Roman Catholic Assimilation - no go for Anglicans

[Aymn27]

A good friend of mine told me that the whole TAC/Rome deal was a farce, with Rome, in its usual fashion, requiring assimilation and assent to the Roman Pontiff. Well, he has been proven correct! The following article appeared on VOL this past week.

This is truly sad news for those of us who pray for unity among the Church Catholic. Once again the Pontificate - which is supposed to be a "sign of unity"- stands in the way of true reconcilation. Will they ever get off their high horse???




NO REFUGE FOR ANGLICANS SEEKING UNITY WITH ROME

By David W. Virtue
www.virtueonline.org (http://www.virtueonline.org/)

SCRANTON, PA: (6/5/2006)--Episcopalians in the U.S. and Anglicans worldwide got cold comfort from a Roman Catholic Prelate who told them that his church would not now, nor in the foreseeable future, offer an Anglican Use Rite with an Anglican liturgy, having Anglican Rite bishops with a parallel jurisdiction with Peter for Anglicans who want to remain in their church.

The Rev. William H. Stetson, Secretary to the Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, told some 150 Episcopalians and many who had converted to the Roman Catholic Church that churches like the Traditional Anglican Communion and other Anglo-Catholic churches could apply to Rome, but there were no guarantees that his church would accept them, except on Rome's terms. "I am not sure Rome will gather them in, in one uniate. It is not possible that CEC (Charismatic Episcopal Church) or the TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) can have their own Pastoral Provisions."

"Clearly we were disappointed, but after further conversations during the Conference we understand that our task is to take the initiative towards the Holy See to seek some creative type of expansion of the Pastoral Provision. I remain hopeful of a way forward," said TAC Bishop David Moyer, rector of the Anglo-Catholic parish of Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, PA. who attended a two-day conference on the use of the Pastoral Provision for Anglicans who have crossed the Tiber to Rome.

"As fully orthodox Anglican Catholics, we pray that the Holy See will recognize us for who we are," he told VirtueOnline.

read full article here (http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4177)

[TomUK]

Shame, though not totally unexpected.

No matter what happens however we must all remain fervent in prayer that one day the Church may once again be united. Sadly this isn't a prayer that is shared by all at the moment so let us too pray that hearts may be changed.

[Aymn27]

Shame, though not totally unexpected.

No matter what happens however we must all remain fervent in prayer that one day the Church may once again be united. Sadly this isn't a prayer that is shared by all at the moment so let us too pray that hearts may be changed.
Indeed Tom - and with a new pontiff comes new perspectives - perhaps we will live to see it!

[Ebor]

I've been following/reading about the "Anglican Use" conference on a number of fora/blogs. There seems to be a case of "No liturgy that Rome didn't make" and married ex-Anglican priests are to be used (probably due to the shortage of regular RC priests) but not to have any "Anglican Use" rite regularized.... Am I sounding too jaundiced if I say that it looks like "RC owns the Right Way to Worship(tm)" and "no others need apply"?

Sigh

Ebor

[gtsecc]

I've been following/reading about the "Anglican Use" conference on a number of fora/blogs. There seems to be a case of "No liturgy that Rome didn't make" and married ex-Anglican priests are to be used (probably due to the shortage of regular RC priests) but not to have any "Anglican Use" rite regularized.... Am I sounding too jaundiced if I say that it looks like "RC owns the Right Way to Worship(tm)" and "no others need apply"?

Sigh

Ebor
Yep.
And the irony is, they have the most wretched of the Liturgies.
Anglicans and the EO have much much better liturgies.

[Ebor]

Yep.
And the irony is, they have the most wretched of the Liturgies.
Anglicans and the EO have much much better liturgies.

Have you ever read "Why Catholics Can't Sing" by Thomas Day? an interesting work and depressing yet humourous as it looks at the RC liturgy and how it has been scrubbed of beauty and Godward worship.

I have, btw, seen EO who also maintain that *they* "own the Right Way to Worship(tm)". Byzantine or nothing. On a forum long ago, a person wrote that God only hears Byzantine Chant and that "western music" makes people think of the composer rather then God. :help:

With the multitude of cultures and arts and musics on this planet, I think it's a little pert to declare that one kind or style or culture is the "ONLY" way. Seems to me that God created all of the people and cultures and beauties and not just Byzantine or RC.

Ebor

[Aymn27]

I've been following/reading about the "Anglican Use" conference on a number of fora/blogs. There seems to be a case of "No liturgy that Rome didn't make" and married ex-Anglican priests are to be used (probably due to the shortage of regular RC priests) but not to have any "Anglican Use" rite regularized.... Am I sounding too jaundiced if I say that it looks like "RC owns the Right Way to Worship(tm)" and "no others need apply"?

Sigh

Ebor
Totally agree Ebor - I'm astounded you didn't know that the Roman Church was master and commander of such things - why, they even can tell the Holy Spirit when ordinations are no longer valid and instruct the Lord that the limbo they created no longer exists!....

[Ebor]

Totally agree Ebor - I'm astounded you didn't know that the Roman Church was master and commander of such things - why, they even can tell the Holy Spirit when ordinations are no longer valid and instruct the Lord that the limbo they created no longer exists!....

Oh I know about that alright. And I keep remembering a phrase about "the race of Men, who above all desire Power." I've seen too many cases of one group/ institution insisting that they are Right(tm) and what they say is True and all that with the aim of making sure that *they* control things. And I've seem too much evil come out of people who think that they know the Right Way for Everyone.

Sigh. Or maybe I *am* getting too jaundiced.
Ebor

[Ebor]

It seems to come down to acting as though any particular Church "Owns God".

Ebor

[She]

Will they ever get off their high horse???

No, of course not. They would lose too much of their identity and power if they did.

[masuwerte]

Indeed. But hasn't Rome said all along that true ecuminism leads to all parties accepting whatever Rome says? Kinda like the Borg - resistance is futile, prepare for assimilation. Those groups who retain some aspects of their liturgy may someday find out that it was a priviledge that can be revoked, not a right.

