/assuming that the West was what they needed to conform to...and if not done on the terms of the West, then there was little concern with addressing ways of inculturation within Asian lands. Its one of the reasons why Crypto-Christianity even began, due the persecution that happened later with the Chineese Rites Controversy---which wasn't apologized for till much later when others realized that how Christendom developed in the West was going to be naturally different from how it was to rise up in the East, just as Christianity/discipleship in European lands was radically different in many ways from how it was in Jewish culture and lands such as Palestine and the Middle East.

Much of it does remind me of how many Jews acted after coming back from the Exile of 70 years, as living in Babylon and Persia led to the rise of many things that were not originally apart of the culture....such as synagouges (in light of lacking a physical temple) and the rise of rabbis in place of priests. The language of Hebrew began to die out, as noted in Nehemiah 13:23-25 Nehemiah 13 ..though that was due more so to intermarriage and not reinforcing what was apart of their heritage. I think that the Hidden Christians are similar to what occurred to others who live in isolation from others and think that what it is they grew up with was truly what things were originally. If I grew up in a home under intense persecution and inherited a tradition from my parents that was conveyed to them by their parents to be what true Christians originally brought, I'd naturally not question it. And if I was told to hold out to help arrived, I'd naturally assume that what I was taught to keep in the meantime was what the original faith was....

In seeing their example, I know others have said what they had was simply religion and no relationship with CHrist. However, I don't really think that what they have is just religion handed down truthfully anymore than it was for others where they did what they knew in obediance to the Lord - even though they didn't have all the facts for a myriad of reasons. I'm reminded of Acts 10 with Cornelius who never heard of Jesus - and yet he knew of how he was to live righteous and he was devout in sharing with the poor/giving alms and the Lord said it was like a memorial to Him. Romans 2 comes to mind where Paul said that those without the law become a law unto themselves and that the Lord would judge them based on what they knew/were obediant to - and Romans 3:25-26/Acts 17:30 where Paul notes that God overlooked certain things when there was ignorance and that the Lord made provision in Christ (Acts 3:17, Acts 13;27, etc.), I have to take that seriously.

I think a lot of people have issue with the ways they have chosen to present the Gospel in terms the culture uses, although I've seen this occur in differing levels with inculturation and early Christianity.

The two Virgin Marys was pretty astounding when seeing their support of such - as I'm not certain as to how that'd logically work itself out if believing that connected with Christ.

I saw this recently on FB - and it was simply beautiful. It's a Japanese Christian Orthodox Icon (in the Nihonga style of the late 19th-early 20th century) - and I figured I'd share it as I thought it'd bless you or someone else out there:

Only God can determine who is saved and who isn't.

​

There's also the issue of what occurred with the Chinese Rites controversy - more shared here:

• The Chinese Rites Controversy
• Binding Friendship: Ricci, China, and Jesuit Cultural Learnings
• “The Chinese Rites Controversy: - Ricci Institute - University of
• Contextualization and the Chinese Rites Controversy | China, the
• Catholic encyclopedia - The Church in China (includes a section about the controversy
• The Chinese Rites Controversy: A Long Lasting Controversy in Sino-Western Cultural History
• Mission Work In Non-Orthodox Lands: Are There Lessons To Be Learned From The “Rites Controversy”?
• Of Rites and Wrongs: The Chinese rites controversy of the seventeenth century entangled Jesuits in Europe as well as in China

 

[Gxg (G²)]

He didn't say that St. Isaac personally subscribed to the Nestorian heresy. He said that he was a member of a schismatic sect, which he was. He was a bishop in what is today known as the Assyrian Church of the East--which, by the time he died, had been in schism from your church for more than two and a half centuries. That's longer than the United States of America has been separated from the British Crown..

The extensive amount of time that the Assyrian Church of the East had been separated and on their own evolutionary path (from a theological perspective) is noteworthy - and when it comes to the Assyrian Church of the East (more here in #3 #63 /#126 ), they have had their own battles unique to where they are and have often had the same sentiments toward other camps that continued on outside of them just as EO have had views on other camps that broke off from them.

