Old Catholics and orthodoxy

[TomUK]

Something rev. Smith said on another thread got me thinking about the old catholics. Generally, if i am ever in doubt regarding a matter of theology or faith then i will instinctivley look towards the Orthodox church. However, from my very limited knowledge of OCs i find myself sympathising with many of their doctrines. Therefore my question is simple- what are the major forms of disagreement between the Old Catholics and Orthodox christians in contrast to 'regular' Catholics and Orthodox. Thanks

[Rev. Smith]

Something rev. Smith said on another thread got me thinking about the old catholics. Generally, if i am ever in doubt regarding a matter of theology or faith then i will instinctivley look towards the Orthodox church. However, from my very limited knowledge of OCs i find myself sympathising with many of their doctrines. Therefore my question is simple- what are the major forms of disagreement between the Old Catholics and Orthodox christians in contrast to 'regular' Catholics and Orthodox. Thanks
There are a fare number of differances, although few of them are "fatal" to communion or at least echumenical cooperation. Of the most minor sort, we acknowledge the filoque in the Creed. We view Scripture as complete, meaning that while we encourage as much depth of study as a Christian is capable of, we do not exhault tradition or the teachings of the Church Father's to cannon status. While it is alway difficult to speak for another tradition, it is my understanding that much of the Eastern Orthodox world does, for example asserting that the Philokalia or Didache are as authorotative as the Cannon.

While almost all of the sacramental and liturgical faiths honor scripture and tradition, the relative weight given to each shifts. In our understanding of the Lord's teaching to us the Scripture (the Catholic Bible) is complete, and thus tradition may not gainsay it. Unlike the Sola Scriptura churches we do not hold that the Scripture is the sole authority, but only that any other authority must be in accord. For example, the Eucharist and Mass are clearly contemplated by Scripture, yet there is scant information in the bible as to how Christian worship should be conducted. Without tradition we would simply hand everyone a plate and say, - "eat this" ;) (which is about how its done in some Protestant chrches, after HOURS of bible reading and sermons). We find the wisdom of the early Father's sound here, the Holy Mass is a profound experience for one who comes to it with a loveing heart.

We differ on a few other points as well, the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity is a matter of personal faith rather than doctrine for us (my jurisdiction holds that it is true, but the article isn't binding).

We also have distinct differances in governance. Because of our origigens we are a radically episcopal community, each jurisdiction is autocephalus - each Bishop is an equal member of the Synod(s) and except in matters of doctrine has complete freedom in his See, for example when I was ordained my Bishop simply notified the Primate rather then seeking permission. It is my understanding that only a metropolitan or primate in the EO churches can approve an ordination.

We support an active role in ministry for women (for most OC jurisdictions this is limited to the Diconate, although since an Arch Deacon outranks a Priest except in liturgical rights thants not a bad thing). The Church of Antioch ordains women to the priesthood, and has at least one female Bishop.

We are concerned (although have no outright bar against it) about the prominance of icons in EO worship, to an outsiders eye the veneration seems to brush up against idolitry - but I hasten to add that several EO members have assureed me that they don't cross the line.

While there are differences, for the most part we are part of the same, catholic, family; there are differences in form and function, but a faithful Orthodox Christian would be welcomed with open arms into almost any OC church (and I suspect the reverse is true as well).

Different liturgy, differnet emphasis - same faith

[Father Rick]

Of the most minor sort, we acknowledge the filoque in the Creed. While some OC's keep the filique, the Utrecht Union officially rejects it as part of the Nicene Creed, in that it was added extra-council. Most OC's do not therefore accept the filioque.

As to other issues of faith... I'll jump back in here tomorrow after I've had some sleep. My computer has been down for a week, and I just got it back up tonight so I have lots of catching up to do...

[Father Rick]

Ok... now that I've gotten some sleep, let me wade back in here...There are a fare number of differances, although few of them are "fatal" to communion or at least echumenical cooperation. Of the most minor sort, we acknowledge the filoque in the Creed. I already addressed this... We view Scripture as complete, meaning that while we encourage as much depth of study as a Christian is capable of, we do not exhault tradition or the teachings of the Church Father's to cannon status. While it is alway difficult to speak for another tradition, it is my understanding that much of the Eastern Orthodox world does, for example asserting that the Philokalia or Didache are as authorotative as the Cannon. Our view of tradition is almost identical to that of the Orthodox and the Anglican.
While almost all of the sacramental and liturgical faiths honor scripture and tradition, the relative weight given to each shifts. In our understanding of the Lord's teaching to us the Scripture (the Catholic Bible) is complete, and thus tradition may not gainsay it. Unlike the Sola Scriptura churches we do not hold that the Scripture is the sole authority, but only that any other authority must be in accord. For example, the Eucharist and Mass are clearly contemplated by Scripture, yet there is scant information in the bible as to how Christian worship should be conducted. Without tradition we would simply hand everyone a plate and say, - "eat this" ;) (which is about how its done in some Protestant chrches, after HOURS of bible reading and sermons). We find the wisdom of the early Father's sound here, the Holy Mass is a profound experience for one who comes to it with a loveing heart. Enough said...

We differ on a few other points as well, the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity is a matter of personal faith rather than doctrine for us (my jurisdiction holds that it is true, but the article isn't binding).
The Utrecht Union holds that NO dogma may be proclaimed except in full ecumenical council (meaning all 5 apostolic sees). Therefore issues such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption/Dormition of Mary, etc. are matters of personal faith but cannot be proclaimed dogmatically. It was actually the proclamation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pius IX outside of any council that was the impetus to Vatican I and the doctrine of papal infallibity (the Roman church had to decide if Pius IX had the authority to do what he had done.) Papal Infallibity was the big issue causing the OC's to separate from Rome. As such, the Immaculate Conception is generally rejected by OC's.

We also have distinct differances in governance. Because of our origigens we are a radically episcopal community, each jurisdiction is autocephalus - each Bishop is an equal member of the Synod(s) and except in matters of doctrine has complete freedom in his See, for example when I was ordained my Bishop simply notified the Primate rather then seeking permission. It is my understanding that only a metropolitan or primate in the EO churches can approve an ordination. This differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, much like the Anglican Communion.

We support an active role in ministry for women (for most OC jurisdictions this is limited to the Diconate, although since an Arch Deacon outranks a Priest except in liturgical rights thants not a bad thing). The Church of Antioch ordains women to the priesthood, and has at least one female Bishop. The official stand of the Utrecht Union is that all holy orders are open to both male and female clergy. In practice, there is only a small percentage of clergy that are female. There are some jurisdictions of 'continuing' OC's (like continuing Anglicans) that refuse ordination to females.


We are concerned (although have no outright bar against it) about the prominance of icons in EO worship, to an outsiders eye the veneration seems to brush up against idolitry - but I hasten to add that several EO members have assureed me that they don't cross the line.

While there are differences, for the most part we are part of the same, catholic, family; there are differences in form and function, but a faithful Orthodox Christian would be welcomed with open arms into almost any OC church (and I suspect the reverse is true as well).

Different liturgy, differnet emphasis - same faith In short, OC's are about as diverse as the Anglican communion.

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

Thanks for starting this thread, Tom. I was hoping to learn more about OC beliefs & practices. :thumbsup: As far as this goes:


While it is alway difficult to speak for another tradition, it is my understanding that much of the Eastern Orthodox world does, for example asserting that the Philokalia or Didache are as authorotative as the Cannon.


I don't think that is true, but I will have to check with others. It doesn't seem Orthodox to elevate the teachings of any one Father to the level of canon, or an article of faith. For instance (and I should smack myself for bringing it up), there is a view on what happens (specifically) after death that was created by a couple of revered Orthodox men. There is one EOC jurisdiction which tends to embrace this concept, while most other jurisdictions do not. Since it is just the opinion of a couple of men, it is not an article of faith (and some will go as far as to say it's a heresy that needs to be stamped out.....but that's another subject ;) ).

[Mary of Bethany]

I'd like to weigh in here, too, to clarify a few things posted by Rev. Smith. I converted to Orthodoxy 3 years ago from an Anglican Catholic parish, which I believe is very, very similar to the Old Catholics.

I would disagree that any writing that is not Scripture is held on the same level of Scripture. ALL Tradition, whether oral or writings by the Church Fathers, must be found to be true to Scripture, and as GDE said, there must be general agreement by the whole Church as to the truth of any statement. There's a saying - "100% of the Church Fathers are 90% Orthodox" - IOW, nobody's perfect in their theology. That's why the Church as a whole, over time, validates statements, even Councils, or not.

Also, on the Icon issue - I can only speak for myself, but when I venerate an Icon, the feeling I have is exactly as if I were going up to a dear friend, giving him/her a hug, and saying, "Please pray for me". Nothing more, and nothing less. It doesn't even come *close* to worship!