[Simon_Templar]

I think there is some over reaction to what was said. Ebor was right that its not uniquely Roman to be liturgical snobs :) The east is at least as bad.. probably worse.

The Roman church does allow liturgical variation, they are just cautious about it. I think in the Anglican case its particularly touchy because of the Roman view that our orders are invalid, and such. From their view point that is because of specific theological issues which they believe are present in our liturgy.

Let us not forget that the rift which produced the continuing anglican churches included the liturgy. Basicly the point is that theology invariably affects liturgy and visa versa. Thus in a case where there may be significant theological differences, I can understand why they would be hesitant to outright accept our liturgy.

With the pastoral issues I think this is even more obvious given that they don't accept the validity of Anglican orders. In their view most anglican bodies don't have valid succession, thus even if they would consider not requiring submission to the pope, which is a big enough issue in and of itself, they are not about to recognize a whole body of clergy who don't even have valid succession (in thier view point).

I don't think that the statement issued here is the big downer on unity that people seem to think it is. Nor is it a surprise. I think it is merely a wake up call that we have alot of issues to work out, and a wake up that maybe we'll have to give a little as well. I think alot of Anglicans are, or have been, simply thinking that Rome is simply going to have to agree with them in order for unity to happen. No one ever said the path to unity was going to be easy and that the journey was going to make itself.

[Colabomb]

Christianity (inc.)

[Torah613]

Ah. So Rome gave up getting more Orthodox to assimilate via uniatism and have set their eyes now on the greener pastures of Our Lady's Dowry.....

Joe Zollars

[ContraMundum]

The article has it all- even Opus Dei gets a mention.

I'd love to comment on the article but I'd get in trouble. Again. As usual. (Not from the forum, but from real people)

[Naomi4Christ]

Here is the end of a speech given by Dr Garry Williams at General Synod in 2001:

In sum, the Roman Catholic church has what we may term an acquisitive attitude to ecumenism. She thinks that she has unity and fullness, and lacks only universality. Absorbing the Church of England would serve principally to extend her rule, giving to her what is already rightfully hers. But the Roman Catholic church remains what she once was on the key issues of authority and salvation. This means that now is not the time for reunion with Rome, but for explicit theological repentance by Rome. Then there can be unity in the truth. This is what we must seek and pray for. This is the path of true love for Roman Catholics, the path toward reunion. In the meantime, given that Rome has not changed, let us be grateful for men like Cardinal Ratzinger who plainly, honestly, and consistently expound the theology of their church. With them, we know where we stand. And it is not in Rome. Nor should it be.

[ContraMundum]

Good words from Dr Williams in 2001, but rather ironic too. He should heed his own words for his own communion: "This means that now is not the time for reunion with Rome, but for explicit theological repentance by Rome"

[Aymn27]

Here is the end of a speech given by Dr Garry Williams at General Synod in 2001:
Cool Naomi...thanks for the quote...

[Aymn27]

The article has it all- even Opus Dei gets a mention.

I'd love to comment on the article but I'd get in trouble. Again. As usual. (Not from the forum, but from real people)
Oh come on Contra - I'm dying for your take on this!

[TomUK]

Good words from Dr Williams in 2001, but rather ironic too. He should heed his own words for his own communion: "This means that now is not the time for reunion with Rome, but for explicit theological repentance by Rome"

How so?

[ContraMundum]

How so?

Oh Tom my friend...let's not go there, ok?

[ContraMundum]

Oh come on Contra - I'm dying for your take on this!

Nah..too much drama would result. :D

[Colabomb]

How so?
You know very well what he is talking about ;)

[TomUK]

You know very well what he is talking about ;)

I do, but 'explicit theological repentence?'

[Mary of Bethany]

I have, btw, seen EO who also maintain that *they* "own the Right Way to Worship(tm)". Byzantine or nothing. On a forum long ago, a person wrote that God only hears Byzantine Chant and that "western music" makes people think of the composer rather then God. :help: Ebor

No doubt that there are those Orthodox who think everything has to be "Eastern" to be Orthodox, but that is not the Church's teaching. We do have Western Rite parishes in the AOC (Antiochian) and ROCOR (Russian), and they use a liturgy based on the Sarum (?) rite, with adjustments by St. Tikhon, a greatly honored Saint in North America. It is somewhat controversial, but I don't think it can be argued that it is a legitimate rite from the undivided Church.

Mary

[Ebor]

No doubt that there are those Orthodox who think everything has to be "Eastern" to be Orthodox, but that is not the Church's teaching. We do have Western Rite parishes in the AOC (Antiochian) and ROCOR (Russian), and they use a liturgy based on the Sarum (?) rite, with adjustments by St. Tikhon, a greatly honored Saint in North America. It is somewhat controversial, but I don't think it can be argued that it is a legitimate rite from the undivided Church.

Mary

I know that it is not the teaching of at least *some* in the EO Churches. And I know of the Western Rite and have attended a service (Evening Prayer) at one some time ago.

There are different sources for WR liturgies. St. Tikhon worked on one from the BCP. He was cordial to Anglicans and did not think that "Only Eastern" was the way to go. For that matter neither did St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco. But I have read a number of things by people who seem quite at ease to declare that they know more then either of these EO saints and that anything "western" does not belong in EO. For them Byzantine is the Only Right Way.

Sigh

Ebor

[Mary of Bethany]

*Sigh* is right. :(

Mary

[gtsecc]

It is somewhat controversial, but I don't think it can be argued that it is a legitimate rite from the undivided Church.

Mary
Actually, I believe the canon used is Gregory the Greats, which, unlike the Byzantine liturgies, can be shown as a one used by the entire undivided Chruch. ;)
I could be wrong. But, it is worth looking at.

