Orthodoxy and Anglicanism Ecumenical Dialogue

[truthseeker32]

If love for God and charitable efforts are the markers we should be looking for in a church, then we should all go become Roman Catholics (largest charity overall) and Mormons (most charitable per capita) since they far outdo others in these fields.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If love for God and charitable efforts are the markers we should be looking for in a church, then we should all go become Roman Catholics (largest charity overall) and Mormons (most charitable per capita) since they far outdo others in these fields.

well, love for God is not a numbers game. and I say that knowing we Orthodox have a long way to go. but it does not make Orthodoxy less or more true, it just means too many are not living up to their faith the way they should. but even then, that faith would be the True Faith.

 

[Nephi]

The Antiochian and Syriac Churches do plenty of charitable and humanitarian work in Syria. Point is, one can't extrapolate based on a limited experience of Orthodoxy (or any church for that matter, so we can't do it either) to the entire system.

 

[Crandaddy]

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."

Speaking for myself, the problem has never been about Orthodox being "mean, uncharitable, etc." If you look hard enough, I'm sure you could find some distinguished personage in just about every Christian tradition who's said something that isn't very nice, and perhaps even downright mean.

What alarms me is that there appears to be a disturbingly exclusivistic vein of thought that enjoys acceptance within your communion. The reason I've been picking on Archbishop Hilarion is because he seems to have denied even the possibility that there can be grace outside of visible communion with the Orthodox Church. To my knowledge, this view has never been censured by your church, and I have encountered other Orthodox who have expressed views very similar to it.

This distresses me greatly, not only because I know for a fact that it's mistaken, but also because I strongly suspect that it arises from a distortion of the Gospel message itself.

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

First of all, there is no singular institution called "the West" that exists in order to be divided. I frequently see this sort of faulty reasoning Catholics, where in place of "the West," they substitute "Protestantism." From a neutral perspective, there are simply a bunch of Christian sects that are separated from each other (for whatever reasons), and the Orthodox Church is one of them, just like any of the others. Yes, I know you think your church is special, and that everyone else has broken away from you, but any other sect could say the exact same thing about themselves.

And second, it surely is of the utmost importance that we be able to identify what is essential to the Christian faith and what is not. It is essential to maintain that, as St. Paul writes, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." It is not essential to use the Eastern manner of crossing oneself, as opposed to the Western. We must always see to it that we keep our priorities straight.

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).

I'm all for keeping old traditions alive and celebrating cultural heritage, but those things are not essential to the Gospel, and should not be confused with it.

 

[truthseeker32]

well, love for God is not a numbers game. and I say that knowing we Orthodox have a long way to go. but it does not make Orthodoxy less or more true, it just means too many are not living up to their faith the way they should. but even then, that faith would be the True Faith.

That was basically my point.

 

[buzuxi02]

possibility[/I] that there can be grace outside of visible communion with the Orthodox Church. To my knowledge, this view has never been censured by your church, and I have encountered other Orthodox who have expressed views very similar to it.

This distresses me greatly, not only because I know for a fact that it's mistaken, but also because I strongly suspect that it arises from a distortion of the Gospel message itself.

I'm all for keeping old traditions alive and celebrating cultural heritage, but those things are not essential to the Gospel, and should not be confused with it.

Well I guess thats another aspect that divides us. We simply have radically different positions. What exactly is essential to the gospel in your opinion? Its obvious that in Anglicanism that morality is not essential, most dogmas are not essential, ascetic practises are not essental, celebrating the joys of the christian feasts are not essential, then what is? How do you make the faith real and vibrant in your community?????


Cran I see your fixated on the subject of grace in the church & outside it, etc. Let me ask you then, what is your church's teaching and who are your church's teachers of antiquity that have espoused it? Als how do you decipher between a church with grace and a heretical group like Jehovahs witness. What makes one group correct and the other not?

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm sure there are Orthodox that indeed do take the Gospel seriously.

In fairness to Crandaddy, he is a Continuing Anglican, not in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterburry so he doesn't necessarily share my views about morality. I would add, though, that most of the issues about morality in the Anglican Communion have to do with context and not rejection of the Biblical or Patristic witness per se.

 

[Nephi]

Speaking for myself, the problem has never been about Orthodox being "mean, uncharitable, etc." If you look hard enough, I'm sure you could find some distinguished personage in just about every Christian tradition who's said something that isn't very nice, and perhaps even downright mean.