One other thing - in the ACC, the Filioque had become optional. I had quit saying it long before I became Orthodox.

[Wigglesworth]

I've been reading about Orthodoxy lately, so I searched the forum and revived this thread from 2004.

So, why not Orthodoxy?

:crossrc:

[PaladinValer]

Because:

1. I disagree with the notion of validity=licity
2. I disagree with the notion either in the Church or not in the Church (all Baptized are in the Church, though some have an impaired Communion with Her).
3. I disagree with no women clergy

A few (2 major and one minor) reasons at least for me.

[IowaLutheran]

2. I disagree with the notion either in the Church or not in the Church (all Baptized are in the Church, though some have an impaired Communion with Her).




I recently had a discussion with a local EO priest and he said that "we know where the church is, but we cannot say where the church is not."

I think I have read similar comments from EO here on CF.

After reading "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Ware, I came to the conclusion that I have more ecclesiological reasons that separate me from Orthodoxy as opposed to theological ones.

In general, I think Lutherans and Anglicans could benefit a lot by learning from our EO brothers and sisters.

[karen freeinchristman]

I disagree with a closed Eucharist
I disagree with a male-only ordained ministry
I disagree with the limitations on liturgy

[PaladinValer]

I recently had a discussion with a local EO priest and he said that "we know where the church is, but we cannot say where the church is not."

That's where I get tripped on also.

I understand that EOs honestly believe their church is the Church. I admire them for that commitment; I truly, truly do respect that belief and I share it about my own church. However, the problem lies with Baptismal theology. If a person is Baptized with right intent, with right understanding, and utilizing the proper method (water and words), that person has entered the Church. That is the ancient, orthodox understanding. If it is done by a non-Anglican, I have no problem with that being Anglican, but the same doesn't appear to be true if I were a faithful Eastern Orthodox.

I may not recognize X's orders, but I do recognize them as fellow Christians who are, by their Baptisms, members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. They may have a level of impaired relationship to said Church, but they are members and they are welcome to receive Christ if they have examined themselves to rightly receive the Body and Blood.

After reading "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Ware, I came to the conclusion that I have more ecclesiological reasons that separate me from Orthodoxy as opposed to theological ones.

It still is an excellent book though, isn't it? :)

In general, I think Lutherans and Anglicans could benefit a lot by learning from our EO brothers and sisters.

Too, too true. :thumbsup:

I disagree with a closed Eucharist
I disagree with a male-only ordained ministry
I disagree with the limitations on liturgy

On points one and two, you got my full support. As for point three, I recognize that there should be some flexibility in liturgy, though I'm sure you'd agree that many things should be absolutely fundamental and standard.

Good list! :)

[JasonV]

So, why not Orthodoxy?

Couple of things come to mind off hand:

- Foreign liturgy for westerners. (though I personally think it's one of the best out there.)

- Prohibitive stance on female ordination.

- Exclusivity on the "truth".

[Colabomb]

There are a fare number of differances, although few of them are "fatal" to communion or at least echumenical cooperation. Of the most minor sort, we acknowledge the filoque in the Creed. We view Scripture as complete, meaning that while we encourage as much depth of study as a Christian is capable of, we do not exhault tradition or the teachings of the Church Father's to cannon status. While it is alway difficult to speak for another tradition, it is my understanding that much of the Eastern Orthodox world does, for example asserting that the Philokalia or Didache are as authorotative as the Cannon.

While almost all of the sacramental and liturgical faiths honor scripture and tradition, the relative weight given to each shifts. In our understanding of the Lord's teaching to us the Scripture (the Catholic Bible) is complete, and thus tradition may not gainsay it. Unlike the Sola Scriptura churches we do not hold that the Scripture is the sole authority, but only that any other authority must be in accord. For example, the Eucharist and Mass are clearly contemplated by Scripture, yet there is scant information in the bible as to how Christian worship should be conducted. Without tradition we would simply hand everyone a plate and say, - "eat this" ;) (which is about how its done in some Protestant chrches, after HOURS of bible reading and sermons). We find the wisdom of the early Father's sound here, the Holy Mass is a profound experience for one who comes to it with a loveing heart.

We differ on a few other points as well, the matter of Mary's perpetual virginity is a matter of personal faith rather than doctrine for us (my jurisdiction holds that it is true, but the article isn't binding).

We also have distinct differances in governance. Because of our origigens we are a radically episcopal community, each jurisdiction is autocephalus - each Bishop is an equal member of the Synod(s) and except in matters of doctrine has complete freedom in his See, for example when I was ordained my Bishop simply notified the Primate rather then seeking permission. It is my understanding that only a metropolitan or primate in the EO churches can approve an ordination.

We support an active role in ministry for women (for most OC jurisdictions this is limited to the Diconate, although since an Arch Deacon outranks a Priest except in liturgical rights thants not a bad thing). The Church of Antioch ordains women to the priesthood, and has at least one female Bishop.

We are concerned (although have no outright bar against it) about the prominance of icons in EO worship, to an outsiders eye the veneration seems to brush up against idolitry - but I hasten to add that several EO members have assureed me that they don't cross the line.

While there are differences, for the most part we are part of the same, catholic, family; there are differences in form and function, but a faithful Orthodox Christian would be welcomed with open arms into almost any OC church (and I suspect the reverse is true as well).

Different liturgy, differnet emphasis - same faith

It appears that much that I love in the Anglican Tradition is apparent in the Old Catholic Tradition. We also seem to have Similar histories lol.

We both got a little uncomfortable when rome overstepped her bounds ;)

[Colabomb]

I have much respect for the Orthodox Churches. However there is a reason I am not Orthodox. It does bother me to an extent I guess, that so many go looking east for answers. If the Eastern Churches are the Church of Christ, than I would be there. I have agreements, but I also have disagreements.

What I don't understand about many, is if Orthodoxy is the authoritative voice of the Church, what are we doing here amongst Heterodox?

[Wigglesworth]

What I don't understand about many, is if Orthodoxy is the authoritative voice of the Church, what are we doing here amongst Heterodox?

Exactly. I've been asking myself this. The only reason I can come up with for remaining in the PNCC instead of being embraced by Orthodoxy is my desire to share communion and the eucharist with believers outside of the Orthodox Church. This is a balancing test, and I'm not sure how I will come out on it in the end.

PadreEgan, why not Orthodoxy?

:crossrc:

[PadreEgan]

For me, the absence of a Western Liturgy and not allowing married bishops was the reason I became a Natty Catholic.

[Wigglesworth]

For me, the absence of a Western Liturgy and not allowing married bishops was the reason I became a Natty Catholic.

I realize it's not very widespread, but did you consider the Western Rite of the Antiochians?

:crossrc:

[PadreEgan]

I realize it's not very widespread, but did you consider the Western Rite of the Antiochians?

:crossrc:
No, I didn't consider them. The PNCC has a great presence in my home town, Pittsburgh, and the priests were very helpful with my decision. I feel at home and am very happy with the decision to become a priest in the PNCC.

[Wigglesworth]

I just found out another great reason to stay in the PNCC. Apparently, the Eastern Orthodox disapprove of musical instruments in the church as uncanonical. This seems to be a case of causing destruction by trying to solve problems with canons.

There are some good things to take from Eastern Orthodoxy though. I look forward to visiting the local OCA church for vespers.

:bow:

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Colabomb]

To me its easy. I do not believe that the Orthodox Church is the church. I believe it has fallen into many errors, some of which Rome followed suit in.

[Wigglesworth]

I believe it has fallen into many errors, some of which Rome followed suit in.

Could you identify a few of those?

[Colabomb]

mainly the raising of human tradition to the level of Scripture.

[Colabomb]

mainly the raising of human tradition to the level of Scripture.

[gtsecc]

mainly the raising of human tradition to the level of Scripture.
Even if we suppose that is true - on what basis can you show that, that is not in fact the correct position? After all, it is the "Human Tradition" as you call it, which put forth the Scriptures.

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb, that Begs the Question, which traditions?

[PadreEgan]

The PNCC believes that Scripture and the Tradition of the Church Fathers is the authority of the Church as well.

[Simon_Templar]

I have few theological disagreements with orthodoxy.

When I was considering the traditional church a few years ago, before coming to Anglicanism, I strongly considered the Orthodox.

The reasons I ultimately decided not to join were as follows.

#1 - I believe the rigidity they regularly employ in blocking fellowship with other christians who are "schizmatic" is pharisaical. I don't want to offend any Orthodox who are reading the thread. I understand the reasoning behind their pracitces, but I just don't agree with it. To me, having the truth is useless if you use it to bar other believers, and condemn, rather than to bring reconcilliation and healing.