[Mary of Bethany]

I don't really know about these things. Was St. John Chrysostom's liturgy never used in the west? It was developed long before the schism. :confused:

Mary

[gtsecc]

I don't really know about these things. Was St. John Chrysostom's liturgy never used in the west? It was developed long before the schism. :confused:

Mary
Sure - that is the main one we Anglican do.
But, the way we do it is not good enough for the EO.
The theology, however, is - I think there objection is - heck, I don't know.

[Colabomb]

I would settle for recognition of Sacraments.

[Colabomb]

Actually I know personally some Bishops who do accept our Orders and Sacraments (At least those of Traditionalists), but unfortunately they are a minority.

[Ebor]

Sure - that is the main one we Anglican do.
But, the way we do it is not good enough for the EO.
The theology, however, is - I think there objection is - heck, I don't know.

I'm sorry. Are you saying that the liturgy done on Sundays in Anglican/Episcopal churches is the same "Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom" that is done in EO/Byzantine rites?

I will have to check my books, but I was under the impression that Abp. Cranmer used the Sarum Rite (and other things) for the BCP. Eucharistic Prayer D in the US BCP is from the Liturgy of St. Basil, but that is only since 1979.

Ebor

[karen freeinchristman]

I would settle for recognition of Sacraments.

Yes, wouldn't that be wonderful!

[higgs2]

I would settle for recognition of Sacraments.
We recognize their sacraments. I think that's enough.

[gtsecc]

I'm sorry. Are you saying that the liturgy done on Sundays in Anglican/Episcopal churches is the same "Liturgy of St. John Chrystostom" that is done in EO/Byzantine rites?

Ebor
Absolutely.
Look, I will post the EO, since we all know the Anglican words:
We call this the prayer for the people; they call it the great litany:
Deacon: In peace let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For the peace of God and the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For peace of the whole world, for the stability of the holy churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For this holy house and for those who enter it with faith, reverence, and the fear of God, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For our Archbishop (Name), our Bishop (Name), the honorable presbyters, the deacons in the service of Christ, and all the clergy and laity, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For our country, the president, and all those in public service, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.
Deacon: For this parish and city, for every city and country, and for the faithful who live in them, let us pray to the Lord.
People: Lord, have mercy.

[gtsecc]

Then they do the trisagion, which is similalr to our Gloria and Kerie. Of course, they do the readings like us also: OT, Epistle, Gospel.

[gtsecc]

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with all of you.
People: And with your spirit.
Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.
People: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord.
People: It is proper and right.
Priest (in a low voice): It is proper and right to sing to You, bless You, praise You, thank You and worship You in all places of Your dominion; for You are God ineffable, beyond comprehension, invisible, beyond understanding, existing forever and always the same; You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us into being out of nothing, and when we fell, You raised us up again. You did not cease doing everything until You led us to heaven and granted us Your kingdom to come. For all these things we thank You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit; for all things that we know and do not know, for blessings seen and unseen that have been bestowed upon us. We also thank You for this liturgy which You are pleased to accept from our hands, even though You are surrounded by thousands of Archangels and tens of thousands of Angels, by the Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, soaring with their wings,


Priest: Singing the victory hymn, proclaiming, crying out, and saying:
People: Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth are filled with Your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna to God in the highest.
Priest (in a low voice): Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was delivered up, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:


Priest: Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.
People: Amen.
Priest (in a low voice): Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:


Priest: Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.
People: Amen.
Priest (in a low voice): Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,


Priest: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.
People: We praise You, we bless You, we give thanks to You, and we pray to You, Lord our God.
Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.


(He blesses the holy Bread.)
Deacon (in a low voice): Amen.


Priest (in a low voice): And that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Christ.


(He blesses the holy Cup.)
Deacon (in a low voice): Amen.


Priest (in a low voice): Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.


(He blesses them both.)
Deacon (in a low voice): Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Colabomb]

Wow, the similarity is truly amazing.

[Colabomb]

Although, I admit I have never seen this liturgy used in the two Orthodox Church's Divine Liturgies I have attended.

[TomUK]

Cheers for that Glenn - i never realised how close they actually are.

As a result of your near constant references to it i'm planning to get a copy of The Shape of the Liturgy to read over summer. Should be enlightening.

[TomUK]

Priest (in a low voice): Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we ask, pray, and entreat You: send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here presented.
And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.



I never realised in Orthodox Churches at the moment of consecration all their Priests have to sound like James Earl Jones. ;)

[Mary of Bethany]

Although, I admit I have never seen this liturgy used in the two Orthodox Church's Divine Liturgies I have attended.

Are you sure? Unless it was during Lent, and you heard the Liturgy of St. Basil, it should have been. (And St. Basil's is basically the same, with some extra words.)

P.S. Thanks for posting that, gtsecc. Just reading it takes me back to Divine Liturgy. :)



Mary

[Mary of Bethany]

I never realised in Orthodox Churches at the moment of consecration all their Priests have to sound like James Earl Jones. ;)

Oh, yes. It's #2 in the list found in "Things Necessary for Ordination to the Priesthood", right after "marriage to the perfect Matushka". :P

Mary

[pmcleanj]

Are you sure? Unless it was during Lent, and you heard the Liturgy of St. Basil, it should have been. (And St. Basil's is basically the same, with some extra words.)

P.S. Thanks for posting that, gtsecc. Just reading it takes me back to Divine Liturgy. :)



Mary
I don't recognize it from the Orthodox liturgies I've been to, either -- but that's because I understand even less Ukrainian than I do Russian.

It seems like a rather modern-English translation. Are there any pre-1970's English translations in common use?

[gtsecc]

Although, I admit I have never seen this liturgy used in the two Orthodox Church's Divine Liturgies I have attended.
Then you went on a day when Basil the Great's is used.

[gtsecc]

Here is a link to the entire text of the divine liturgy of St. John Crysostom.

[gtsecc]

Priest:The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

All: And with thy spirit.

The priest, facing east: Let us lift up our hearts.

All: We lift them up unto the Lord.

