The Official Traditional Churches Breakdown Thread

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What we're agreeing on is that Tradition itself is holy and sacred.

I see. So there is no agreement on what tradition is just that whatever "it" is, "it" is "holy and sacred?"

Seems to ME, I'd need to know WHAT I'm calling "holy and sacred" before I could agree that it is. Make sense?

Is it mandated to participate in this forum to regard this undefined "it" as "sacred and holy?" Or is that simply YOUR basis for participating here?

Just curious.....



Thanks!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[hedrick]

I’ve been surprised that this group actually works, but so far it seems to.

We all have an official role for tradition in our theology. For some it’s the Catholic / Orthodox Holy Tradition. For others it’s the Confessions.

We all value traditional liturgy.

Many of us are influenced, to one degree or another by modern Scriptural scholarship and modern theology, both of which are essentially ecumenical. For many of us, this influence has tended to moderate historical controversies among our traditions, and to encourage a certain humility about our own traditions, though certainly there are significant disagreements remaining.

Most of us value ecumenical relationships. There is a web of pairwise joint investigations and agreements connecting most of us (perhaps all of us).

 

[GoingByzantine]

What is good about this group is that it is a comfortable and safe place to discuss traditional liturgies, values, and the theology of historical christianity. Of course it is a nice place to learn more about the beliefs of others as well.

GT is unfriendly to what we discuss here, that is why this place is needed.

 

[Albion]

What we're agreeing on is that Tradition itself is holy and sacred.

For some of us only. While the traditional approach is valued in all--it probably is correct to say--it's only in the Catholic churches (RC, EO, OO, OC) that "Holy Tradition" is supreme.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I’ve been surprised that this group actually works, but so far it seems to.

We all have an official role for tradition in our theology. For some it’s the Catholic / Orthodox Holy Tradition. For others it’s the Confessions.

We all value traditional liturgy.

Many of us are influenced, to one degree or another by modern Scriptural scholarship and modern theology, both of which are essentially ecumenical. For many of us, this influence has tended to moderate historical controversies among our traditions, and to encourage a certain humility about our own traditions, though certainly there are significant disagreements remaining.

Most of us value ecumenical relationships. There is a web of pairwise joint investigations and agreements connecting most of us (perhaps all of us).

What is good about this group is that it is a comfortable and safe place to discuss traditional liturgies, values, and the theology of historical christianity. Of course it is a nice place to learn more about the beliefs of others as well.

GT is unfriendly to what we discuss here, that is why this place is needed.

For some of us only. While the traditional approach is valued in all--it probably is correct to say--it's only in the Catholic churches (RC, EO, OO, OC) that "Holy Tradition" is supreme.

You three did a great job of summing up this forums purpose. As Albion stated, "Tradition" is held very highly by the 4 Churches he mentioned, yet we are all a product of, and influenced by tradition(s). We are free to hold our own traditions and define them how our Chruch or we believe is right, we may not attack another in here for holding a traditional belief or practice, nor for placing more or less value in Tradition that we do.

This is a good place; a troll free zone if you like.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

For Oriental Orthodox, "Church of Armenia" should be replaced with the "Armenian Apostolic Church".

If wanting to have excellent documentation on the Armenian Church, I'd recommend this video on the issue which goes into exceptional depth.

 

[thecolorsblend]

How should the forum define "traditional church?" I realize one of the stickies provides a loose definition.

It's something they've been somewhat reluctant to do since defining it to any degree would mean limiting it at least somewhat. This sub-forum is meant to be as big a tent as possible where, say, Anglicans (of whatever persuasion) and Orthodox can discuss things together and then maybe a Lutheran can dive in and give his perspective too.

My view loosely is that if your congregation has any regard for tradition, odds are you'll fit in around here.

The main reason I excluded the ACNA was that I was unsure whether it was still a part of the Continuing movement, I thought I had heard last year or the year before that they were actually in talks with TEC for reunification. Perhaps that was just hear-say and I was wrong. I'll add the ACNA to the list, since I agree that it's an important body to note and if anyone can confirm that it doesn't belong on that list I'll remove it.

There's a lot about ACNA that isn't all that clear. And I speak here as a former participant at an ACNA parish which I loved dearly. That parish is pretty solid but ACNA as a body has challenges, to be polite.

Since I have your ear, as it were, you mentioned Anglo-Papists in the OP. I keep hearing that such people do exist in a general sense but I've never actually met or even heard of such a person.

I’ve been surprised that this group actually works, but so far it seems to.

That makes two of us, actually. The success of the TT sub-forum has always been a big surprise to me, especially considering how relatively inactive the old Apostolic Churches sub-forum usually was.

Most of us value ecumenical relationships. There is a web of pairwise joint investigations and agreements connecting most of us (perhaps all of us).

A lot of traditional Christians believe in unity... and reunification (at least on some level). Ecumenism is therefore not only inevitable but highly desirable. Effectuating that is, of course, the challenge but the intent is apparent in a great many cases.

 

[Albion]

Since I have your ear, as it were, you mentioned Anglo-Papists in the OP. I keep hearing that such people do exist in a general sense but I've never actually met or even heard of such a person.

They do exist, although the difference between an Anglo-Catholic and an Anglo-Romanist and an Anglo-Papist is rather slight and there are very few of the latter to be found.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It's something they've been somewhat reluctant to do since defining it to any degree would mean limiting it at least somewhat. This sub-forum is meant to be as big a tent as possible where, say, Anglicans (of whatever persuasion) and Orthodox can discuss things together and then maybe a Lutheran can dive in and give his perspective too.

My view loosely is that if your congregation has any regard for tradition, odds are you'll fit in around here.

There's a lot about ACNA that isn't all that clear. And I speak here as a former participant at an ACNA parish which I loved dearly. That parish is pretty solid but ACNA as a body has challenges, to be polite.

Since I have your ear, as it were, you mentioned Anglo-Papists in the OP. I keep hearing that such people do exist in a general sense but I've never actually met or even heard of such a person.

That makes two of us, actually. The success of the TT sub-forum has always been a big surprise to me, especially considering how relatively inactive the old Apostolic Churches sub-forum usually was.

A lot of traditional Christians believe in unity... and reunification (at least on some level). Ecumenism is therefore not only inevitable but highly desirable. Effectuating that is, of course, the challenge but the intent is apparent in a great many cases.

I was just discussing this with one of our Advisers (we are in the process of opening a new forum; sorry, that's all I can say) and the success of this forum is legend!

I don't think it's success is anything that we as staff do or have done, but it is what our members have done and continue to do.

You guys have taken ownership of TT, you protect it, you defend it and you encourage visitors and regular posters to do the same.

I was just asked, and I quote: "So how do you all communicate now with each other? do you still moderate the forum as a core group?" My answer was no, we don't need to.

You and all who post here regularly or occasionally deserve the credit of it's success!

God bless you all!

Mark