#2 - the Orthodox church, historically has done very little in terms of mission work. When you look around the world almost all the missionaries are from western churches, and this is true historically as well.

#3 - The Orthodox church has a history of being extremely ethno-centric. Its bad enough to exclude Christians because they are not up to our doctrinal par. Its worse to exclude people because they aren't of your particular culture. Combined with this there is a strong tendancy among some of the Orthodox groups to nearly elevate their own culture (be it russian, or greek etc) to the level of doctrinal truth.

#4 - I think the Orthodox go too far with icons and sometimes cross the line into idolatry.

In summary, while I found alot of truth in the Orthodox church, I didn't find much love. One isn't much good without the other.

[JasonV]

I have few theological disagreements with orthodoxy.

When I was considering the traditional church a few years ago, before coming to Anglicanism, I strongly considered the Orthodox.

The reasons I ultimately decided not to join were as follows.

#1 - I believe the rigidity they regularly employ in blocking fellowship with other christians who are "schizmatic" is pharisaical. I don't want to offend any Orthodox who are reading the thread. I understand the reasoning behind their pracitces, but I just don't agree with it. To me, having the truth is useless if you use it to bar other believers, and condemn, rather than to bring reconcilliation and healing.

#2 - the Orthodox church, historically has done very little in terms of mission work. When you look around the world almost all the missionaries are from western churches, and this is true historically as well.

#3 - The Orthodox church has a history of being extremely ethno-centric. Its bad enough to exclude Christians because they are not up to our doctrinal par. Its worse to exclude people because they aren't of your particular culture. Combined with this there is a strong tendancy among some of the Orthodox groups to nearly elevate their own culture (be it russian, or greek etc) to the level of doctrinal truth.

#4 - I think the Orthodox go too far with icons and sometimes cross the line into idolatry.

In summary, while I found alot of truth in the Orthodox church, I didn't find much love. One isn't much good without the other.

Some very good observations there Simon. Being an ex-Orthodox, I can agree with what you've observed.

[gtsecc]

They have actually done extensive mission work historically.
I think recently, they have been persecuted by the communists, and were largely unable to do anything at all. 15 years is a short span of time for a church, so they have only now been able to anything. Currently, they are fulling monestaries, reparing churches, starting seminaries, etc...

[Colabomb]

Perhaps they are doing missionary work in the rest of the world, but in my experience with the orthodox (i've actually considered converting in the past) the Americans are too busy fighting with each other over who is and isn't Canonically Orthodox, very similar to Rome's never ending argument over "Validity", to be doing any missionary work.

(With a couple rare exceptions)

[Wigglesworth]

Simon, your post is helpful. I wanted to know someone's reasons for not joining the Orthodox Church, and you have some.

I wonder if God preserved the Orthodox Church in a highly isolated state over the centuries to preserve the doctrines of the primitive church from being polluted by outside influence; then, giving us them as an example today of what to believe theologically, even if they are encrusted with their peculiar disciplines that hinder our fellowship with them.

This is just a thought as I process these questions in my mind.

At this point, the only Orthodox argument against Old Catholics that I have not reconciled mentally is the issue of whether Rome's orders became invalid upon their embrace of heresy, at least after the Council of Trent. This is an active issue, because all Old Catholic orders descend from a Roman Catholic bishop in the 1700's. In that vein, what of the belief that a priest in sin can still convey the sacraments, because the sacraments do not depend on the priest's state of grace? How is it that a heretical bishop could no longer be consecrating descendants in Apostolic Succession, but he could continue to convey sacraments?

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[JasonV]

This is an active issue, because all Old Catholic orders descend from a Roman Catholic bishop in the 1700's.

I thought it was in 1145 that the Bishop of Utrecht was granted permission by Pope Eugene III to elect their own Bishop? If so, doesn't this nullify the above?

[longhair75]

During my journey from Rome to Canterbury, I tried the local Greek Orthodox Church. I found it very ethnic Greek, and as a longhaired Irishman, it seemed that I was less than welcome. I just kept looking and eventually found my place in the Anglican Church.

[Wigglesworth]

I thought it was in 1145 that the Bishop of Utrecht was granted permission by Pope Eugene III to elect their own Bishop? If so, doesn't this nullify the above?

The See of Utrecht was vacant for a time in the early 1700's. The vacancy was filled when the Roman Catholic Bishop of Babylon consecrated a bishop for Utrecht. Hence, everyone consecrated by the bishop of Utrecht, or his descendants, since 1714 or so descends from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Babylon.

And, yes, for those Seventh Day Adventists among us who believe the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon, this has probably raised the hair on the back of your necks.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Simon_Templar]

The orthodox at least to some degree recognize the Roman Catholic sacraments don't they? If that is the case, they must recognize Rome's succession.

[Tonks]

The orthodox at least to some degree recognize the Roman Catholic sacraments don't they? If that is the case, they must recognize Rome's succession.

At most they recognize Baptism...but even that is not always assured.

[JasonV]

Back along this line W:

In that vein, what of the belief that a priest in sin can still convey the sacraments, because the sacraments do not depend on the priest's state of grace? How is it that a heretical bishop could no longer be consecrating descendants in Apostolic Succession, but he could continue to convey sacraments?

Now is this an Orthodox line of belief? It's my understanding, and I could very well be incorrect, that Rome recognizes Apostolic Succession in what are otherwise known as vaild but illicit Holy Orders.

Anyone?

[JasonV]

At most they recognize Baptism...but even that is not always assured.

In my experience with EO's, the stricter monasteries (ie. Mt. Athos) require all converts to be rebaptised, no exceptions.

[PaladinValer]

The orthodox at least to some degree recognize the Roman Catholic sacraments don't they? If that is the case, they must recognize Rome's succession.

Absolutely not, unfortunately for our Vatican Catholic brothers and sisters.

Remember what I said about my disagreement with their concept of licity=validity? They don't recognize any Orders other than their own because all others are not licit.

In addition, while oikonomia is sometimes granted to those entering into their church who have been Baptized in another, it is not certain, as they consider all cases unique (or so it seems). This isn't to say that those baptisms are valid however.

I'll ask my aquaintance who is a Reader in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I'm sure he will be able to provide a more erudite explaination, which I will happily share.

[paleodoxy]

I am an Anglican in the process of converting to Orthodoxy. There are weaknesses in every tradition, and the question really comes down to who holds the faith once delivered and defined? Who has preserved the ecumenical faith of the Fathers? I believe Orthodoxy has done that.

I read the reasons people here have for not being Orthodox, and I have to sit in amazement seeing that most of those reasons center around exceptions that you autonomously choose to make in spite of ecumenical dogma.

Most of the reasons mentioned are either secondary or trivial (relative to ecumenical doctrine), or liberal (e.g., support for women ordination), or emotional/autobiographical ("I don't like that non-Orthodox aren't considered part of the true visible Church")

But who preserved the Ecumenical and Apostolic faith whole and intact? Orthodoxy. Who unilaterally altered Trinitarian theology? The West. I thought Apostolic Succession involved more than just tactual ordinations and consecrations, but also continuity of ecumenical and apostolic doctrine!

Who violated Apostolic Tradition by separating baptism (Christ) from chrismation/confirmation (the Holy Spirit) 1,200 years after the founding of the N.T. Church? The West. Who bars infants and small children from life at the Table in the Kingdom in violation of Tradition and I Cor.11? The West.

Who violated Tradition by tyranically setting up the Pope as the absolute, judicial head of the Universal Church? The West.

Shouldn't we be looking at the big picture?

Also, it is inconsistent to argue against the notion that there is only one true expression of the visible church on earth while not communing Protestants without Apostolic Succession. The fact that I can SEE (visibly) that someone got sprinkled or dunked by a Southern Baptist or Presbyterian minister out of communion with Apostolic Tradition does not make the baptizee a visible Christian in the true, biblical, apostolic sense of the word.

Schism does not create many "valid churches", it simply separates the true from the false. This isn't to deny that there are genuinely saved people with a valid Christian profession outside of Orthodoxy. It is simply to say that you have cut yourself off from the visible Church (as defined Apostolically).

Jonathan

[paleodoxy]

And perhaps the Eastern church would be less "ethnic" if more westerners would learn to submit to Apostolic Teaching! :)

Wasn't it the West (at the Great Schism) that turned the UNIVERSAL Church into an ETHNIC Church (East vs. West)?

[Wigglesworth]

Thanks for this post. I would like you to explain more about some of the issues you raised.

I am an Anglican in the process of converting to Orthodoxy. There are weaknesses in every tradition, and the question really comes down to who holds the faith once delivered and defined? Who has preserved the ecumenical faith of the Fathers? I believe Orthodoxy has done that.

. . .