What alarms me is that there appears to be a disturbingly exclusivistic vein of thought that enjoys acceptance within your communion. The reason I've been picking on Archbishop Hilarion is because he seems to have denied even the possibility that there can be grace outside of visible communion with the Orthodox Church. To my knowledge, this view has never been censured by your church, and I have encountered other Orthodox who have expressed views very similar to it.

This distresses me greatly, not only because I know for a fact that it's mistaken, but also because I strongly suspect that it arises from a distortion of the Gospel message itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by a distortion of the Gospel message itself, but I do agree with you that grace is not limited to the visible, canonical, intercommuning Orthodox churches. Now, I'm not sure how far you're willing to go with its limits to say whether I can agree or not.

Personally, and I suppose I'm fairly normal in the Antiochian scheme of things, I believe grace to be absolutely present in Oriental Orthodoxy, non-canonical Orthodoxy (Macedonians, Old Calendarists, etc.), and most likely in Roman Catholicism (Latin and Eastern). I can say this so strongly because I believe the insistence on the "visible intercommunion" to be arbitrary and properly indefensible. So, I believe that every church to be centred around a bishop (through apostolic succession) and the Eucharist to fully be the Church in its Catholic entirety. This includes every EO, OO, Old Calendarist, and Macedonian church. I'm likely to believe this about RC as well, despite their obvious errors regarding the papacy (which is really the major problem, IMO). I suppose this would probably include traditional Old Catholics, sedevacantists, etc. as well.

Now, I'm afraid I'm hesitant to speak beyond this to groups like Anglicans, Lutherans etc. The Canterbury Communion seems unlikely IMO as it varies too far to viewing the episcopacy as optional, wide-ranging views on the eucharist, women's ordination (to the episcopacy even in some places, yes?), etc. I don't know enough about Continuing Anglicans to comment much, but do you folks tend to be Anglo-Catholic or more classical viewing the episcopacy as nice but optional and with very low views of the eucharist (I assume your name is a reference to Cranmer?)?

Nonetheless, even beyond the limits above of traditional eucharistic-episcopal churches, God's grace is undoubtably present to some degree even if not in the form of valid, grace-filled sacraments (e.g. a Zwinglian's communion is probably not a valid eucharist). Obviously, I'm very much in disagreement with the sort that you describe Archbishop Hilarion to be, but I'm not sure how close I may be to your views either.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Well, their manner of concealment (by posing as Buddhists, say) might be morally questionable,

Personally, I wonder how different it is from what occurred throughout the OT/heroes of the Faith (Hebrews 11) - like Rahab the Prostitue in Joshua 2 who lied to protect the spies from Jericho police....or David when on the run from Saul & living in Philistine territory as a Double Agent in I Samuel 27/I Samuel 30 by acting like he worked with the enemy even when he served Israel...and of course, Queen Esther in what she did to save the Jewish population in the time of King Xerxes when she remained undercover/concealing her Jewish identity for a LONG time in order to advance - and later stop Haman (more shared in threads such as Lie or Live: Esther...Is Deception Ever Appropriate If Serving God/Saving Others? ).

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.

Indeed - as some things were a matter of dealing with them the best they could...and other facts a matter of bad misfortune influencing events.

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.

Personally, I find it interesting to consider what happened...as much of what occurred with them is similar to what went down with the indigenous people of North and South America when the Spaniards baptized them into Catholicism and they adapted to it outwardly while feeling that their culture was not truly expressed enough..and acting differently in secret. People of other cultures have done when faced with a choice of conversion or annihilation.


But with the Japanese Christians, indeed, they did the best they could with what they had. I'm reminded of other eras that had similar situations (though distinct). Speaking from my own cultural perspective, as it concerns Black/West Indian culture, I can't help but consider the plights of those who were bound in slavery. For they were systematically persecuted/terrorized---yet it was within a context of having large aspects of the Christian Faith forced upon them....unlike how it was in Asia where Christian Concepts were forbidden. In the Americans, of course the name of Christ and Christian concepts were largely misunderstood even as it concerned basic love for neighbor---but at least they had much more to work with if you wanted access to Christ.