Priest: Let us give thanks unto the Lord.

All: It is meet and right to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided.


The priest prays:

It is meet and right to hymn thee, to bless thee, to praise thee, to give thanks unto thee, and to worship thee in every place of thy dominion, for thou art God inexpressibie, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, everexisting, eternally the same, thou and thine only-begotten Son and thy Holy Spirit. Thou didst bring us from nonexistence into being, and when we had fallen away, didst raise us up again, and didst not cease to do all things until thou hadst brought us up to heaven, and hadst bestowed upon us thy kingdom, which is to come. For all these things we give thanks unto thee, and to thine only-begotten Son, and to thy Holy Spirit, for all things of which we know and of which we know not, for the benefits both revealed and unrevealed, which have been done for us. And we give thanks unto thee for this service which thou hast vouchsafed to accept from our hands, even though there stand beside thee thousands of Archangels and ten thousands of Angels, Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, borne aloft on their wings.


And the deacon, taking the holy star from the holy diskos, makes the sign of the cross above it, and having kissed it, he lays it aside. Exclamation:
Singing the hymn of victory, shouting, crying, and saying:

All: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth, heaven and earth are full of thy glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

[pilgrimgal]

Yep.
And the irony is, they have the most wretched of the Liturgies.
Anglicans and the EO have much much better liturgies.

It really depends on which R.C. liturgy you visit...the one on T.V. on Sundays live from Notre Dame University is excellent.

In general this is true about R.C. liturgies though. I have only been attending Anglican liturgies for a few months..but see how well and reverently done they really are. :thumbsup:

[Torah613]

Then they do the trisagion, which is similalr to our Gloria and Kerie. Of course, they do the readings like us also: OT, Epistle, Gospel.

Wrong!

unless you are using New Skete's books, there is Epistle, Great Prokeimenon, Gospel.

Some things are similar, but I doupt highly it came from the Liturgy of our father John Chrysostom. I think its much more likely to come from basil's liturgy given some of the wording...

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Although, I admit I have never seen this liturgy used in the two Orthodox Church's Divine Liturgies I have attended.

The Liturgy GTSecc is quoting is the standard of Orthodox worship for the Divine Liturgy. It is "The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom/John the Golden-tounged." Often it is called "Divine Liturgy of St. John Chyrsostom" for short.

It is often difficult to recognize this liturgy as being done though, unless you can translate the many layers of byzantinizations that make it look so familiar to some of us, and yet so foreign to certain other peoples.

What services did you attend?

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Oh, yes. It's #2 in the list found in "Things Necessary for Ordination to the Priesthood", right after "marriage to the perfect Matushka". :P

Mary

I thought number 2 was "lack of understanding of shaving equipment"? ;)

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

I don't recognize it from the Orthodox liturgies I've been to, either -- but that's because I understand even less Ukrainian than I do Russian.

It seems like a rather modern-English translation. Are there any pre-1970's English translations in common use?


The ones used in ROCOR are generally not modern translations. If you google "Jordanville Prayerbook online" you should be able to find a link to the 1968 version of the prayerbook which has the fixed portions of the liturgy translated into KJV style English.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

Then you went on a day when Basil the Great's is used.

not necessarily. Some parishes use the Liturgy of ST. James, some parishes in Africa use the LIturgy of St. Mark. During lent on weekdays, the presanctified is that of St. Gregory Dialogious (Pope Gregory I for you westerners).

Not to mention that teh liturgy you quote is easily recognizable on paper--but not so much when one has to cut through the layers of byzantine style chant (especially if one is not used to it) and the frequent use of other languages such as greek, russian, georgian, etc.

Unfortunately many Orthodox churches are not that visitor attuned and so don't have booklets to follow the liturgy in. Most everyone who'se orthodox for any period of time has it memorized--just like the tones. I once had an RC friend comment that it must be so hard to sing in an Orthodox church since there are so many tones. I was flabbergasted....

Joe Zollars

[gtsecc]

I have only attended OCA Liturgies - and they are straight forward.

[Colabomb]

The Liturgy GTSecc is quoting is the standard of Orthodox worship for the Divine Liturgy. It is "The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Among the Saints John Chrysostom/John the Golden-tounged." Often it is called "Divine Liturgy of St. John Chyrsostom" for short.

It is often difficult to recognize this liturgy as being done though, unless you can translate the many layers of byzantinizations that make it look so familiar to some of us, and yet so foreign to certain other peoples.

What services did you attend?

Joe Zollars
I attended an Assyrian Church of the East Liturgy, and a Liturgy at the GOARCH church.

[Torah613]

I attended an Assyrian Church of the East Liturgy, and a Liturgy at the GOARCH church.

Ok that explains alot.

The Assyrian Church of the East is not Orthodox (by either Easter/Byzantine or Oriental standards). However it is indeed a beautiful service--and their liturgy is more ancient than even the Gregorian canon.

The Goarch liturgy, if it was in english, was most likely in badly pronounced english. Also most of hte prayers that GTSecc mentioned are said silently (or at least they should be according to the canons) or are sung at a rather fast pace in a tone that its difficult for westerners to understand fully (especially true of GrecoByzantine Chant styles--which I frequently refer to as sounding like "Calling the camels home").

GTSec:

Were the OCA parishes you attended Romanian, Bulgarian, CarpathoRusyn (Ruthenian--the standard back east), or VelikoRusyn (Russian--the standard on the west coast and Alaska as well as a few pockets here and there)? There are significant liturgical differences between the various types due to significant cultural differences of the original founders of the parish. And like I said, I spent quite some time in the OCA. Trust me when I say not all parishes are as straightforward. The OCA is by far not the most convert friendly juris in North America (although also not the least). There are a significant number of ethnics and longterm converts who don't remember what it was like not to know the services by heart. Therefore many/most parishes in oca (and almost all across Orthodoxy in general) do not have those nifty little service books to follow along in. One should never assume that Orthodoxy is ever straightforward or easy to grasp--as this is certainly never the case.