But who preserved the Ecumenical and Apostolic faith whole and intact? Orthodoxy. Who unilaterally altered Trinitarian theology? The West. I thought Apostolic Succession involved more than just tactual ordinations and consecrations, but also continuity of ecumenical and apostolic doctrine!

I presume you are referring to the addition of the filioque to the creed. Since the PNCC uses the Orthodox version of the creed, this issue is not a hangup for me. Any other Western problems around the issue of the Trinity?

Who violated Apostolic Tradition by separating baptism (Christ) from chrismation/confirmation (the Holy Spirit) 1,200 years after the founding of the N.T. Church?

Tell me more about this. Is this a matter of doctrine or discipline? What is the significance of the impact of this issue on Western tradition?

Who bars infants and small children from life at the Table in the Kingdom in violation of Tradition and I Cor.11? The West.

Can you refer me to any links on this issue presenting the teaching of the church fathers?

With respect to the issue about the Pope, I have no argument with Orthodoxy on that one.

. . . Shouldn't we be looking at the big picture?

Yes.

. . . . The fact that I can SEE (visibly) that someone got sprinkled or dunked by a Southern Baptist or Presbyterian minister out of communion with Apostolic Tradition does not make the baptizee a visible Christian in the true, biblical, apostolic sense of the word.

. . . This isn't to deny that there are genuinely saved people with a valid Christian profession outside of Orthodoxy. It is simply to say that you have cut yourself off from the visible Church (as defined Apostolically).

At least some Orthodox would accept the Trinitarian baptism of someone who was baptized by a Protestant. What is your perspective on this.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

By the way, I attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy for the first time yesterday morning. I suggest that everyone visit an Orthodox church. There's a lot to see. It was nice to be there, but it was not so wonderful that it would have provoked an immediate passion in me to convert to Orthodoxy.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[gtsecc]

By the way, I attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy for the first time yesterday morning. I suggest that everyone visit an Orthodox church. There's a lot to see. It was nice to be there, but it was not so wonderful that it would have provoked an immediate passion in me to convert to Orthodoxy.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:
I have been saying that for years here. I particularly like the Vespers service.

[Albion]

I read the reasons people here have for not being Orthodox, and I have to sit in amazement seeing that most of those reasons center around exceptions that you autonomously choose to make in spite of ecumenical dogma.

But who preserved the Ecumenical and Apostolic faith whole and intact? Orthodoxy. Who unilaterally altered Trinitarian theology? The West. I thought Apostolic Succession involved more than just tactual ordinations and consecrations, but also continuity of ecumenical and apostolic doctrine!

Who violated Apostolic Tradition by separating baptism (Christ) from chrismation/confirmation (the Holy Spirit) 1,200 years after the founding of the N.T. Church? The West. Who bars infants and small children from life at the Table in the Kingdom in violation of Tradition and I Cor.11? The West.

Who violated Tradition by tyranically setting up the Pope as the absolute, judicial head of the Universal Church? The West.

Shouldn't we be looking at the big picture?

Also, it is inconsistent to argue against the notion that there is only one true expression of the visible church on earth while not communing Protestants without Apostolic Succession. The fact that I can SEE (visibly) that someone got sprinkled or dunked by a Southern Baptist or Presbyterian minister out of communion with Apostolic Tradition does not make the baptizee a visible Christian in the true, biblical, apostolic sense of the word.


Jonathan

It appears that you are defending traditions more than Tradition--an important difference, even if we were to make Tradition our main guide to God's truth for the sake of discussing these matters. The mode of baptism, Apostolic Succession, communing infants and some of the rest fall squarely into the category of custom.

[kiwimac]

I disagree with a closed Eucharist
I disagree with a male-only ordained ministry
I disagree with the limitations on liturgy

I agree with you.

[paleodoxy]

Hi Wigglesworth,

I presume you are referring to the addition of the filioque to the creed. Since the PNCC uses the Orthodox version of the creed, this issue is not a hangup for me.My original post was a general response to everyone, and thus was intended to respond in a general way to both the Old Catholic and Traditional Anglican posts in this thread. I did not mean to give the impression that all of my statements applied equally to any one tradition within western Christendom.

Any other Western problems around the issue of the Trinity?Yes, but they really flow from the filioque. Although I am not sure that Old Catholics fully grasp the significance of these differences.

East and West have diametrically opposed notions of grace. For the West (and Augustine), grace is essentially created, whereas it is uncreated for the East.

In addition (and directly related to the above), the West has failed to develop any notion of deification. It is virtually non-existent in western theology today. Traces of it may exist in Aquinas, but it is certainly lost after the early mediaevel period. Athanasius was really the last great Western Theologian to talk about theosis.

As a result, the West fails to distinguish between the Essence of God and His Will (Uncreated Energies), leading to an (implicit) pantheistic notion of participation in the Divine Nature in the fulness of the eschaton.

I will seek to address your other remarks in a separate post.

Peace be to you, too, brother
Jonathan

[karen freeinchristman]

East and West have diametrically opposed notions of grace. For the West (and Augustine), grace is essentially created, whereas it is uncreated for the East.
I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on this theory of the West believing grace to be created? I do not understand what you mean by this. Thanks.

[gtsecc]

East and West have diametrically opposed notions of grace. For the West (and Augustine), grace is essentially created, whereas it is uncreated for the East.

In addition (and directly related to the above), the West has failed to develop any notion of deification. It is virtually non-existent in western theology today. Traces of it may exist in Aquinas, but it is certainly lost after the early mediaevel period. Athanasius was really the last great Western Theologian to talk about theosis.


Agreed!
However, I think you will agree that many Anglicans and some Methodist have a concept of Holineess, which is essentially theosis.

in short:
Iraneaus > Tertullian(who begat Augustine who begat Calvin)

[gtsecc]

I wonder if you would be so kind as to expand on this theory of the West believing grace to be created? I do not understand what you mean by this. Thanks.
I suspect he is contrasting infused grace, due to the incarnation with imputed grace from God killing Jesus.

[paleodoxy]

Wigglesworth,

Here is the rest of my rejoinder:

Tell me more about this. Is this a matter of doctrine or discipline? What is the significance of the impact of this issue on Western tradition?

Can you refer me to any links on this issue presenting the teaching of the church fathers?I'm addressing these simultaneously, since they are connected. The issue of paedocommunion (infant communion) cannot ultimately be divorced from the ancient and universal practice of baptizing and chrismating simultaneously. This is unequivocally Apostolic in nature, as a brief glance at Acts 2:38-39 alone will attest.

The West continued to follow the Apostles here until around the 13th or 14th century, when the Mediaeval/Aristotelian take on Trasubstantiation that gripped the Roman Church led to the prohibition on serving Communion in both kinds (both bread and wine) to lay persons, and to the separation of Christ in baptism from the gift of the Holy Spirit in chrismation.

Thus, chrismation became confirmation in the West. They are actually not at all the same thing, although most Christians tend to use them interchangeably in casual parlance. The East allowed the priest to anoint the subject with holy oil previously blessed by a bishop, whereas the West eventually insisted that bishops had to lay hands on everyone being confirmed; and since a bishop could not be available for every baptism of an infant, they put off chrismation in infancy, thus cutting the child off from the Table -- which had never been the case previously. The Church had never officially barred children from the Table prior to the 1300s.

Scripture is very clear that the Table belongs to infants (e.g., I Cor.10:1-4, et. al.). And this is because chrismation and baptism were to take place at the same time (Acts 2:38-39). But the West continues to promote this gnostic notion that there are second class baptized Christians (young children), and then there are Super Christians who possess enough gnosis and intellectual accomplishment (as though salvation were by works) to be admitted fully into the Kingdom.

At least some Orthodox would accept the Trinitarian baptism of someone who was baptized by a Protestant. What is your perspective on this.My perspective is: who cares? Although I really don't see the point in rebaptizing the convert.

It doesn't make a bit of difference one way or another, since the central point (for the East) is that one is not to take communion with the Orthodox church apart from full participation, membership and fellowship in the Orthodox church. Whether they choose to first rebaptize you, or whether they choose to officially recognize your prior baptism before admitting you, the same thing is accomplished.

But this goes back to my previous point in the original post that started our exchange. Anglican and Old Catholic churches have no right to complain that the East doesn't recognize them at the Table, when these same churches do not really accept the baptisms of non-episcopal Christians anyway. It's not enough to argue that you accept their baptisms because you don't insist that they be rebaptized. If you thought their baptisms were good enough, you would admit non-episcopal Christians in your churches to participate fully in the Eucharist.

Jonathan

[karen freeinchristman]

Anglican and Old Catholic churches have no right to complain that the East doesn't recognize them at the Table, when these same churches do not really accept the baptisms of non-episcopal Christians anyway. It's not enough to argue that you accept their baptisms because you don't insist that they be rebaptized. If you thought their baptisms were good enough, you would admit non-episcopal Christians in your churches to participate fully in the Eucharist.