The slaves were often told by slave owners (who were often preachers/involved in Church) twisted versions of Christianity..and the slaves were told by men who could quote the Word of God backward/forward that God called them to be slaves-----and often experienced slave masters who were considered "men of God" and yet wouldn't fight against the system (much as was the case with many historical figures in the church like George Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards who owned slaves alongside many others besides that).

Many of the slaves would not even be allowed to READ THE BIBLE---let alone READ at all...WHILE the masters read scripture to their families/in churches.....and yet, the slaves still were able to get the little they did get to know of the Lord/pull through in remarkable ways, as seen in the nature of Negro Spirituals.

If studying/enjoying Negro Spirituals, the point becomes even more striking---as what slaves did with them were very much a form of "Crypto-Christianity" in its own right since they had to have their songs coded so as to keep slave masters from understanding what they wanted to convey....be it in giving direction routes with the Underground Railroad System or in conveying Christian Concepts to other slaves to aid them. I was privelaged to be able to preach awhile ago about music to the congregation---and it was amazing to see again just how diverse the issue was, just as it was growing up learning of it...and seeing how their songs so wonderfully communcated the Gospel even when it was the case that had so little access to what was written about it in scripture.

And for more info, one can go online/search out the following under their respective titles/names:

• "Sweet Chariots: The Story of the the Spiritual"

• Spirituals as God's Revelation to the African Slave in America

• 
  "Amazing Grace History/"Amazing Grace" By Wintley Phipps" )

http://www.onbeing.org/program/joe-carter-and-legacy-african-american-spiritual/transcript/826

• "Joe Carter and the Legacy of the African-American Spiritual --Speaking of Faith from America Public Media"

Again, its amazing to see what occurred with those who had so little....and intriguing as well, seeing how many of the same churches condemning negros for wanting to read and know God would also say that the Theology of Negro Spirituals is/was "deficient to true BIBLICAL Teachings".....for who could blame them when they were denied so much? They still adapted what little they did know to their own circumstances....passing that down the generations what they could handle.

Additionally, its interesting that when it comes to interpretation and on scripture, one's experiences can shape their perspective...for when white people heard the sermon of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", they all took what was said of the Judgement Day and interpreted it as a reminder of getting right with God over "sin"/preparing to meet the Lord----and seeing the response others gave with the wailing/weeping and repentance over certain actions, it began what's known as the “Great Awakening”, one of the Greatest Revivals of all time. ...and something which all think was universally interpreted as response because of the dominant view's response based upon "sin"

However, for the Black man/Slave, they heard the words "Judgement" and had a COMPLETELY differing viewpoint---seeing the Judgement as something to REJOICE in, as it was a symbol of when God would deliver them from Slavery and pay back all wrongs done to them....giving justice....and yet, for the whites who owned slaves while supporting Jonathan Edwards in his speech on sin, they may not have taken the words of slaves as seriously.

But as said before....Ultimately, its nothing short of amazing to see what the slaves could do with so little. And with the slaves, their example even when it didn't seem 100% accurate to how all things were done in the Early Church was still in connection to the Ancient Faith. There's an excellent book I'm currently reading (by Fr. Moses Berry - curator of the Ozarks Afro-American Heritage Museum ) the issue that may explain more entitled An Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African Christianity to the African-American Experience

​

• Ancient Christian Witness: Unbroken Circle
• Logismoi: 'Timeless Preacher of Repentance'—St Moses the Black
• ArchangelsBooks.com » An Unbroken Circle: Linking Ancient African ...
• Review of An Unbroken Circle - Jackson Presbyterian | Examiner.com

The book focuses on how the other-worldly Christian spirituality of African-American slaves connected with 4th century saints in the deserts of Africa and it shows the little known story of how the African slaves who were brought to America had been deeply influenced by the faith the apostles had brought to Africa - tracing the Black Spirituals and other such phenomena to the influence of Christianity that existed in Africa since the apostles and early African saints.

The Japaneese who had similar are in the same category, IMHO. Although they may've been cut off, the same zeal passion to devotion unto the Lord even with lack of resources is what was present amongst the saints when going through persecution and yet still trusting in the Lord.

Of course, 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...whereas in other places, the same kind of strategy succeded (as with Negro Spirituals and Black culture).