Joe Zollars

[Torah613]

as an aside, most if they don't have a service book would be more than happy to sell you one of hte prayerbooks in the churchgiftshop.

Joe Zollars

[Counter-Reformer]

I'm not sure what the big fuss is any way? What is being stated is that unlike the Eastern Churches, Canturbury in Rome's eyes is just a Diocesen See. Since it is not a Patriarchial see, Canturbury wouldn't be allowed form its's own rite unlike the Patriarchial Sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Rome, and Jerusalem. The Archdiocese of Canturbury is nothing more than a Latin rite See that was under the jurisdiction of the Latin-rite of the Church and more importantly the Holy See.

However, if Canturbury were to return to Rome, The Archbishop and the Bishops of the former Anglican Church would be able to grant indults for Anglican Use liturgy and/or Tredentine indults And if Rome has it's way we ould see universsla treditine indults.

I don't think it's the liturgy tha anglicans are upset about. No. It's more about the question of accepting the authority of Rome. The liturgy issue is a minor pittance really.

EDIT: I am just interjecting something to try and assuage the fears of "Big Bad Rome" not to debate, If anyone wishes to have a discussion about this, drop me a PM.

[ContraMundum]

I'm not sure what the big fuss is any way? What is being stated is that unlike the Eastern Churches, Canturbury in Rome's eyes is just a Diocesen See. Since it is not a Patriarchial see, Canturbury wouldn't be allowed form its's own rite unlike the Patriarchial Sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Rome, and Jerusalem. The Archdiocese of Canturbury is nothing more than a Latin rite See that was under the jurisdiction of the Latin-rite of the Church and more importantly the Holy See.

However, if Canturbury were to return to Rome, The Archbishop and the Bishops of the former Anglican Church would be able to grant indults for Anglican Use liturgy and/or Tredentine indults And if Rome has it's way we ould see universsla treditine indults.

I don't think it's the liturgy tha anglicans are upset about. No. It's more about the question of accepting the authority of Rome. The liturgy issue is a minor pittance really.

EDIT: I am just interjecting something to try and assuage the fears of "Big Bad Rome" not to debate, If anyone wishes to have a discussion about this, drop me a PM.

Too bad the history of Indult masses under the Vatican is riddled with broken promises.

[Aymn27]

I'm not sure what the big fuss is any way? What is being stated is that unlike the Eastern Churches, Canturbury in Rome's eyes is just a Diocesen See. Since it is not a Patriarchial see, Canturbury wouldn't be allowed form its's own rite unlike the Patriarchial Sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Rome, and Jerusalem. The Archdiocese of Canturbury is nothing more than a Latin rite See that was under the jurisdiction of the Latin-rite of the Church and more importantly the Holy See.

However, if Canturbury were to return to Rome, The Archbishop and the Bishops of the former Anglican Church would be able to grant indults for Anglican Use liturgy and/or Tredentine indults And if Rome has it's way we ould see universsla treditine indults.

I don't think it's the liturgy tha anglicans are upset about. No. It's more about the question of accepting the authority of Rome. The liturgy issue is a minor pittance really.

EDIT: I am just interjecting something to try and assuage the fears of "Big Bad Rome" not to debate, If anyone wishes to have a discussion about this, drop me a PM.
I think it's more of about having to assent to heterodox doctrine that is not part of the faith once delivered unto the saints...but hey, I may be wrong - I'm not the Pope, ;) (just kidding, really)

[pmcleanj]

Closed for staff review

[karen freeinchristman]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is being re-opened. Would everyone please review the CF rules, particularly those pertaining to "No Flaming" and "No Baiting". Civility and general good Christian conduct, people!

MOD HAT OFF

[Naomi4Christ]

I think it's more of about having to assent to heterodox doctrine that is not part of the faith once delivered unto the saints

I think you are onto something here.

[pilgrimgal]

I think you are onto something here.

Yes, point taken. :)

[Aymn27]

What's heterodox about the faith of the Church? After all even the Orthodoxy give assent to the notion of a the very *least* Papal primacy and recognize him as the Patriarch of the West, of which canturbury was historically subservant to as a ArchDiocesan (metropolitan) see.
Heterodox? Purgatory, immaculate conception of Mary, infallibility of the Pope - none of which are part of the faith once delivered.

[seanmc]

What is being stated is that unlike the Eastern Churches, Canturbury in Rome's eyes is just a Diocesen See. Since it is not a Patriarchial see, Canturbury wouldn't be allowed form its's own rite unlike the Patriarchial Sees of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Rome, and Jerusalem. The Archdiocese of Canturbury is nothing more than a Latin rite See that was under the jurisdiction of the Latin-rite of the Church and more importantly the Holy See.

However, if Canturbury were to return to Rome,

That doesn't make any sense. If we follow Rome's illogical policy on Anglican orders to it's logical conclusion, the See of Canterbury would be considered long vacant and any reunion of the AC & RCC would be, in Roman theological eyes, the return of laymen and non-ordained ministers of a long-separated "ecclesiastical communion." Nevertheless, these Bishops (or as Rome would say, "Bishops") would still be beholden to Rome in terms of indults and local liturgical matters.

[ContraMundum]

.....oh dear...

"Here we go"...

Now comes all the generalizations, rash statements, over-statements and pontificating about "Rome" and the "Orthodox".

Get with the program people. Already we are getting the same-old-same-old. Statements like "Purgatory? Both catholics and and Orthodox subscribe to this idea", which is not exactly true (considering I have book on my shelf written by an Orthodox patriarch which states in broken English "why we do not believe in the Purgatory").

The problem I have with Roman Catholics pontificating about their church is really simple- they don't have the facts right. The Roman Church is so complex and complicated they need specialist scholars on canon law, and yet some laymen are happy to tell us the proper interpetation of Roman Dogma, when really, they are just giving opinions and dressing them up as "de fide". Sure, they can come up with a dozen weblinks to back their position up, but all one needs to do is waltz up the street the nearest Catholic Church and find out that the opposite of what is being rammed down our throats is true.

