Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[ArmyMatt]

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.

tell that to the practicing homosexual priests, druids, ones who believe in abortion, guys like Spong who deny the Resurrection, etc and are all still in good standing.

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

actually, as has been said on here my more than just me, St Isaac appeared in a dream to a monk and said he never was outside of communion of the Orthodox faith. I really hope I don't have to say that again. yes there is controversy, but there is evidence to support him as a member of what would become the Eastern Orthodox Communion, so please stop using him as some kinda talking point.

so yes, only those in the club that were in the club, or that God has revealed to us that we should venerate. he has done no such thing with Charles.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thank you for the info, G²!
.

Not a problem, Crandaddy..

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...

Got ya..

Glad it helped in memory 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.

It definitely makes you wonder what any of us would've done in similar circumstances - and if perhaps we'd be guilty of the same thing, even if our desires were indeed Orthodox in intent - but we had no awareness of how things played out due to time...and chance.

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.

Can see merit in that myself when it comes to seeing the heart of the Lord...

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

Which ones in specific?

 

[Crandaddy]

It definitely makes you wonder what any of us would've done in similar circumstances - and if perhaps we'd be guilty of the same thing, even if our desires were indeed Orthodox in intent - but we had no awareness of how things played out due to time...and chance.

Well, their manner of concealment (by posing as Buddhists, say) might be morally questionable, but I don't see them as guilty of the alterations to their faith that occurred. I don't think it was so much a deliberate alteration of the faith they received as a loss of information due to circumstances that were beyond their control.

I imagine that what written texts they might have had were confiscated and destroyed. I'm sure they made an effort to commit Scriptures, prayers, liturgical forms, etc. to memory, but when the people who knew that information were martyred and they couldn't go back to the Portuguese to regain it, all they could do was put their heads together and try to remember how it went.

This would explain why they have prayers composed of a mishmash of Latin, Portuguese, Japanese, and even made up words. Deliberate alteration of the religion would follow a rational pattern of development, and so we should not expect to see the prayers as disordered as they appear to be. Rather, the prayers that we see tell the tale of a severely persecuted and isolated group of Christians desperately trying to preserve what little information they had.

Which ones in specific?

Well, Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky is one who I've picked on recently. He was a particularly zealous advocate of what I can most charitably call church idolatry. But perhaps I best not get started on him, as he gets me rather hot under the collar...

Another who comes to mind is Nikodemos the Hagiorite. I understand that Nikodemos endorsed the practice of re-baptizing all converts to Orthodoxy from non-Orthodox Christian traditions--including those who had already received valid Trinitarian baptisms from those traditions. This certainly included Catholics (who he branded "heretics"), and I'm sure it would have included Anglicans and Oriental Orthodox as well.

Nikodemos also seems to have popularized the view that non-Orthodox sacraments are nothing more than empty forms that can be 'filled' with grace only by the Orthodox Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

let's not call out Orthodox saints shall we, even though this is a debate forum.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky is one who I've picked on recently. He was a particularly zealous advocate of what I can most charitably call church idolatry. But perhaps I best not get started on him, as he gets me rather hot under the collar...

I'd love to hear more about that (church idolatry), perhaps on another forum.

Nikodemos also seems to have popularized the view that non-Orthodox sacraments are nothing more than empty forms that can be 'filled' with grace only by the Orthodox Church.

I'm puzzled how this is such a common opinion in the Orthodox Church. Not even Roman Catholics claim this about Protestants. In my mind it's a blindness that actually hurts Orthodox Christians.

I'm inclined now days to believe in the branch theory more. Not that I believe all branches are equal, but the other extreme is to say there is no grace outside a particular communion or movement

 

[Nephi]

I'm puzzled how this is such a common opinion in the Orthodox Church. Not even Roman Catholics claim this about Protestants. In my mind it's a blindness that actually hurts Orthodox Christians.

While I'm moderately liberal on these issues (as my sig somewhat shows ), I'm afraid statements that amount to "this is a hurtful, mean view" are often overlooking (without actually engaging) earlier Christian traditions on the topic. One early church father (can't remember who ATM, but I'm certain was pre-schism) actually went so far as to say that the blessings of heretics were rather curses instead. I'm not saying I agree with that kind of anti-other mentality, but I think it needs to be engaged in a way that I never see Anglicans (for example) attempt as they insist on merely decrying it as "mean, uncharitable, etc."

This is somewhat relevant to your post, but more general comments on something I've observed lately and the emotional knee-jerk response to Orthodox (and Cahtolic) traditionalists has been bothering me.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not a matter of hurt feelings, it's a matter of measuring other people or groups by the worst, and yourself only by the best. There's a great deal of delusion in that. Being charitable is not just nice manners, it is the path to truth. Polemicism helps no one.