With Negro Spirituals, the ways in which messages/concepts were concealed are still celebrated by Black Christians to this day...even though most realize that there's no need to sing as was done in that era when it was necessary to conceal one's ideology. But for the Japanese, it seems that the concealed dynamic persisted past the point of when it was obselete and that is what messed them up. With Black cuture and Negro Spirituals, there's a similar dynamic with some camps that still feel that the era of Black culture with Negro Spirituals was the most pure and they seek to focus solely on that. That can be damaging since times have changed and black culture evolved, just as Japanese Christian culture did as well.

Many have noted that perhaps it was the case that Catholic Missionaries prepared them for much of the errors they may've fallen into when it came to losing connection with how the Catholic Faith was originally. For to my knowledge, the Kakure weren't given access to Bibles translated into their own language...and in many ways, the efforts of presenting the Gospel in terms that resonated with the culture they knew may've not been complete.

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.

I agree - and as such, it's why I'm cautious as to not say that any saints could never come from them - or any other group similar. For I salute them in their struggle and know that the Lord is the Judge ..a Merciful one at that.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

If the Lord is the one who judges all men, then even with those you've noted that you disagree with, they are still Saints ..

 

[ArmyMatt]

First of all, there is no singular institution called "the West" that exists in order to be divided. I frequently see this sort of faulty reasoning Catholics, where in place of "the West," they substitute "Protestantism." From a neutral perspective, there are simply a bunch of Christian sects that are separated from each other (for whatever reasons), and the Orthodox Church is one of them, just like any of the others. Yes, I know you think your church is special, and that everyone else has broken away from you, but any other sect could say the exact same thing about themselves.

yes, a bunch of Christian sects who followed the initially Western theological errors. hence, the West.

And second, it surely is of the utmost importance that we be able to identify what is essential to the Christian faith and what is not. It is essential to maintain that, as St. Paul writes, "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners." It is not essential to use the Eastern manner of crossing oneself, as opposed to the Western. We must always see to it that we keep our priorities straight.

right, but folks have made doctrines that were essential, unessential, and would equate venerating venerating Mary to how one crosses onesself at best. that is the problem with the Christian West.

 

[Crandaddy]

Well I guess thats another aspect that divides us. We simply have radically different positions. What exactly is essential to the gospel in your opinion? Its obvious that in Anglicanism that morality is not essential,

Not true. Morality is absolutely essential to the Gospel. It is precisely within the context of the Divine Law as revealed in nature that we are able to recognize Christ as its fulfillment.

most dogmas are not essential,

What dogmas have we rejected?

ascetic practises are not essental,

Ascetic practices are disciplinary. They're purpose is to keep us on course, and they are important for that purpose.

celebrating the joys of the christian feasts are not essential,

So because I say that an entire city gathering around a church to sing "Christos Anesti" isn't absolutely essential to the Gospel, I'm saying that celebrating Christian feasts isn't essential? Is that it?

How do you make the faith real and vibrant in your community?????

We do the same thing that all of the Orthodox parishes in my community do: We observe fasts and celebrate feasts, but we don't make a garish display of it to everyone else in the community. Are those Orthodox parishes therefore omitting essential aspects of the Gospel?

Cran I see your fixated on the subject of grace in the church & outside it, etc. Let me ask you then, what is your church's teaching

Could you be a bit more specific? Teaching on what, exactly?

We don't pronounce where grace is not, if that's what you want to know.

and who are your church's teachers of antiquity that have espoused it?

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.” - Jesus Christ

Als how do you decipher between a church with grace and a heretical group like Jehovahs witness. What makes one group correct and the other not?

I'm not an expert on JW doctrine, but I am aware that they deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity. These are two dogmas that rather clearly have been held by Christians since the very beginning.

As St. Vincent of Lerins put it, “Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.” Above all, one must take care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

As for which individual Jehovah's Witnesses God has not seen fit to bestow his grace, that's not for us to say. And I might also add that believing heterodox doctrine is not by itself sufficient to make someone a full-blown heretic. Otherwise, young children who believe that the Persons of the Trinity are literally three men who live up in the sky are all heretics.

I'm not sure what you mean by a distortion of the Gospel message itself,

I get the impression from some Orthodox (not all) that sincerely and earnestly seeking after God to the best of one's ability is not as important as being dunked in water and smeared with oil by a bearded man from the right ecclesial body while he recites the proper magical incantations.

I am simply repulsed by this. I believe in the importance of the Church and the sacraments, but we must not make idols of them.

but I do agree with you that grace is not limited to the visible, canonical, intercommuning Orthodox churches.