Most Anglican churches DO admit non-episcopal Christians to participate fully in the Eucharist.

[rusmeister]

I personally think it would be great (assuming you guys are serious in your objections to Orthodoxy) to raise them as questions over in TAW. If you are getting your info from non-Orthodox sources you ain't getting it from the horse's mouth.

That's how the Baptists I grew up with taught me to view Catholicism with suspicion and judgement - I didn't know what Catholicism really taught. When I converted to Orthodoxy several years ago, I realized that the Catholics are a lot closer to the Truth than my Baptist family and have a lot of respect for them - now.

I want to comment on a lot of the posts re: Orthodoxy, as I see misunderstandings here, such as the ethnicity question, Scripture and Tradition and 're'-baptism, but the issues are big, I'm just one guy with little time and would invite you to shoot off (respectful) questions in TAW.

I do think paleodoxy nailed the foundation for a number of objections - personal opinion, or the authority of 'self' - when I determine what will or will not fit into my concept of Christianity. That's something that's inconsistent with absolute Truth. There are bound to be things I don't like in something that is True, perhaps for the same reason that others will like them.

Chesterton (when he was an Anglican), in response to the question "What's wrong with the world?" responded,

"Dear Sirs,
I am."

[JasonV]

Yes, but they really flow from the filioque. Although I am not sure that Old Catholics fully grasp the significance of these differences.

Unless said Old Catholic (in this case: me) has read St. Photius' "On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit". :thumbsup:

[JasonV]

But this goes back to my previous point in the original post that started our exchange. Anglican and Old Catholic churches have no right to complain that the East doesn't recognize them at the Table, when these same churches do not really accept the baptisms of non-episcopal Christians anyway. It's not enough to argue that you accept their baptisms because you don't insist that they be rebaptized. If you thought their baptisms were good enough, you would admit non-episcopal Christians in your churches to participate fully in the Eucharist.

Jonathan

Along with Karen's comment that most Episcopal Churches do admit non-Episcopal's to the Eucharist, my denomination the LCC also admits all freely to the Lord's Table.

[Albion]

...the West has failed to develop any notion of deification. It is virtually non-existent in western theology today. Traces of it may exist in Aquinas, but it is certainly lost after the early mediaevel period. Athanasius was really the last great Western Theologian to talk about theosis.

As a result, the West fails to distinguish between the Essence of God and His Will (Uncreated Energies), leading to an (implicit) pantheistic notion of participation in the Divine Nature in the fulness of the eschaton.

It may rather be that we consider deification to be an erroneous concept based upon Hellenic philosophy, not something merely neglected by us.

[kiwimac]

The Old Catholic church allows all the baptised to the Table.

[JasonV]

It may rather be that we consider deification to be an erroneous concept based upon Hellenic philosophy, not something merely neglected by us.

Good point. The only Western Church Im aware of that has a fully developed notion of Theosis are the Mormons. Of course, theirs would actually make one a mini-god next to God, but is that just semantics?

[Mary of Bethany]

Good point. The only Western Church Im aware of that has a fully developed notion of Theosis are the Mormons. Of course, theirs would actually make one a mini-god next to God, but is that just semantics?

No! Absolutely not! (where's that "gag" smiley???? :P )

Mormonism teaches that each (male) person has the chance to become the God of his own world, just as the "God" of the Bible is "god" of Earth.

Theosis is becoming God-like through His uncreated energies (grace) as Paleodoxy mentioned above. It is participating in God's grace, becoming the full human beings that God intended us to be before the fall, but never, ever can we share in God's essence.

Mary

[Colabomb]

But this goes back to my previous point in the original post that started our exchange. Anglican and Old Catholic churches have no right to complain that the East doesn't recognize them at the Table, when these same churches do not really accept the baptisms of non-episcopal Christians anyway. It's not enough to argue that you accept their baptisms because you don't insist that they be rebaptized. If you thought their baptisms were good enough, you would admit non-episcopal Christians in your churches to participate fully in the Eucharist.

Jonathan

Actually it is Standard anglican practice to allow All Baptized Christians to the table. We do not even require (At least in my experience) confirmation before Hand.

I know I recieved at the table of my REC church before they Confirmed me. And my Current Episcopal Church never even bothered to ask if I had been confirmed at all.

The Priest Asks all Christians to come to the Table. And He means it.
We believe in ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, larger than our own tradition. And we display that belief in the Open Table.

[JasonV]

No! Absolutely not! (where's that "gag" smiley???? :P )

Of course, I was kidding, but I think you figured that one out already! :D

[Mary of Bethany]

Of course, I was kidding, but I think you figured that one out already! :D

You had me scared for a second, though. ^_^

Mary

[IowaLutheran]

In addition (and directly related to the above), the West has failed to develop any notion of deification. It is virtually non-existent in western theology today. Traces of it may exist in Aquinas, but it is certainly lost after the early mediaevel period. Athanasius was really the last great Western Theologian to talk about theosis.






Agreed!
However, I think you will agree that many Anglicans and some Methodist have a concept of Holineess, which is essentially theosis.


Apparently you are not aware of the research and dialogue that the the Church of Finland (a Lutheran Church with Apostolic Succession) has engaged in with the Russian Orthodox Church over the past twenty years or so:

"Over the course of the past several years research by Finnish theologians on Martin Luther has come to the conclusion that Luther shared a significant reality with basic Orthodox theology. This reality emerged in theological discussions that the Finnish Lutheran theologians have had with the Russian Orthodox Church. As the Orthodox advanced their theosis theology the Lutherans began to sense that very similar ideas were present in Luther's theology. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson have edited a book titled Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (Eerdmans, 1998) which presents articles by several of these Finnish theologians. Stimulated by these articles, I am fascinated to see the implications that theosis has for preaching. This new Finnish research on Luther points to some problems in Lutheran preaching and to some creative possibilities of thinking about preaching anew as we move into the future.
Problems in Lutheran preaching
First, a word about a fundamental problem in preaching based on past assumptions in Luther research. The Finnish authors point to two problems in Lutheran studies that have a significant impact on preaching. Tuomo Mannermaa writes that
Finnish Luther research has come to the conclusion that Luther's idea of
the presence of Christ in faith can form a basis for treating the
question of divinization. The Lutheran understanding of the indwelling
of Christ implies a real participation in God and is analogous to the
Orthodox doctrine of participation in God, or theosis ... the core of
the often misunderstood patristic doctrine of theosis can be briefly
formulated as follows. Divine life has manifested itself in Christ. In
the church, understood as the body of Christ, human beings participate
in this life and thereby partake of 'the divine nature' [2 Peter
1:4] ... in order to restore [humans to their] original condition as
imago Dei (pp. 25-26)."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDO/is_6_31/ai_n15652795

[JasonV]

Iowa,

Would it then be appropriate to say that by partaking of the Eucharist, one is actually experiencing Theosis?

[IowaLutheran]

Iowa,

Would it then be appropriate to say that by partaking of the Eucharist, one is actually experiencing Theosis?

I think it would be safe to say that by ingesting the body and blood of Christ, the communicant is experiencing the real presence of Christ within them, which is integral to the theology of theosis or any analagous theology.

I found this from a Finnish website which has more detail on the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues I have described earlier:

"[The Lutheran and Orthodox participants agreed that the] Eucharistic gathering is of fundamental importance for the Church; it is there that the church is constituted as the communio sanctorum. The common sharing in Christ who gives himself in the Eucharist is the living source of divine life and the foundation for any communion of saints."

http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutort95.html

[JasonV]

Finnish Lutheran's fascinate me. I've heard it said that they are the only Lutherans who maintained Apostolic Succession.

What do you know of that? Is that why the EO's are even bothering with the Finns?

[karen freeinchristman]

Theosis is becoming God-like through His uncreated energies (grace) as Paleodoxy mentioned above. It is participating in God's grace, becoming the full human beings that God intended us to be before the fall, but never, ever can we share in God's essence.

This isn't a totally alien concept for Anglicans, I don't think. Though it is probably something we could improve upon in terms of teaching. I'll keep it in mind! :)

[IowaLutheran]

Finnish Lutheran's fascinate me. I've heard it said that they are the only Lutherans who maintained Apostolic Succession.

What do you know of that? Is that why the EO's are even bothering with the Finns?

The Church of Sweden also claims it never lost apostolic succession. Since the Episcopal/ELCA agreement has now been in place for 6 1/2 years, most ELCA bishops have been installed via the historic episcopate, so it could be said we have reclaimed apostolic succession in that sense. Other Lutheran churches in Europe are also reclaiming apostolic succession through the Porvoo Agreement with the Church of England.