Look, if you want to find heterodox doctrine in Rome, look no further than communion in one kind. That alone would be enough to keep a Christian conscience from attending that sect of Christianity.

Purgatory? Who cares? Just be ready to die.

Papal infallibility? Heck, even the best Catholics can't agree on what or when it happens.

Immaculate conception? Nice theory, but no scripture support.

As for quoting the ECF's- leave us out of that. There are still hundreds of volumes not translated into English, and the ones that are are usually misinterpreted by those who want to find support for their pet medieval doctrine-du-jour. Anyway, the ECF's were not inspired by God in the manner of scripture.

Enough I say. Roman e-pologists should go back to GT and leave STR in peace.

[Naomi4Christ]

.....oh dear...

"Here we go"...

Now comes all the generalizations, rash statements, over-statements and pontificating about "Rome" and the "Orthodox".

Get with the program people. Already we are getting the same-old-same-old. Statements like "Purgatory? Both catholics and and Orthodox subscribe to this idea", which is not exactly true (considering I have book on my shelf written by an Orthodox patriarch which states in broken English "why we do not believe in the Purgatory").

The problem I have with Roman Catholics pontificating about their church is really simple- they don't have the facts right. The Roman Church is so complex and complicated they need specialist scholars on canon law, and yet some laymen are happy to tell us the proper interpetation of Roman Dogma, when really, they are just giving opinions and dressing them up as "de fide". Sure, they can come up with a dozen weblinks to back their position up, but all one needs to do is waltz up the street the nearest Catholic Church and find out that the opposite of what is being rammed down our throats is true.

Look, if you want to find heterodox doctrine in Rome, look no further than communion in one kind. That alone would be enough to keep a Christian conscience from attending that sect of Christianity.

Purgatory? Who cares? Just be ready to die.

Papal infallibility? Heck, even the best Catholics can't agree on what or when it happens.

Immaculate conception? Nice theory, but no scripture support.

As for quoting the ECF's- leave us out of that. There are still hundreds of volumes not translated into English, and the ones that are are usually misinterpreted by those who want to find support for their pet medieval doctrine-du-jour. Anyway, the ECF's were not inspired by God in the manner of scripture.

Enough I say. Roman e-pologists should go back to GT and leave STR in peace.

Thank you, Contra. :)

Everytime I read, "all", "always" and "every" on this forum, I cringe.

[Colabomb]

.....oh dear...

"Here we go"...

Now comes all the generalizations, rash statements, over-statements and pontificating about "Rome" and the "Orthodox".

Get with the program people. Already we are getting the same-old-same-old. Statements like "Purgatory? Both catholics and and Orthodox subscribe to this idea", which is not exactly true (considering I have book on my shelf written by an Orthodox patriarch which states in broken English "why we do not believe in the Purgatory").

The problem I have with Roman Catholics pontificating about their church is really simple- they don't have the facts right. The Roman Church is so complex and complicated they need specialist scholars on canon law, and yet some laymen are happy to tell us the proper interpetation of Roman Dogma, when really, they are just giving opinions and dressing them up as "de fide". Sure, they can come up with a dozen weblinks to back their position up, but all one needs to do is waltz up the street the nearest Catholic Church and find out that the opposite of what is being rammed down our throats is true.

Look, if you want to find heterodox doctrine in Rome, look no further than communion in one kind. That alone would be enough to keep a Christian conscience from attending that sect of Christianity.

Purgatory? Who cares? Just be ready to die.

Papal infallibility? Heck, even the best Catholics can't agree on what or when it happens.

Immaculate conception? Nice theory, but no scripture support.

As for quoting the ECF's- leave us out of that. There are still hundreds of volumes not translated into English, and the ones that are are usually misinterpreted by those who want to find support for their pet medieval doctrine-du-jour. Anyway, the ECF's were not inspired by God in the manner of scripture.

Enough I say. Roman e-pologists should go back to GT and leave STR in peace.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ContraMundum again.

[Colabomb]

The See of canturbury is currently Vacant as per Vatican's stance that all Anglican orders are not only invalid but all succession is broken with the move to allow female bishops sealing the deal.

Two or three provinces of a world wide church do something, and suddenly it is "Anglican Practice".

98% of the Church does not ordain women, and condemns the practice and those who follow it.

The Majority of the Anglicans on this board are from "Liberal America" and it is a hot debate even here.





The Anglican church as a whole is viewed to be in Schism with a couple of Dioceses in England and the US with Valid Apostolic Succession by way of Utrecht and Old Catholics.

Why are Orthodox and Old Catholics viewed as having valid orders? They reject Papal Infallibility as we do.

As such since Canturbury is just a Metroplitan See, it it is sbservant to the Bishop in Rome and all of his Bishops who returned to Rome would also be subservent to Rome.

Rome overstepped its bounds of a Patriarchal See, and invented the concept of a Universal See, something unknown to the Apostolic Church.

What's the point in returning if one refuses to accept the historical authority of His holiness in Rome. This would invariably mean affirming to not only Papal infallibility but core doctrines such as the Communion of the Saints, the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin, and Transubstantiation.

With the Exception of the Communion of Saints (which I actually see as deemphasized in your church), my point exactly.

Inter-communion isn't a game, it shows that What I believe is what you believe. We can't have inter-communion becuase of the fact that there are still big questions as to the Apostolic Succession in the CoE, the ambiguity on the acceptance of Transubstantiation, and finally taht the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and leads the Church and is the Steward of the Kingdom.

The Orthodox don't hold to Transubstatiation. I ask again, why are they and the Old Catholics Valid but Illicit, and ours Illegal and Illicit?