And I am thankful that there are at least some Orthodox like yourself.

The Canterbury Communion seems unlikely IMO as it varies too far to viewing the episcopacy as optional, wide-ranging views on the eucharist, women's ordination (to the episcopacy even in some places, yes?)

Yes, Katharine Jefferts Schori is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. In my church, however, women are not eligible to be ordained even to the diaconate. In fact, women's ordination is the main reason why we separated from the Episcopal Church in the first place.

I don't know enough about Continuing Anglicans to comment much, but do you folks tend to be Anglo-Catholic or more classical viewing the episcopacy as nice but optional and with very low views of the eucharist

The episcopacy is extremely important. St. Charles Stuart, who was discussed earlier in this thread, was canonized precisely because he was martyred for refusing to deny the episcopacy.

The Eucharist is truly Christ's Body and Blood. Traditional Anglicanism has always affirmed this. It is true that our reformers did object to the view of transubstantiation whereby the consecrated Elements literally become biologically human flesh and blood; but they did not deny that they do somehow actually become Christ's Body and Blood, and neither do we.

(I assume your name is a reference to Cranmer?)?

No, actually, the first four letters of my last name are Cran- (but not Cranmer). “Crandaddy” is a nickname that I acquired back when I was in high school (I wasn't even Anglican then), and I've used it as an online pseudonym ever since.

 

[Nephi]

I get the impression from some Orthodox (not all) that sincerely and earnestly seeking after God to the best of one's ability is not as important as being dunked in water and smeared with oil by a bearded man from the right ecclesial body while he recites the proper magical incantations.

Yes, some of the extreme on this end are the Orthodox equivalent of the "once-saved-always-saved sinner's prayer" of Evangelicals.

And I am thankful that there are at least some Orthodox like yourself.

I'd say we're not a tiny minority, even if we seem like it on the internet. Read some of His Beatitude Partiarch John X's statements, and you'll catch the Antiochian Church's ethos that, while it may not be as dominant in other traditions, definitely puts us out of the realm of an insignificant intellectual minority. Look also at our relations with the Melkite and Syriac Churches, the latter of which I know we have some pastoral provisions for cases of intercommunion and the discouragement of converts passing between sister churches. We may have pastoral agreements with the Melkites too, but not sure.

Yes, Katharine Jefferts Schori is the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. In my church, however, women are not eligible to be ordained even to the diaconate. In fact, women's ordination is the main reason why we separated from the Episcopal Church in the first place.

A shame. Curious, but did you just choose the nearest Continuing Anglican group or did you choose one over others? I assume they're not all the same in terms of belief and practice.

The episcopacy is extremely important. St. Charles Stuart, who was discussed earlier in this thread, was canonized precisely because he was martyred for refusing to deny the episcopacy.

The Eucharist is truly Christ's Body and Blood. Traditional Anglicanism has always affirmed this. It is true that our reformers did object to the view of transubstantiation whereby the consecrated Elements literally become biologically human flesh and blood; but they did not deny that they do somehow actually become Christ's Body and Blood, and neither do we.

This is good to hear, and it looks like my initial thoughts were correct of being inclined to view the Continuing Anglican groups like yours positively. Does Rome recognize your orders, or does it not like the Canterbury Communion? This is something I've wondered about when it comes to Anglican sacraments, but don't know much on it honestly.

No, actually, the first four letters of my last name are Cran- (but not Cranmer). “Crandaddy” is a nickname that I acquired back when I was in high school (I wasn't even Anglican then), and I've used it as an online pseudonym ever since.

Oh okay. Makes sense I suppose, since you don't seem like you'd agree with what I understand Cranmer's beliefs to have been (Zwinglian, etc.).

 

[Crandaddy]

I'd say we're not a tiny minority, even if we seem like it on the internet. Read some of His Beatitude Partiarch John X's statements, and you'll catch the Antiochian Church's ethos that, while it may not be as dominant in other traditions, definitely puts us out of the realm of an insignificant intellectual minority. Look also at our relations with the Melkite and Syriac Churches, the latter of which I know we have some pastoral provisions for cases of intercommunion and the discouragement of converts passing between sister churches. We may have pastoral agreements with the Melkites too, but not sure.

I'll do that. Thanks. Are there any of the Patriarch's statements I should look for in particular?