Only the OO (Oriential Orthodox) have a history that comes close to time in separation than the Assyrian Church of the East - as they remained in agreement with how the early church saw things prior to Chalcedon and thus feel they had no need of alteration...

Well, St. Paul wasn't exactly the most savory of characters before his conversion (he was a zealous persecutor of the Church and even a murderer), and he's pretty much universally recognized as one of the Church's greatest saints

With St.Paul, the difference is the lifestyle he lived afterward - of being devout, practicing charity and preaching the GOOD News. It was never a matter of him even considering himself a saint since he consistently felt he was the least of the Apostles.

 

[FireDragon76]

because he was never an Anglican saint, his writings and his life are not indicative, nor do they support, Anglican theology.

Modern Anglicans have no exclusive theology. Orthodox saints like Seraphim of Sarov, St. Elizabeth of Moscow, and St. John Maximovitch are commemorated on Anglican calendars, I see no reason why other Orthodox saints could not be commemorated.

 

[Nephi]

Modern Anglicans have no exclusive theology.

Not exclusive almost to a fault. While Orthodox saints can be venerated in a church setting, so can random people be venerated (even if not commemorated per calendar), like Hypatia, Anne Frank, Sojourner Truth, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jalal Rumi, and so on.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Not exclusive almost to a fault. While Orthodox saints can be venerated in a church setting, so can random people be venerated (even if not commemorated per calendar), like Hypatia, Anne Frank, Sojourner Truth, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jalal Rumi, and so on.

Sojourner Truth is definitely someone who I'd love to see venerated

 

[Nephi]

Sojourner Truth is definitely someone who I'd love to see venerated

The only religious affiliation I'm aware of her having belonged to was under this cult-prophet around the same time the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was in Kirkland, OH (the two prophets actually met, hilariously enough, and ended with them condemning each other as false prophets). I realize she didn't stay with this prophet "Matthias," since he was later prosecuted for fraud and lost his small following, and I assumed she lived the rest of her life as a pseudo-Christian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Modern Anglicans have no exclusive theology. Orthodox saints like Seraphim of Sarov, St. Elizabeth of Moscow, and St. John Maximovitch are commemorated on Anglican calendars, I see no reason why other Orthodox saints could not be commemorated.

yeah, I know that's how it is (unfortunately), but they really should not be. especially since a guy like St John was opposed to that kind of ecumenism.

 

[Crandaddy]

There was actually more discussion elsewhere on the issue - in regards to some of the Japanese sects that developed in intense points of time/history...as seen here:There's also the issue of what occurred with the Chinese Rites controversy - more shared here:

• The Chinese Rites Controversy
• Binding Friendship: Ricci, China, and Jesuit Cultural Learnings
• “The Chinese Rites Controversy: - Ricci Institute - University of
• Contextualization and the Chinese Rites Controversy | China, the
• Catholic encyclopedia - The Church in China (includes a section about the controversy
• The Chinese Rites Controversy: A Long Lasting Controversy in Sino-Western Cultural History
• Mission Work In Non-Orthodox Lands: Are There Lessons To Be Learned From The “Rites Controversy”?
• Of Rites and Wrongs: The Chinese rites controversy of the seventeenth century entangled Jesuits in Europe as well as in China

Thank you for the info, G²!

Actually, it seems I have read a little about the Kakure Kirishitans before, and if memory serves, it seems I've seen that video before as well. I think it just took your post here to give my memory a little jog...

But I think it's truly amazing and a testament to the power of the Gospel that Christianity in any form managed to survive from that period in Japanese history, given their circumstances of being cut off from contact with the rest of the Church and having to endure such severe persecution for centuries.

I don't see them as heretics (their heterodox beliefs notwithstanding), and I don't think they should be condemned for the mutated, hybridized religion that emerged. I think they did the best they could with what they had, and I think the survival of even a heavily mutated form of Christianity proves that.

God doesn't so much care for what doctrines we pay lip service to as for how we live. So yes, I expect that at least some Kakure Kirishitans will be saved.