[SirTimothy]

Of course, since it is entirely possible that the church of england predated the church of Rome, there's no reason why Cantebury shouldn't be the 'universal see'... ;)

[higgs2]

Two or three provinces of a world wide church do something, and suddenly it is "Anglican Practice".

98% of the Church does not ordain women, and condemns the practice and those who follow it.

The Majority of the Anglicans on this board are from "Liberal America" and it is a hot debate even here.







Why are Orthodox and Old Catholics viewed as having valid orders? They reject Papal Infallibility as we do.



Rome overstepped its bounds of a Patriarchal See, and invented the concept of a Universal See, something unknown to the Apostolic Church.



With the Exception of the Communion of Saints (which I actually see as deemphasized in your church), my point exactly.



The Orthodox don't hold to Transubstatiation. I ask again, why are they and the Old Catholics Valid but Illicit, and ours Illegal and Illicit?
Where does the 98% figure come from?

[Colabomb]

Where does the 98% figure come from?
I estimated, I admit that freely. Defintely in the Nineties. I was originally going to say 99, but I realized that probably wasn't true.

Now, considering the African Provinces, the South Americans, the Continuing Groups, the Dissenters in the Bodies that do ordain women, the Break off bodies in other countries.

Female Ordination is in a huge minority.

[Naomi4Christ]

I estimated, I admit that freely. Defintely in the Nineties. I was originally going to say 99, but I realized that probably wasn't true.

Now, considering the African Provinces, the South Americans, the Continuing Groups, the Dissenters in the Bodies that do ordain women, the Break off bodies in other countries.

Female Ordination is in a huge minority.

98% doesn't feel right, but I have no official figures either.

One thing to bear in mind is that religious practice often follows secular practices, hence you are unlikely to get women's ordination in much of Asia, for example, until many years after women achieve equality in secular society. I don't think you can read too much into straight numbers.

I just wish that people on both sides of the debate would recognise that each side have valid points, even if your personal scales tip the other way.

[SirTimothy]

Female Ordination is in a huge minority.

Really? There are... ummm... seven provinces that will not ordain them at all. 5 that will only ordain as deacons, 9 that will only ordain them as priests, and 15 that will ordain them as bishops. That's 24 provinces that will ordain them, as opposed to 14 that will not ordain them to the presbytery and 5 that will not ordain them to the diaconate. I think you need to check your facts. That means 63% of provinces will ordain them to the presbytery, with only 37% that won't. I don't have provincial sizes however, but I'll work on that.

Timothy

[Naomi4Christ]

Really? There are... ummm... seven provinces that will not ordain them at all. 5 that will only ordain as deacons, 9 that will only ordain them as priests, and 15 that will ordain them as bishops. That's 24 provinces that will ordain them, as opposed to 14 that will not ordain them to the presbytery and 5 that will not ordain them to the diaconate. I think you need to check your facts.

Timothy

Have you been Wikipediaing? I was trying to investigate some figures earlier, and came across a good Wiki with the provinces that do and don't.

I couldn't find any numbers though. In CofE, more that 50% of new ordinations are women, FWIW. I wouldn't be surprised if USA, Canada, Australia and NZ had similar %. Therefore, whatever the numbers are today, they will be increasing year on year.

As I said earlier, we can't seriously use developing country practices as a validation for a no-women POV, as they may well be no-women for any positions of leadership in their secular societies.

We know what it says in the bible - we can't really learn from anyone else. It's a case of weighing up what is in scripture and applying it to our lives today. Because someone else attaches great relevence to one passage over another doesn't really have a bearing on what we should decide. We are intelligent enough to arrive at a conclusion ourselves.

[SirTimothy]

I checked Wikipedia to double-check figures I've had for a while--it's somewhat incorrect in a couple of places, I really ought to edit and fix the bits about this province which are way out of date.

Timothy

[Colabomb]

Have you been Wikipediaing? I was trying to investigate some figures earlier, and came across a good Wiki with the provinces that do and don't.

I couldn't find any numbers though. In CofE, more that 50% of new ordinations are women, FWIW. I wouldn't be surprised if USA, Canada, Australia and NZ had similar %. Therefore, whatever the numbers are today, they will be increasing year on year.

As I said earlier, we can't seriously use developing country practices as a validation for a no-women POV, as they may well be no-women for any positions of leadership in their secular societies.

We know what it says in the bible - we can't really learn from anyone else. It's a case of weighing up what is in scripture and applying it to our lives today. Because someone else attaches great relevence to one passage over another doesn't really have a bearing on what we should decide. We are intelligent enough to arrive at a conclusion ourselves.
In spite of Scripture.

[Colabomb]

Really? There are... ummm... seven provinces that will not ordain them at all. 5 that will only ordain as deacons, 9 that will only ordain them as priests, and 15 that will ordain them as bishops. That's 24 provinces that will ordain them, as opposed to 14 that will not ordain them to the presbytery and 5 that will not ordain them to the diaconate. I think you need to check your facts. That means 63% of provinces will ordain them to the presbytery, with only 37% that won't. I don't have provincial sizes however, but I'll work on that.

Timothy
You are stuck in the AC. Like I said, consider the Dissenters in those bodies, the Continuing groups, in several countries, the fact that African Anglicanism is much more populous than most of the Other provinces, making their provinces worth more in terms of pop.

[higgs2]

In spite of Scripture.
No, that's your interpretation. The churches who have ordained women have a different interpretation.

[higgs2]

You are stuck in the AC. Like I said, consider the Dissenters in those bodies, the Continuing groups, in several countries, the fact that African Anglicanism is much more populous than most of the Other provinces, making their provinces worth more in terms of pop.
Fun with stats :)

[higgs2]

What about the "dissenters" in the non-female-ordaining groups? :D We need to count them too.

[Colabomb]

What about the "dissenters" in the non-female-ordaining groups? :D We need to count them too.
Even so.

[Colabomb]

Fun with stats :)
How am I being manipulative? except for the Percentage (which I admit was an estimation on my part) tell me something I have said that is deceptive?