I understand there were also Orthodox provisions for intercommuion with Anglicans once upon a time--before the Anglican Communion (or parts of it at least) ran headlong into heresy. This is discussed in the article I linked in the OP. You might like to have a look at it if you haven't already done so.

A shame. Curious, but did you just choose the nearest Continuing Anglican group or did you choose one over others?

I chose the only Continuing church that's within reasonable distance of where I live--which, as it happens, is a 63-mile, 1 1/2-hour drive away. By contrast, there are two Orthodox parishes just across the river from me. The reason I started seriously looking into Orthodoxy in the first place is because it's not easy driving all that distance and putting all that wear and tear on my car just to go to church. But still, I try to do it at least twice a month, and there are others there who commute from long distances as well.

But, it helps that my grandmother (a lifelong Nazarene) lives in the same town. I can stop by to say hi and grab a bite to eat before heading home.

I assume they're not all the same in terms of belief and practice.

I have heard that there are some Continuing churches that ordain women--which puzzles me because the Affirmation of St. Louis, which started the Continuing Anglican movement, was written primarily because the Episcopal Church made the move to ordain women.

Anyway, my church does not make that error, and I have no regrets for having sought them out.

This is good to hear, and it looks like my initial thoughts were correct of being inclined to view the Continuing Anglican groups like yours positively. Does Rome recognize your orders, or does it not like the Canterbury Communion? This is something I've wondered about when it comes to Anglican sacraments, but don't know much on it honestly.

Rome objects to the validity of Anglican Orders on the grounds that (they say) the consecration of our Bishop Matthew Parker was rendered invalid by defective intention and form of the rite by which he was consecrated. Because Anglican Succession bottlenecks through Parker, if his consecration were invalid, then this would invalidate the Orders of his successors.

However, it is worth noting that certain of your Heirarchs have expressly disagreed with Rome's position. Again, see the article I linked in the OP.

It is also worth noting that in the 1930s, Old Catholic Bishops--whose episcopal validity Rome does not dispute--were invited to participate in Anglican episcopal consecrations. The infusion of this so-called “Dutch touch” into Anglican Orders should render the Orders of my church and of the churches in communion with us valid even by Rome's standards.

Oh okay. Makes sense I suppose, since you don't seem like you'd agree with what I understand Cranmer's beliefs to have been (Zwinglian, etc.).

I am aware that Cranmer has been charged by some Anglicans with having held heretical views with regard to the priesthood (with regard to its sacerdotal nature, specifically), but to my knowledge, he did not deny the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. With regard to the Eucharist, I'm only aware that he objected to the notion that Christ is re-sacrificed over and over again at every Mass.

 

[Nephi]

I'll do that. Thanks. Are there any of the Patriarch's statements I should look for in particular?

His February 17th Pastoral Letter, for example. I believe this was his first such letter after his enthronement. Look especially at section 9, Towards a Full Sacramental Unity of the Christians. The whole letter is nice from what I recall. His enthronement speech, found starting on page 6 of the March 2013 issue of The Word is definitely worth a read. Also worth mentioning, IIRC, His Beatitude was part of the Balamand discussions before becoming Patriarch.

This joint-letter from the previous Antiochian Patriarch, Ignatius IV, and the Syriac Patriarch, Ignatius Zakka Iwas, is also definitely worth reading on the pastoral relations between our sister churches. It discusses the limited intercommunion I mentioned, among other things.

I understand there were also Orthodox provisions for intercommuion with Anglicans once upon a time--before the Anglican Communion (or parts of it at least) ran headlong into heresy. This is discussed in the article I linked in the OP. You might like to have a look at it if you haven't already done so.

I'm vaguely aware of such things, and I've read some into the EO-Lutheran dialogues, but I should read the article. The thread was admittedly too long so I had just skipped to the most recent posts. On the topic of moving into heresy, the Russian Church has recently made some pretty strong statements about the Church of England should they ordain women.

I chose the only Continuing church that's within reasonable distance of where I live--which, as it happens, is a 63-mile, 1 1/2-hour drive away. By contrast, there are two Orthodox parishes just across the river from me. The reason I started seriously looking into Orthodoxy in the first place is because it's not easy driving all that distance and putting all that wear and tear on my car just to go to church. But still, I try to do it at least twice a month, and there are others there who commute from long distances as well.