As far as why the EOs are working with the Finnish, I can only speculate, but I would note: (1) There are other EO/Lutheran dialogues as well which started in the ecumenical boom perhaps 30-40 years ago. At this point, for the same reasons why Anglicans do not have full communion with EO's (women's ordination, etc.), I do not think anyone seriously expects a full communion agreement to come out of the dialogues in Finland or elsewhere. (2) So, why dialogue if full communion is not a possibility? In Finland, at least, my guess is that they are talking because of the historical and geographical relationship between Helsinki and Moscow. The talks have continued, I would guess, to be "neighborly" and because they have led to some interesting results such as the theosis research on the Lutheran side. I've seen a few Finns here at CF; they would certainly know more than I do.

[Albion]

Good point. The only Western Church Im aware of that has a fully developed notion of Theosis are the Mormons. Of course, theirs would actually make one a mini-god next to God, but is that just semantics?

Not semantics, IMO.

Technically, I guess you have a good point about the Mormons since "becoming god" is what happens according to their theology, but it's more "becoming a god" as you noted. "Theosis" as you and I are using it means partaking of the essence of the one and only god. At bottom then, we'd have to say that there really isn't any comparison. The small Swedenborgian Church, by the way, does teach something very similar to the EO idea, but that's about the only example I can think of for the West.

[paleodoxy]

Guys,

If anyone is going to be accused of Hellenism...it would have to be the West (traditionally). As Mary wrote earlier, theosis is participation/deification via the uncreated energies of God. They (essence/energies) are distinct (yet united) in God's Being. In a sense, the Trinity is a prototype of the Incarnation with its two natures and one Person. The only difference is that the energies existed pre-eternally, whereas Christ ADDED a human nature to His Divine Nature.

By failing to distinguish between will and essence (or energies and essence), the West is forced to either suggest that we are identified with the essence of God (pantheism), or do away with the doctrine of deification altogether. But then what will you do with II Peter 1:4?

Also, historically, it is the West who has confused nature and person. The East has consistently distinguished the two from the beginning.

Jonathan

[paleodoxy]

Let me rephrase one of my comments for some of the Anglicans in our midst, re: Apostolic Succession and non-episcopal communion:

When Anglicanism is being Classical, Catholic, Traditional and Faithful it insists on confirmation via Apostolic Succession as a prerequisite for Communion.

Jonathan

[PaladinValer]

You know, I'm amazed that we are allowing someone who has officially (if not so much outright) declared himself to have left STR to post abuse and venom.

Can we please ignore this nonsense? Piranas don't bite when blood is within.

[karen freeinchristman]

You know, I'm amazed that we are allowing someone who has officially (if not so much outright) declared himself to have left STR to post abuse and venom.

Can we please ignore this nonsense? Piranas don't bite when blood is within.
Well, I think there is nothing we can do about it, since Paleodoxy is still sporting an Anglican icon.

[PaladinValer]

The question is then, should he be?

[paleodoxy]

Valer,

I am still a member of an Anglican church...

Anglicans/Old Catholics reject papalism. So do I.
Some Anglicans practice paedocommunion. My church does.
Theosis is not totally missing in Anglicanism (Cf. Alcuin, for example)
The Old Catholics reject the filioque, and they are posting.

So, exactly where have I contradicted some essential element of Anglicanism?

-Jonathan

[karen freeinchristman]

Guys,

If anyone is going to be accused of Hellenism...it would have to be the West (traditionally). As Mary wrote earlier, theosis is participation/deification via the uncreated energies of God. They (essence/energies) are distinct (yet united) in God's Being. In a sense, the Trinity is a prototype of the Incarnation with its two natures and one Person. The only difference is that the energies existed pre-eternally, whereas Christ ADDED a human nature to His Divine Nature.

By failing to distinguish between will and essence (or energies and essence), the West is forced to either suggest that we are identified with the essence of God (pantheism), or do away with the doctrine of deification altogether. But then what will you do with II Peter 1:4?

Also, historically, it is the West who has confused nature and person. The East has consistently distinguished the two from the beginning.

Jonathan
I don't understand why all the generalisation i.e. 'the West'? By 'the East', I presume you mean the Orthodox, and so by 'the West' that means everybody else? So we are asking, if you believe 'the West' to be so wrong, why are you here? Apart from that, Anglicans and Old Catholics don't all conform to the picture you are painting of us. Consequently, your accusations feel just like what PaladinValor has described it as: venom.

[Albion]

Guys,

If anyone is going to be accused of Hellenism...it would have to be the West (traditionally).

I wonder why you saw a simple observation as an accusation.

Mary wrote earlier, theosis is participation/deification via the uncreated energies of God. They (essence/energies) are distinct (yet united) in God's Being. In a sense, the Trinity is a prototype of the Incarnation with its two natures and one Person. The only difference is that the energies existed pre-eternally, whereas Christ ADDED a human nature to His Divine Nature.

By failing to distinguish between will and essence (or energies and essence), the West is forced to either suggest that we are identified with the essence of God (pantheism), or do away with the doctrine of deification altogether.

Substitute adherence to the word of God for the theorizing contained in your first clause, and, yes, the conclusion (no deification) is correct.

[PaladinValer]

You're rejecting the Anglican Church. That there is enough.

[No Swansong]

This is a reminder to the membership that in thread accusations of rules violations is itself a violation of CF Rules. Please refrain from doing so.

[PaladinValer]

I don't understand why all the generalisation i.e. 'the West'? By 'the East', I presume you mean the Orthodox, and so by 'the West' that means everybody else? So we are asking, if you believe 'the West' to be so wrong, why are you here? Apart from that, Anglicans and Old Catholics don't all conform to the picture you are painting of us. Consequently, your accusations feel just like what PaladinValor has described it as: venom.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why is this kind of absolute nonsense going on in STR? Anglicanism may have plenty of Eastern roots, but we are still a Western church, and this goes for the Old Catholics here like Monsignors Rick and Kiwi.

I'm a proud member of the Anglican Church and I'm quite sure the Old Catholics here are proud members of their respective Old Catholic juristictions. If Paleo wishes to leave, he can leave but we don't deserve the berating that we're receiving.

Oh, and just one minor criqiue Karen: Its Valer. I know it is a play on Valor and sounds pretty similar to exactly the same depending on your style of English, but it just isn't the same :P

((Incidentally, it was the name of my old D&D character, who was [quite obviously] a paladin)).
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to karen freeinchristman again.

[karen freeinchristman]

Oh, and just one minor criqiue Karen: Its Valer. I know it is a play on Valor and sounds pretty similar to exactly the same depending on your style of English, but it just isn't the same :P

:sorry: sorry!

[PaladinValer]

Not a problem: just recite 10 Anglican rosaries and all will be well ;)

[JasonV]

The Old Catholics reject the filioque, and they are posting.

My Old Catholic denomination includes the filioque in the Creed. :wave:

[No Swansong]

My Old Catholic denomination includes the filioque in the Creed. :wave:
Actually many do as the Filioque was not part of the issues that led to Old Catholicism. (at least as far as I know)

[JasonV]

Actually many do as the Filioque was not part of the issues that led to Old Catholicism. (at least as far as I know)

That's my understanding as well jtbdad.

[Wigglesworth]

Anyone who is hypersensitive to the discussion of Orthodoxy as compared to Old Catholic belief is free to ignore this thread. There is really no need for the "Anglican Police" to demand excommunication of someone from STR for struggling his way into the Orthodox Church from an Anglican one, if that is his path.



:crossrc:

[paleodoxy]

Excuse me, please. "Abuse"? "Venom"? Where? Am I missing something? Why all the drama, hyperbole, and exaggeration?

I have stuck with the issues, making purely theological observations. I have not gotten personal or malicious.

Regarding my recent comment/observation on western notions of grace and theosis, it was in response to those comparing Eastern Christiany with Mormonism and Platonism/Hellenism.

Who's being abusive and venomous now?

And as far as why I am here talking about Eastern theology:

1. I am still an Anglican
2. The thread is kind of like...about Orthodoxy

Thank you.

Jonathan (aka paleodoxy)

[kiwimac]

Mine does not accept the filioque but thats ok too!

[Albion]

Mine does not accept the filioque but thats ok too!

(Put cursor over your OC logo) Is this the "Anglican Church International" that has a couple of US parishes? I didn't know that it existed in other countries.

[kiwimac]

I don't know. Probably. The ACI has 5 or 6 mission districts in the US and a NZ mission district.

[rusmeister]

I'd like to reiterate my suggestion (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35325096&postcount=53)that you find out what Orthodoxy really teaches on the topics and objections listed above and the reasons they developed.

http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html

http://www.oca.org/

I'm sure y'all wouldn't be terribly happy or impressed if people in another forum were saying "This is why I'm not Anglican." and having unclear views on what the Church teaches or getting their info from, say, Roman Catholics.