[Colabomb]

No, that's your interpretation. The churches who have ordained women have a different interpretation.
One that is novel, one that has been condemned for the Past 2000 years, and will be for the Next 2,000 years, save for those few bodies that mix politics with our faith.

[higgs2]

How am I being manipulative? except for the Percentage (which I admit was an estimation on my part) tell me something I have said that is deceptive?
I won't defend callling you manipulative or deceptive. Why would I defend that, I didn't say it.

[Colabomb]

I won't defend callling you manipulative or deceptive. Why would I defend that, I didn't say it.
How am I supposed to take, "Fun With Numbers"?

I will take your answer without arguement.

[higgs2]

How am I supposed to take, "Fun With Numbers"?

I will take your answer without arguement.

Well, Cola, if someone says "Fun With Numbers" to you, then we'll figure it out :D

:) I said, "Fun with Stats". I'm referring to the way statistics (like bible verses) can be used to say whatever one wants them to. So we can look at Timothy's numbers if we want to show that female ordination is not uncommon in the AC, or we can look at yours (although to be fair you really didn't give any numbers) to show that hardly anyone does it.

My opinion? I think that it's pretty out of context to say that taking the number of provinces against it and then multiplying it the number of baptised Anglicans in them is an appropriate way to prove that 98% of Anglicans are against female ordination.

Statistics are useful, but not alone or out of context or without any kind of discussion or study. Just like bible verses :)

[higgs2]

One that is novel, one that has been condemned for the Past 2000 years, and will be for the Next 2,000 years, save for those few bodies that mix politics with our faith.

That is as unfair as it is to suggest that the bodies who do interpret scripture to say "no female priests" do so out of patriarchal desire for power and bigotry against women.

[higgs2]

Well, Cola, if someone says "Fun With Numbers" to you, then we'll figure it out :D

:) I said, "Fun with Stats". I'm referring to the way statistics (like bible verses) can be used to say whatever one wants them to. So we can look at Timothy's numbers if we want to show that female ordination is not uncommon in the AC, or we can look at yours (although to be fair you really didn't give any numbers) to show that hardly anyone does it.

My opinion? I think that it's pretty out of context to say that taking the number of provinces against it and then multiplying it the number of baptised Anglicans in them is an appropriate way to prove that 98% of Anglicans are against female ordination.

Statistics are useful, but not alone or out of context or without any kind of discussion or study. Just like bible verses :)

Also, let me add: You did say this: "98% of the Church does not ordain women, and condemns the practice and those who follow it." So that is what this "98%" figure refers to, just for context.

ANd you are welcome to reply and disagree, I don't expect you to take my opinon "without argument". You and I have proven in the past that at least we two can disagree in a civil and cordial manner, I think :)

[Colabomb]

That is as unfair as it is to suggest that the bodies who do interpret scripture to say "no female priests" do so out of patriarchal desire for power and bigotry against women.
That actually is a common arguement. I am debating with that kind of person right now on another thread.

I will admit that not everyone who holds to female priests is doing so Politically. I actually used to be in favor of women Priests, and my arguements, although misguided, were not political.

And I will also admit that there are a few on this side who are indeed filled with a male pride.

But you must also admit that for many on your side of this particular argument, it is indeed political, evidenced by the discussion of Women's Rights.

[Colabomb]

Well, Cola, if someone says "Fun With Numbers" to you, then we'll figure it out :D

:) I said, "Fun with Stats". I'm referring to the way statistics (like bible verses) can be used to say whatever one wants them to. So we can look at Timothy's numbers if we want to show that female ordination is not uncommon in the AC, or we can look at yours (although to be fair you really didn't give any numbers) to show that hardly anyone does it.

My opinion? I think that it's pretty out of context to say that taking the number of provinces against it and then multiplying it the number of baptised Anglicans in them is an appropriate way to prove that 98% of Anglicans are against female ordination.

Statistics are useful, but not alone or out of context or without any kind of discussion or study. Just like bible verses :)
I admit that is a good point.

And while on second thought, 98 is a bit extreme, I would still be willing to bet that it is still a majority.

[SirTimothy]

Well, even within the Church of Nigeria there is a strong faction pushing for women's ordination. The Church of Uganda does it already--it has a female bishop, even. :) I really think that if it is a majority against it, it's very VERY slim majority.

Timothy

[gtsecc]

One Billions Roman Catholics and Millions of Orthodox are against it.

[Colabomb]

One Billions Roman Catholics and Millions of Orthodox are against it.
Understood and agreed, however I made the claim that it was not Anglican Practice, that is what we are discussing.

I doubt anyone claims it is the majority in all of Christianity, even those who support it.

[karen freeinchristman]

I doubt anyone claims it is the majority in all of Christianity, even those who support it.

I don't think it is possible to come up with a figure for this.

[gtsecc]

Well Sure they do - those that support female ordination have removed themselves from the communion.
Ask Rome or Constantiople if we are in communion.

[pmcleanj]

...
Ask Rome or Constantiople if we are in communion.
We don't need to ask Rome or Constantinople for affirmation.

We know that they have already removed themselves from communion with us. We also know that they did so over issues that we believe to be adiaphora, or simply wrong, starting (in the case of Rome) with their claims of papal authority.

Since they're wrong, and out of communion, why would we turn to them for validation?

[higgs2]

One Billions Roman Catholics and Millions of Orthodox are against it.
1. We're not talking about them, we're talking about Anglicans.

2. You can't say with certainty that every person in each church agrees with you LOL

[Colabomb]

I don't think it is possible to come up with a figure for this.
Not an exact number no. But there rarely is an exact number about anything. Just educated estimates. Polls etc.

[higgs2]

Not an exact number no. But there rarely is an exact number about anything. Just educated estimates. Polls etc.
Huge difference between

Educated estimate = someone's opinion

and

Educated estimated well designed research, taken in context.

Just thought I'd add that.