 

[Nephi]

It's not a matter of hurt feelings, it's a matter of measuring other people or groups by the worst, and yourself only by the best. There's a great deal of delusion in that. Being charitable is not just nice manners, it is the path to truth. Polemicism helps no one.

Except that's dismissive on the grounds of "not being charitable" and "delusion." It's not a matter of "measuring other people or groups by the worst, and yourself only by the best" and that's a dishonest way of portraying their position. This is what I mean re: emotional knee-jerk. It takes nothing into consideration like the Church being viewed as an orthodox(lower-case)-believing episcopacy mystically united in the eucharist through apostolic succession, etc.

If someone has these sort of beliefs of the Church as I do, then it's hard to say that Baptists have valid sacraments as they have neither orthodox-believing bishops nor a real eucharist, for example. So it's hard to say that they constitute the church, since everywhere a bishop is celebrating the eucharist is the complete (catholic) church present, not just a part of it, per Orthodox ecclesiology. And so it's hard to recognize their sacraments. It's not just a matter of "others = bad, self = great."

 

[FireDragon76]

Florovsky has a good answer for you- the non-Orthodox are in imperfect, impaired communion with the canonical East. That is the only belief that seems to make sense of the reality. The traditional agnosticism of the Orthodox doesn't do justice to the issue, otherwise.

I see groups like Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, even Lutherans having equal claims of apostolicity. There is no way to know for sure that the faith of the modern Eastern Orthodox is exactly the same as the faith of the ancient church- it must be taken on faith.

 

[truthseeker32]

I've never heard an Orthodox Christian claim that all other Christians are devoid of grace. Most I have spoken to share an opinion similar to Florovsky's.

I see groups like Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists, even Lutherans having equal claims of apostolicity. There is no way to know for sure that the faith of the modern Eastern Orthodox is exactly the same as the faith of the ancient church- it must be taken on faith.

How can they all have an equal claim when they all make different claims? Either the Pope is the supreme vicar of Christ or he isn't. Either Anglicans have valid apostolic succession or they don't. Lutherans are either correct in their understanding of apostolic succession or they aren't.

We can't prove that all elements of the Orthodox faith are similar to the earliest Church, but we can demonstrate that a whole lot of Orthodox practices are similar. The question then becomes whether any other Church has as many or more similarities to the early Church, or if such a determination matters at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

We can't prove that all elements of the Orthodox faith are similar to the earliest Church, but we can demonstrate that a whole lot of Orthodox practices are similar. The question then becomes whether any other Church has as many or more similarities to the early Church, or if such a determination matters at all.

No, it's a question of essentials, not maximalism. You can have lots of externals be the same as the early Church, but if Christ doesn't dwell there with His Spirit, what's the point?

I know alot of Protestants and Catholics that obviously know Christ. I know alot of lukewarm Orthodox, too. If the canonical claims of Orthodoxy squared with sanctity, this shouldn't happen.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know alot of Protestants and Catholics that obviously know Christ. I know alot of lukewarm Orthodox, too. If the canonical claims of Orthodoxy squared with sanctity, this shouldn't happen.

no because that has been how it's been since the Apostles. man is still fallen with free will, and often is lukewarm.

No, it's a question of essentials, not maximalism. You can have lots of externals be the same as the early Church, but if Christ doesn't dwell there with His Spirit, what's the point?

no, taking it down to the essentials is only a modern way that the West uses to explain why they are so divided.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, I can think of lots of ways the east missed the boat.... I see a lack of real interest in liberation theology in the East, whereas even Roman Catholicism has embraced this once controversial idea to a degree, recognizing the deep biblical roots of this theology.

The East has alot of theology about the Church... but there's more to being a Christian than having a high view of the Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

Well, I can think of lots of ways the east missed the boat.... I see a lack of real interest in liberation theology in the East, whereas even Roman Catholicism has embraced this once controversial idea to a degree, recognizing the deep biblical roots of this theology.

The East has alot of theology about the Church... but there's more to being a Christian than having a high view of the Church.

Glad we missed that boat. Oh and firedragon perhaps you should get on a plane and visit a christian community in the east, so you know what true christianity is all about. Have you ever been to a place where the entire community gathers around the church before midnite, shall I say an entire city, to sing the Christos Anesti hymn and then take the holy light to their homes, lighting up the night as thousands walk home in joy holding their candles. And the next day entire villages gathering in the squares where all sorts of food are prepared where they greet one another with Christ is Risen! for 40 days. How about visiting a community on the Dormition of the Theotokos where the people gather to honor the Theotokos and special festivities take place and many wear their traditional garb. How about on the Theophany where youths gather to take a dive into waters to catch a cross tossed in n by the priest after the waters have been hallowed. Or go to the river Jordan julian style where after the singing of epiphany hymns the river reverses its course.
Your right theres more to christianity that just church just like theres more to christianity than getting drunk on christmas eve and giving presents (as the west practises).