With St.Paul, the difference is the lifestyle he lived afterward - of being devout, practicing charity and preaching the GOOD News. It was never a matter of him even considering himself a saint since he consistently felt he was the least of the Apostles.

You do have a point there. I must admit that I've wondered about some Orthodox saints, myself...

The only religious affiliation I'm aware of her having belonged to was under this cult-prophet around the same time the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was in Kirkland, OH (the two prophets actually met, hilariously enough, and ended with them condemning each other as false prophets). I realize she didn't stay with this prophet "Matthias," since he was later prosecuted for fraud and lost his small following, and I assumed she lived the rest of her life as a pseudo-Christian.

She was a Seventh-day Adventist for most of the latter half of her life, and died as such.

yeah, I know that's how it is (unfortunately), but they really should not be. especially since a guy like St John was opposed to that kind of ecumenism.

1) To my knowledge, no post-Schism Orthodox saints are officially venerated by either the ACC, the APCK, or the UECNA at present.

2) I should think that we would not allow any objectionable Orthodox saints to be officially venerated. We do have standards, you know.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1) To my knowledge, no post-Schism Orthodox saints are officially venerated by either the ACC, the APCK, or the UECNA at present.

2) I should think that we would not allow any objectionable Orthodox saints to be officially venerated. We do have standards, you know.

well, with Anglicanism the way it is now, who defines objectionable?

and since Charles was never in the Orthodox Church, and did not believe or confess what we do, that is the objection.

 

[FireDragon76]

Anglicans that join Rome through the Ordinariate are allowed to continue to venerate Charles Stuart as a martyr. There have even been Roman Catholics that have talked about the possibility of his beatification, because he died for Catholic principles like episcopacy.

I see where Crandaddy is comming from, the only way that Anglicans can be recognized by the East is to deny a large part of their patrimony altogether, and that is impossible for many to do corporately.

 

[Nephi]

Thank you for the info, G²!
She was a Seventh-day Adventist for most of the latter half of her life, and died as such.

Then she unfortunately yet likely lived and died as a non-Trinitarian, with Seventh-day Adventists being largely non-Trinitarian until the early-middle 20th century. FWIW.

 

[Crandaddy]

well, with Anglicanism the way it is now, who defines objectionable?

The standards of our faith--the Scriptures, the Creeds, the Articles, etc.--have always defined what is objectionable. As a former Anglican, you should know that.

and since Charles was never in the Orthodox Church, and did not believe or confess what we do, that is the objection.

Kinda like St. Isaac, you mean?

As I see it, you have exactly one standard for canonization: They have to belong to the right club... except when they don't.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

She was a Seventh-day Adventist for most of the latter half of her life, and died as such.

.

From what I remember, although she traveled freely to numerous churches speaking on God's desire for abolition of slavery (as she was a slave who experienced the lack of education many others did due to the way churches were set up to not allow others to know things fully).....she later became involved with the popular Spiritualism religious movement of the time, through a group called the Progressive Friends, an offshoot of the Quakers. As they were very mystically oriented and felt one could connect with the Lord in a myriad of places - plus having a traveling mindset - it wasn't hard for Sojourner to often connect with the Quaker world.



She worked often with activist Quakers, some of them helping her make an official complaint in court about how her son was once severely harmed by being sold into slavery.

• Sojourner Truth
• This Far by Faith . Sojourner Truth | PBS
• The Narrative of Sojourner Truth - Page 69
• WashingtonPost.com: Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol
• Sojourner Truth's America - Page 151 - Google Books Result
• Sojourner Truth in Life and Memory: Writing the - Nell Irvin Painter

The only religious affiliation I'm aware of her having belonged to was under this cult-prophet around the same time the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith was in Kirkland, OH (the two prophets actually met, hilariously enough, and ended with them condemning each other as false prophets). I realize she didn't stay with this prophet "Matthias," since he was later prosecuted for fraud and lost his small following, and I assumed she lived the rest of her life as a pseudo-Christian.

Not really seeing that from what I've studied from her in black history ...