[JasonV]

Best way to learn about any religion is to hear it from the members of said religion, and the former members of said religion.

Then make up your own mind. :)

[No Swansong]

Good comment Jason. I do think that ex-members thoughts and opinions are just as important.

[Albion]

I don't know. Probably. The ACI has 5 or 6 mission districts in the US and a NZ mission district.

Thanks. I apologize for not just going directly to the website where I'd have found your mission listed. Duh.

http://www.theanglicanchurchinternational.org/ministries.htm

[longhair75]

Best way to learn about any religion is to hear it from the members of said religion, and the former members of said religion.

Then make up your own mind.

Good comment Jason. I do think that ex-members thoughts and opinions are just as important.

Friends Jason and jtbdad,

You may find that a former member of a given denomination may lack a certain... objectivity. Often the issues that persuaded them to leave result in the denigration of their former denomination. This factor should be taken into account.

[No Swansong]

Friends Jason and jtbdad,

You may find that a former member of a given denomination may lack a certain... objectivity. Often the issues that persuaded them to leave result in the denigration of their former denomination. This factor should be taken into account.
Agreed, just as ones participation in a specific denomination will often times provide for the same lack of objectivity.

[JasonV]

Yes bro. Longhair. You are correct, but as jtbdad has pointed out, objectivity is often lacking on both sides.

[rusmeister]

Friends Jason and jtbdad,

You may find that a former member of a given denomination may lack a certain... objectivity. Often the issues that persuaded them to leave result in the denigration of their former denomination. This factor should be taken into account.
I'd also think that it'd be better to find official Church or faith sources, rather than relying primarily on the experience of individual members, who may have had a weak or poor understanding of the faith they left (although of course, such experience can be enlightening). I'd say this is especially true of 'cradle' believers, who were raised in a given faith, but got no more than a child's impression and understanding of that faith.

I did some comparative searching for people who left Eastern Orthodoxy to become Baptist and vice-versa (as I was raised Baptist) and found that while in many of the stories of people who converted in an 'eastern' direction, their objections to their first faith were based on adult reason and theological issues and practices, pretty much all of the converts to Baptists were what we call 'cradle Orthodox' who never learned much about Orthodoxy beyond their childhood experience and their reasons for converting were emotionally-based. (Perhaps you guys might make similar findings regarding Anglicanism vs more western faiths?)

When talking with unbelievers - atheists, agnostics and non-Christian faiths, I very frequently find this (what I refer to as a) second-grader's understanding of Christianity. If you want to prove yourself right and others wrong you have to find and defeat the best defenders of that creed and not straw men.

[JasonV]

I.... found that while in many of the stories of people who converted in an 'eastern' direction, their objections to their first faith were based on adult reason and theological issues and practices....

Interesting observation, but I fear it is horribly flawed. While Eastern Orthodoxy may indeed resemble the Chuch of the fourth century, the first and early second century church has a much broader scope, a much greater message, a message of life and hope, of peace without qualification, than does the narrowmindedness and drudgery of your so-called Orthodoxy. Indeed, Anglicanism and Old Catholicism are much closer to the original Church of Christ than your Politically proped up institution that was and is your church. And while the Baptists have unfortunately rejected the gift of the Holy Sacraments, they likewise have disposed of the superfluities, the political titles, the pomp and pretentiousness of Eastern Orthodoxy. Whereas your Bishops are dressed and adored with greater splendor than any King, Prince or Potentate walking the earth today, Our Lord, in stark contrast, saw fit to grace this earth with shabby clothing and mere sandles on His feet.

Who has abandoned their love of Christ and his teachings of poverty and humility and embraced the world? It was for a good reason that the holy Monks of the early Centuries abandoned your Churches and walked into the darkness. Greater light is to be had in the Deserts of Egypt than in the grand Naves of your Cathedrals!

[rusmeister]

Like I said.


When talking with unbelievers - atheists, agnostics and non-Christian faiths, I very frequently find this (what I refer to as a) second-grader's understanding of Christianity. If you want to prove yourself right and others wrong you have to find and defeat the best defenders of that creed and not straw men.


Obviously, it applies to a great many Christians who left one faith for another as well. But anyway, this is not my forum, so I'll duck out, because I didn't really come here to push Orthodoxy. I was just telling my findings.

[JasonV]

Obviously, it applies to a great many Christians who left one faith for another as well. But anyway, this is not my forum, so I'll duck out, because I didn't really come here to push Orthodoxy. I was just telling my findings.

Actually I should apologize for my last comments. It is hardly Christian to point out the flaws of our Orthodox brothers and sisters, when we all have just as many (if not more) flaws ourselves.

[Mary of Bethany]

Interesting observation, but I fear it is horribly flawed. While Eastern Orthodoxy may indeed resemble the Chuch of the fourth century, the first and early second century church has a much broader scope, a much greater message, a message of life and hope, of peace without qualification, than does the narrowmindedness and drudgery of your so-called Orthodoxy. Indeed, Anglicanism and Old Catholicism are much closer to the original Church of Christ than your Politically proped up institution that was and is your church. And while the Baptists have unfortunately rejected the gift of the Holy Sacraments, they likewise have disposed of the superfluities, the political titles, the pomp and pretentiousness of Eastern Orthodoxy. Whereas your Bishops are dressed and adored with greater splendor than any King, Prince or Potentate walking the earth today, Our Lord, in stark contrast, saw fit to grace this earth with shabby clothing and mere sandles on His feet.

Who has abandoned their love of Christ and his teachings of poverty and humility and embraced the world? It was for a good reason that the holy Monks of the early Centuries abandoned your Churches and walked into the darkness. Greater light is to be had in the Deserts of Egypt than in the grand Naves of your Cathedrals!

WOW! So how do you really feel, Jason? I had no idea.

I think it's time for me to depart from STR.

Thanks to all who have been welcoming (or just put up with, as the case may be!) over the years

Many years to you all!

Mary

[gtsecc]

I don't think anyoen wants either fo you two to leave.

[JasonV]

WOW! So how do you really feel, Jason? I had no idea.

I think it's time for me to depart from STR.

Thanks to all who have been welcoming (or just put up with, as the case may be!) over the years

Many years to you all!

Mary

No Mary. I was wrong to make such a statement, and neither of you should leave. I took rusmeisters comments too personally and responded when I was upset.

[JasonV]

My comments were an overreaction to the rusmeister's post about converts from Eastern Orthodoxy into another faith such as the Baptists.

I was wrong, and I tried to convey that. If anyone should leave STR it is me for my lack of courtesy and tact.

I fully understand the purposes of the regalia and glitter in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is to convey a sense of the heavenly here on earth. What I should have said was that other's find a simple style of worship to be just as heavenly, and that not everyone who leaves Eastern Orthodoxy does so out of theological ignorance or due to being swept up by an emotional wave.

Again, my sincerest apologies to our Eastern Orthodox friends here at STR.

[karen freeinchristman]

Please, no one leave!

[consecro]

Just to add a bit more to this topic.
I feel that instead of centering ourselves around one model of salvation and then defending it to the hilt. It may in fact be healthier to recognise that there may actually be more than one perspective on salvation. This is taken off the web - 'The East and West represent different cultures and different attitudes. The Greek East has always tended to be more philosophical, abstract and mystical in its thinking, whereas the Latin West tends toward a more pragmatic and legal-minded approach. (According to an old saying, "the Greeks built metaphysical systems; the Romans built roads")'. The point I'm wanting to make is that the forensic notion of justification is a representation of the cultural norms of the west - same with the east. There are enough points of contact between each doctrine (union with God, ongoing outworking of salvation, eschatological hope in the final state of man and the work of Christ) to underscore a legitamate pluarality. Karkkainen has a paper/book out somewhere where he takes this a step further and suggests that we may indeed see different (valid) interpretations arise from other cultures - he mentions Japan and the aspect of shame (ie. shame based salvation).

Before you reply, I understand the foundational difference in these doctrines and yes I agree that they can not be united, but we can still appreciate and learn much from the other side. Vive la difference.

[No Swansong]

I agree please no one leave.

[Simon_Templar]

I don't particularly agree with trying to 'convert' christians from another denomination, especially in the sense that you imply they aren't already believers.

However, I must also question that if a person is easily converted from one to the other, were they ever really in the first one to begin with? Obviously I have a different ecclesiology than the Orthodox, and frankly I'm not a big fan of baptist churches... but wouldn't it be better to be a faithful fervant baptist, than a nominal uncommitted Orthodox?

and I'm in no way suggesting that all baptists are fervent and all orthodox are nominal.. just pointing out that a real committed, believing orthodox person is pretty unlikely to be converted. Thus if they are converted its likely they were pretty nominal to begin with.

thats just my thought process on it.

