As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

[Keble]

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

 

[ialmisry]

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

 

[Keble]

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

You can say that, but that's not the definition of a denomination. Different organizations and structures are different denominations; difference in belief is usual (because that's the most common reason for division) but it isn't necessary.

 

[ialmisry]

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

You can say that, but that's not the definition of a denomination. Different organizations and structures are different denominations; difference in belief is usual (because that's the most common reason for division) but it isn't necessary.

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

 

[ozgeorge]

Actually, I think Keble is right. The various overlapping jurisdictions are technically "denominations" of the same Church, just as a fifty cent coin and a ten cent coin are both denominations of the same currency. They are in fact separate bodies- separately administered and ( according to Orthodox Ecclessiology) each body is sufficient unto itself and contains the fullness of Grace being a local Church under a Bishop. In other words, each body does not depend on the presence or absence of the other bodies for it's existence, but stands alone. What we have therefore in the so-called diaspora are different denominations of the Orthodox Church.

 

[Melodist]

Actually, I think Keble is right. The various overlapping jurisdictions are technically "denominations" of the same Church, just as a fifty cent coin and a ten cent coin are both denominations of the same currency. They are in fact separate bodies- separately administered and ( according to Orthodox Ecclessiology) each body is sufficient unto itself and contains the fullness of Grace being a local Church under a Bishop. In other words, each body does not depend on the presence or absence of the other bodies for it's existence, but stands alone. What we have therefore in the so-called diaspora are different denominations of the Orthodox Church.

By this standard, couldn't every individual Orthodox diocese headed by their local bishop be considered a "denomination", because where the bishop is gathered with his flock, there is the Catholic Church?

 

[ozgeorge]

Actually, I think Keble is right. The various overlapping jurisdictions are technically "denominations" of the same Church, just as a fifty cent coin and a ten cent coin are both denominations of the same currency. They are in fact separate bodies- separately administered and ( according to Orthodox Ecclessiology) each body is sufficient unto itself and contains the fullness of Grace being a local Church under a Bishop. In other words, each body does not depend on the presence or absence of the other bodies for it's existence, but stands alone. What we have therefore in the so-called diaspora are different denominations of the Orthodox Church.

By this standard, couldn't every individual Orthodox diocese headed by their local bishop be considered a "denomination", because where the bishop is gathered with his flock, there is the Catholic Church?

Where the Canons are followed and there us only one local Church under one Bishop it makes no sense to talk of "denominations", but rather "the Church in Alexandria" or "the Church in Mount Athos" etc...
I saw a wonderful example of this on Holy Saturday 2000. I was in Thessaloniki with family, and we were watching the ceremony of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem live on TV. The Bishop of Thessaloniki and his Deacon were at Jerusalem airport ready to bring the Holy Fire back to Thessaloniki. The Deacon was intoning the Litany, and got to the part where the Bishop was commemorated and started to commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew, (the primate of the Church in Thessaloniki) and immediately, the Bishop placed his hand over the Deacons mouth! The Deacon began the prayer again, and this time commemorated the Patriarch of Jerusalem in whose Archdiocese they currently were. One Church, one Bishop.

 

[Keble]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

 

[ialmisry]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

 

[Keble]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

I am a bit surprised to see that the only Google hit for the phrase you quote is this very page, as I expected the search to reveal a source for your mythology. So far, I have not; if my search bears much resemblance to your purported definition, this page is the first hit; if not, I get nothing of relevance. Well, except for this person copying out the entire definition as it appears in the OED. Frankly, I do not feel this is worth the effort of picking up my Compact copy and straining my eyes at the tiny print, as I think it far more likely that this person has put the effort in for me, and that you have not. It is bad enough to repeat the misstatements and false allegations of others, but when one is apparently making them up on one's own, that really destroys one's credibility.

And my bishop was invited to and did attend the last Lambeth Conference, which at last check was still the sine qua non of belonging to an Anglican church.