 

[Nephi]

Well, I can think of lots of ways the east missed the boat.... I see a lack of real interest in liberation theology in the East, whereas even Roman Catholicism has embraced this once controversial idea to a degree, recognizing the deep biblical roots of this theology.

The East has alot of theology about the Church... but there's more to being a Christian than having a high view of the Church.

Catholicism has embraced liberation theology? Pope Francis, when he was still Cardinal, was an extremely outspoken and influential opponent against liberation theology in Argentina. IIRC he even censured priests that taught it.

It is controversial and is by no means, AFAIK, universally accepted or even by the majority.

 

[buzuxi02]

Well atleast these posts in this thread prove that Anglicanism and Orthodoxy are incompatible and are two separate religions. We may now go to our own forums, amongst people of our own culture and belief systems.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is controversial and is by no means, AFAIK, universally accepted or even by the majority.

Elements of it are mainstream, like "the preferential option for the poor".

.
Your right theres more to christianity that just church just like theres more to christianity than getting drunk on christmas eve and giving presents (as the west practises).

Diving after crosses? Holy Fire (pious fraud)? Puh-leez... Christ nowhere told us that those things were the mark of being a Christian. Your examples of "authentic" Christian faith are laughable.

How about visiting a western Christian community where we do real Christian things like collect blankets and food for the homeless or pray for the sick?

 

[Nephi]

Diving after crosses? Holy Fire (pious fraud)? Puh-leez...

Returning the same dismissive attitude isn't the best way to show him he's mistaken.

 

[buzuxi02]

How about visiting a western Christian community where we do real Christian things like collect blankets and food for the homeless or pray for the sick?

Westerners do that? Thats a surprise. Oh wait do you mean using your money to proselytise? Or using your money to show your elitism to the poor as happened in Haiti after the earthquake? Do you remember when the haitian government expelled many western charitable groups for their 'holier than thou' attitude.

Funny how it was you that came into TAW asking if you can join. But of course the amount of provacateurs that try to infiltrate the Orthodox church from Anglicanism to change it to a more decadent western ideal.
I wonder why???

Where are your martyrs? Where are your saints? Who are these Church Fathers who confessed branch theory? Who are the fathers that shunned personal holiness for this 'social gospel' anglicans peddle? Im sorry my friend but the social gospel can only be carried out by rich nations and is a degragation to those poor christian nations who cannot afford clinics and charity groups to be headquartered in all sorts of places. Remember the widows mite.

But as I said, we atleast reached a definite conclusion on this thread that Holy Orthodoxy and Lowly Anglicanism are miles apart and constitute different religions. I think thats something we can all agree on.

 

[FireDragon76]

Westerners do that? Thats a surprise. Oh wait do you mean using your money to proselytise?

You are comparing different religious groups... Episcopalians I know give without strings attached and without those expectations.

Funny how it was you that came into TAW asking if you can join. But of course the amount of provacateurs that try to infiltrate the Orthodox church from Anglicanism to change it to a more decadent western ideal.
I wonder why???

Just because someone disagrees with your parochial attitudes doesn't make them decadent.

Yes, I was interested in the Orthodox Church but I do not agree with your slander against western Christians. Instead of judging our attitudes maybe you could try listening to us and trying to understand why we believe what we do.

Diving for crosses is rather like advent wreaths and organs- it's an externality. Most of the time for Christimas anymore I don't exchange presents, I set up a nativity set and go to midnight Eucharist. I don't have parties because I live surrounded by irreligious people and I believe Christmas is strictly a religious holiday that I observe privately. The real important bit of Christmas or Pascha (Easter) is not the candles, fires, and processions, it is Christ, and that doesn't require anything but a willing heart.

I know some very poor Episcopalians too. A few months ago I basicly met the widow with her mite and a brain tumor. And you know what, the priest prayed for her (and so did I), anointed her with oil, the next week she was walking without a walker and now her tumor is gone and she went on to work with the homeless. There are many Anglicans and Episcopalians of real piety and holiness but you won't see us putting them up in a showy manner because the emphasis is always on God, not religion. God is so much bigger than the externalities of religion.

On the contrary, the local Orthodox Church is the rich church, the church where only the priest is really talking about social justice (and then it's privately with me, because nobody in his congregation is interested), his congregation too interested in their suburban comfortable lifestyles and very much focused on the externalities of religion- like fasting and prayer. Most of these people wouldn't know what poverty was like at all. The road to hell is paved with the most pious of intentions.

I come to these boards looking for real Christian spirituality instead what I see is xenophobia and homophobia. It's rather sad. I'm glad the Orthodox Church is bigger than this.