[Colabomb]

I believe in converting people to Christ, not Anglicanism. Do I believe Anglicanism to be a purer expression of the faith? Yes. But Will I call my Baptist/Orthodox/Catholic/Pentecostal/NonDenominational/Lutheran/Charismatic etc. Brothers Less than Brothers?

One doctrine of Rome that Boils my Blood is the Concept of "Separated Bretheren". We are separated by no more than Geography.

[Colabomb]

OH and please, my Orthodox Brother and Sister, Please stay.

[gtsecc]

I don't particularly agree with trying to 'convert' christians from another denomination, especially in the sense that you imply they aren't already believers.

However, I must also question that if a person is easily converted from one to the other, were they ever really in the first one to begin with? Obviously I have a different ecclesiology than the Orthodox, and frankly I'm not a big fan of baptist churches... but wouldn't it be better to be a faithful fervant baptist, than a nominal uncommitted Orthodox?

and I'm in no way suggesting that all baptists are fervent and all orthodox are nominal.. just pointing out that a real committed, believing orthodox person is pretty unlikely to be converted. Thus if they are converted its likely they were pretty nominal to begin with.

thats just my thought process on it.
How about a fervent Jew rather than a nominal uncommitted Baptist?

[No Swansong]

How about a fervent Jew rather than a nominal uncommitted Baptist?

This one has always been a stumbling block for me. Good question Glen.

[Colabomb]

How about a fervent Jew rather than a nominal uncommitted Baptist?


Has the Jew Rejected his Messiah?

[longhair75]

Has the Jew Rejected his Messiah?
Good morning friends,

Rabbi Daniel (who was one of my cub scouts before going off to yeshiva and becoming a Conservative Rabbi) tells me that his difficulty with Christianity is that we see Judaism not as it really is, but as our theology requires it to be.

[No Swansong]

I think Cola asks a relevant question. Do they deny Jesus is Divine? Do they reject Him as savior?

[longhair75]

I think Cola asks a relevant question. Do they deny Jesus is Divine? Do they reject Him as savior?
Friend jtbdad,

Yes to both of those. They reject Jesus's divinity and his role as saviour and they await the Messiah that has been promised to them.

[gtsecc]

If they have known the Father, have they not also known the Son?

So, they know Christ.

So, really all they are missing, is sort of an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics, if you will, of the method of salvation.

(They really do know, Christ, just not his Birth name, Emmanuel, and the way he worked out the salvation.

Come to think of it, I bet a lot of Christians would be stumped if you asked them Jesus's birth name.)



Now, contrast that with the non-pious Baptist.

They don't really know the Trinity.

So, they don't know Christ.

So, really all they have, is sort of an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics, if you will, of the method of salvation.

[gtsecc]

The path to Salvation is Christ.
The path to Charleston is I-26.

One guy is on I-26 heading South.
He has no map, and no idea what the name of the road is.

The other guy is taking some back roads, which he believes will also lead to Charleston. He does happen to have a map, but he never reads it. He does know that I-26 leads to Charleston.

Which guy gets to the Holy City?

[Wigglesworth]

If they have known the Father, have they not also known the Son?

So, they know Christ.

So, really all they are missing, is sort of an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics, if you will, of the method of salvation.

(They really do know, Christ, just not his Birth name, Emmanuel, and the way he worked out the salvation.

Come to think of it, I bet a lot of Christians would be stumped if you asked them Jesus's birth name.)



Now, contrast that with the non-pious Baptist.

They don't really know the Trinity.

So, they don't know Christ.

So, really all they have, is sort of an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics, if you will, of the method of salvation.

That's deep water.

[Colabomb]

Friend jtbdad,

Yes to both of those. They reject Jesus's divinity and his role as saviour and they await the Messiah that has been promised to them.

Than they do not know him. Paul Prayed for their conversion, and I join that prayer with a heavy heart.

[No Swansong]

If they have known the Father, have they not also known the Son?

So, they know Christ.

So, really all they are missing, is sort of an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics, if you will, of the method of salvation.

(They really do know, Christ, just not his Birth name, Emmanuel, and the way he worked out the salvation.

Come to think of it, I bet a lot of Christians would be stumped if you asked them Jesus's birth name.)



Now, contrast that with the non-pious Baptist.

They don't really know the Trinity.

So, they don't know Christ.

So, really all they have, is sort of an intellectual knowledge of the mechanics, if you will, of the method of salvation.
So Glen;
Those who have heard the Gospel but reject it are still on the right road?

[Albion]

If they have known the Father, have they not also known the Son?

No. The Father is not the Son.

Now, contrast that with the non-pious Baptist.

They don't really know the Trinity.

So, they don't know Christ.

Where you could come up with a conclusion like that stumps me, Glen. I mean, the pious Jew does not know Jesus as the Son of God...and yet he's being evaluated as something of a de facto Trinitarian. Meanwhile, the non-pious Baptist is not even to be considered a believer in Christ as the Son of God despite the fact that Baptists are constantly taught that he is and that they affirm in their statements of faith that he is!


This doesn't make sense unless the two hypothetical persons being discussed here are a whole lot different in your mind's eye from how they've been described.

[InnerPhyre]

What do you guys think about

1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."


?

[Colabomb]

What do you guys think about

1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."


?

I believe it is Truth. I believe it is a Truth than too many ignore for the sake of comfort.

[Colabomb]

No. The Father is not the Son.



Where you could come up with a conclusion like that stumps me, Glen. I mean, the pious Jew does not know Jesus as the Son of God...and yet he's being evaluated as something of a de facto Trinitarian. Meanwhile, the non-pious Baptist is not even to be considered a believer in Christ as the Son of God despite the fact that Baptists are constantly taught that he is and that they affirm in their statements of faith that he is!


This doesn't make sense unless the two hypothetical persons being discussed here are a whole lot different in your mind's eye from how they've been described.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Albion again.

[gtsecc]

No. The Father is not the Son.



Where you could come up with a conclusion like that stumps me, Glen. I mean, the pious Jew does not know Jesus as the Son of God...and yet he's being evaluated as something of a de facto Trinitarian. Meanwhile, the non-pious Baptist is not even to be considered a believer in Christ as the Son of God despite the fact that Baptists are constantly taught that he is and that they affirm in their statements of faith that he is!


This doesn't make sense unless the two hypothetical persons being discussed here are a whole lot different in your mind's eye from how they've been described.
I did not post any of the conclusions you are arguing against.

But, that is not important.

Look What Jesus says in John.
6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. 7If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." 8Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." 9Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. 12"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. 13Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son;
Sounds like the only way to know the Father is through the Son. So, Jews who know the Father, have to know the Son.

[gtsecc]

So Glen;
Those who have heard the Gospel but reject it are still on the right road?
Absolutely not.


But, What say you is the Gospel?
Merely the words in MML&J?
Could someone know Christ, and therefore the Gospel, yet never have heard or read MML&J?

[karen freeinchristman]

Sounds like the only way to know the Father is through the Son. So, Jews who know the Father, have to know the Son.
No! If you know the Son, you know the Father, yes. But if you do not know the Son, - you do not know the Father. That is how it is.

[gtsecc]

The only way to know the Father is throught the Son.
Agreed?
Jews knew the Father?
Abraham - anyone? Agreed?
Therefore, they had to know the Son.

Scripture folks, and I did it all with a pancake on my head.

[JasonV]

What if you have the mother over for some coffee, and she pulls a picture of her son out of her purse to show you. Assuming they have a strong resemblance to each other, does that mean you know the father too?

(BTW this is just a lame attempt to be funny. Please don't take me serious.)

[No Swansong]

The only way to know the Father is throught the Son.
Agreed?
Jews knew the Father?
Abraham - anyone? Agreed?
Therefore, they had to know the Son.

Scripture folks, and I did it all with a pancake on my head.
Did they know the Father?

Not sure I agree. But I very much agree that if they REJECT Jesus, they reject God.

[karen freeinchristman]

What if you have the mother over for some coffee, and she pulls a picture of her son out of her purse to show you. Assuming they have a strong resemblance to each other, does that men you know the father too?

(BTW this is just a lame attempt to be funny. Please don't take me serious.)
:) Don't give up your day job, Jason! :cool: :P

[Colabomb]

If I may Repeat.

1 John 2:22-23 "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."

[Albion]

I did not post any of the conclusions you are arguing against.

But, that is not important.

Well, I think it is important. Making ourselves clear and possibly reaching consensus is better than a variety of POVs being thrown on the table, period. Therefore, if when you said that knowing the Father is to know the Son, which I reject as contrary to the whole of the NT, I asked for a clarification from you.

[Wigglesworth]

Whether one knows the Father now is determined by whether one knows the Son now.