But, it helps that my grandmother (a lifelong Nazarene) lives in the same town. I can stop by to say hi and grab a bite to eat before heading home.

My parish is the closest one to me, and it's 45 minutes' drive away. I couldn't imagine doubling that. Similar to your story, I likewise chose the further-away church of my choice over and against local churches (Catholic, Episcopalian, etc.).

I have heard that there are some Continuing churches that ordain women--which puzzles me because the Affirmation of St. Louis, which started the Continuing Anglican movement, was written primarily because the Episcopal Church made the move to ordain women.

It sadly looks like they just fell to liberalization after all despite attempts to prevent it. Perhaps the Continuing Anglican groups in particular kept too much of an "open tent" that it just reverted?

Rome objects to the validity of Anglican Orders on the grounds that (they say) the consecration of our Bishop Matthew Parker was rendered invalid by defective intention and form of the rite by which he was consecrated. Because Anglican Succession bottlenecks through Parker, if his consecration were invalid, then this would invalidate the Orders of his successors.

However, it is worth noting that certain of your Heirarchs have expressly disagreed with Rome's position. Again, see the article I linked in the OP.

It is also worth noting that in the 1930s, Old Catholic Bishops--whose episcopal validity Rome does not dispute--were invited to participate in Anglican episcopal consecrations. The infusion of this so-called “Dutch touch” into Anglican Orders should render the Orders of my church and of the churches in communion with us valid even by Rome's standards.

Interesting. More reason to read the article from the OP, I guess. The mention of Old Catholics made me wonder, are Continuing Anglicans in communion with anyone else? Honestly curious. It doesn't seem like they have many others, except maybe groups like PNCC, that would be agreeable to share communion with just yet.

I am aware that Cranmer has been charged by some Anglicans with having held heretical views with regard to the priesthood (with regard to its sacerdotal nature, specifically), but to my knowledge, he did not deny the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist. With regard to the Eucharist, I'm only aware that he objected to the notion that Christ is re-sacrificed over and over again at every Mass.

I see. On another forum I go to, Cranmer recently came up and his views were described as Zwinglian, and his anti-sacrifical stance was referenced, so I just assumed he was anti-presence and had a non-sacramental view of communion.

 

[buzuxi02]

Not true. Morality is absolutely essential to the Gospel. It is precisely within the context of the Divine Law as revealed in nature that we are able to recognize Christ as its fulfillment.

OK, we agree. Judging from the openly practising gay bishops ordained in Anglicanism and reading the posts in the anglican subforum, I dont get that perception. From what I see, sin is seasonal. Whats a sin today may not be one tomorrow. That there even seems to be an open hostility to the morals and values of their grandparents, to the point that the moral beliefs of the christians of the past 2000 years were simply the false beliefs of ignorant prudes.

What dogmas have rejected?

I've noticed a waivering. The virgin birth is an optional belief, the second coming can be reinterpreted to mean something no one expressed in the last 1900 years. In certain times the real precense was denied.

Ascetic practices are disciplinary. They're purpose is to keep us on course, and they are important for that purpose.

Agree.

So because I say that an entire city gathering around a church to sing "Christos Anesti" isn't absolutely essential to the Gospel, I'm saying that celebrating Christian feasts isn't essential? Is that it?

I just want to get a sense of what is essential. I come from a place where the religious life and the secular are intertwined. For children these feast days, such as a child's name day makes the faith vibrant. A child is not going to understand the doctrine of the two natures or the Trinity. A child understands the celebration of feasts, a child sets his eyes upon an icon and is taught to treat those depicted in his icon corner as holy and as family members, he recognizes the smell of incense, etc.

Could you be a bit more specific? Teaching on what, exactly?

We don't pronounce where grace is not, if that's what you want to know.

On ecclesiology. Is it purely branch theory? Is there a litmus test on which sects are twigs and which are heretics cut off?

I'm not an expert on JW doctrine, but I am aware that they deny the deity of Christ and the Trinity. These are two dogmas that rather clearly have been held by Christians since the very beginning.

As St. Vincent of Lerins put it, “Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.” Above all, one must take care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.

As for which individual Jehovah's Witnesses God has not seen fit to bestow his grace, that's not for us to say. And I might also add that believing heterodox doctrine is not by itself sufficient to make someone a full-blown heretic. Otherwise, young children who believe that the Persons of the Trinity are literally three men who live up in the sky are all heretics.

OK, but as I said theres certain segments in Anglicanism where morality is a non-issue. Obviously JW hold to traditional moral values which are more accurate than those sects that reject them. Your communion and mine are closer to the JW than we are too these other anglicans, shouldnt they have a place on the tree then? On a side note certain moral beliefs in Orthodoxy are indeed dogmatic.

I get the impression from some Orthodox (not all) that sincerely and earnestly seeking after God to the best of one's ability is not as important as being dunked in water and smeared with oil by a bearded man from the right ecclesial body while he recites the proper magical incantations.

I am simply repulsed by this. I believe in the importance of the Church and the sacraments, but we must not make idols of them.

Sacraments, the mysteries- is the very mystical life of the church. I must hold the position of only One, holy, catholic and apostolic church because as you quoted Vincent of Lerins, its what has always been held. No Father speaks of branches of christianities. St Irenaeous, St Cyprian, St Basil are all clear on this and countless other Confessors. There are even ancient canons that forbid visiting the cemeteries of heretics and their martyrs.

If God wishes to save someone, great. As Christ said, In my Fathers house there are many mansions.' But I cannot reject that which has been handed down to me from my descendants from the beginning.

 

[truthseeker32]

It seems to me like a God who is love wouldn't completely sever ties with a Christian body, or ignore non-Christians for that matter, simply because they are in heresy, especially after hundreds of years when the perpetrators of the schism aren't even alive anymore. Most people don't know any better than to follow th faith in which they were raised, and many don't have the resources or time to figure it out as we do in the West. Many "heretics" as some like to call them are merely worshiping in a community they think will bring them closer to God. Even denominations like the Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons can create a zeal for God, love, and goodness that puts traditional Christians to shame.

I myself had (and still have) difficulty when I was first comparing Orthodoxy to my former Mormon faith. It was as if Orthodoxy was saying "We don't have a very good Sunday school program, our charity and welfare programs are few and far between, we're all but invisible in most the world, and most of us could care less about converts, but we are more right than you." It is often stated that "by your fruits you will know them" and I think that Orthodoxy sometimes seems like a fruit tree that was protected and stored away for the winter, but hasn't been exposed to the fertile spring in which it can bear fruit.

 

[FireDragon76]

" It is often stated that "by your fruits you will know them" and I think that Orthodoxy sometimes seems like a fruit tree that was protected and stored away for the winter, but hasn't been exposed to the fertile spring in which it can bear fruit.

In fairness, there are Orthodox Christians whose faith is not just a garish display of religious sentimentality or anti-intellectual fundamentalism. I've met them, people that put time at homeless shelters and soup kitchens, for instance.

 

[truthseeker32]

In fairness, there are Orthodox Christians whose faith is not just a garish display of religious sentimentality or anti-intellectual fundamentalism. I've met them, people that put time at homeless shelters and soup kitchens, for instance.

I am in no way denying this. I had Orthodoxy as a whole in mind when I stated the above. There are definitely wonderful Orthodox Christians out there, but I do think that there is a problem of luke-warmness in Orthodoxy and many other denominations where people just do it because that is what they grew up with. For example, the local Catholic, Episcopalian, Mormon, Presbyterian, etc. parishes are constantly doing things for the less fortunate and community while the Orthodox parishes seem perfectly content to keep to themselves.

 

[Nephi]

I am in no way denying this. I had Orthodoxy as a whole in mind when I stated the above. There are definitely wonderful Orthodox Christians out there, but I do think that there is a problem of luke-warmness in Orthodoxy and many other denominations where people just do it because that is what they grew up with. For example, the local Catholic, Episcopalian, Mormon, Presbyterian, etc. parishes are constantly doing things for the less fortunate and community while the Orthodox parishes seem perfectly content to keep to themselves.

I think your concerns are real and legitimate, but might be primarily directed at American Orthodox. Even then though, there are Orthodox aid organizations (like IOCC) that American Orthodox greatly assist. And as I mentioned earlier in the thread, look at the work the Antiochian Church - often in partnership with IOCC - does in Syria in terms of providing aid, food, etc. as well as doing humanitarian work to release hostages (Orthodox or not), etc. This brief article is an example.

I'm sure other churches do similar things, even if it isn't apparent or overt in the average American parish.