 

[Irish Hermit]

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

Could we get the canonical definition of "Jurisdiction"?  Also if it has any use in the Holy Fathers?

 

[Irish Hermit]

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

You can say that, but that's not the definition of a denomination. Different organizations and structures are different denominations; difference in belief is usual (because that's the most common reason for division) but it isn't necessary.

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denomination

4: a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

 

[ialmisry]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

I am a bit surprised to see that the only Google hit for the phrase you quote is this very page, as I expected the search to reveal a source for your mythology. So far, I have not; if my search bears much resemblance to your purported definition, this page is the first hit; if not, I get nothing of relevance. Well, except for this person copying out the entire definition as it appears in the OED. Frankly, I do not feel this is worth the effort of picking up my Compact copy and straining my eyes at the tiny print, as I think it far more likely that this person has put the effort in for me, and that you have not. It is bad enough to repeat the misstatements and false allegations of others, but when one is apparently making them up on one's own, that really destroys one's credibility.

This was around 1984 (interesting date), pre-Google. I know that it is hard for many to believe, but the world predates the internet. Communism wasn't the only doctored definition, just the only one I remember. IIRC it had to do with some copyright agreement or some such thing with the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union vanished from history on New Years 1990 IIRC, again, before Facebook et alia.  I doubt if the powers that be at the OED kept up whatever agreement it had with the disgraced regime after it disappeared.

OED actions were in contrast to the Encyclopedia Britannica around the same time: Turkey insisted that EB label the "Kingdom of Armenia" on medieval maps as "Kingdom of Turkey." EB refused, so the Turkish Republic refused to allow the printing of the EB coming in.  In the end EB compromised by remoing the map(s) from the Turkish edition, which the TR printed.

And my bishop was invited to and did attend the last Lambeth Conference, which at last check was still the sine qua non of belonging to an Anglican church.

I thought PECUSA was invited to the last Lambeth Conference.  That's a part of the problem with the Lambeth Conference.

 

[Keble]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

I am a bit surprised to see that the only Google hit for the phrase you quote is this very page, as I expected the search to reveal a source for your mythology. So far, I have not; if my search bears much resemblance to your purported definition, this page is the first hit; if not, I get nothing of relevance. Well, except for this person copying out the entire definition as it appears in the OED. Frankly, I do not feel this is worth the effort of picking up my Compact copy and straining my eyes at the tiny print, as I think it far more likely that this person has put the effort in for me, and that you have not. It is bad enough to repeat the misstatements and false allegations of others, but when one is apparently making them up on one's own, that really destroys one's credibility.

This was around 1984 (interesting date), pre-Google. I know that it is hard for many to believe, but the world predates the internet. Communism wasn't the only doctored definition, just the only one I remember. IIRC it had to do with some copyright agreement or some such thing with the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union vanished from history on New Years 1990 IIRC, again, before Facebook et alia.  I doubt if the powers that be at the OED kept up whatever agreement it had with the disgraced regime after it disappeared.

OED actions were in contrast to the Encyclopedia Britannica around the same time: Turkey insisted that EB label the "Kingdom of Armenia" on medieval maps as "Kingdom of Turkey." EB refused, so the Turkish Republic refused to allow the printing of the EB coming in.  In the end EB compromised by remoing the map(s) from the Turkish edition, which the TR printed.

And my bishop was invited to and did attend the last Lambeth Conference, which at last check was still the sine qua non of belonging to an Anglican church.

I thought PECUSA was invited to the last Lambeth Conference.  That's a part of the problem with the Lambeth Conference.

Ialmisry, it may surprise you to learn that plenty of pre-internet documents are nonetheless searchable through its electronicized channels, including newspapers and books into previous centuries. The history of the OED is quite well-documented, and unless the modified definition was somehow snuck into the first supplement in 1933 or the second in 1972 (highly doubtful) the next opportunity for an insertion was in 1989, when the second edition was published. The first edition says what it says (and the C volume was published by 1895, by the way), and it does not say what you say it says. I have a certain casual interest in finding the source of your misinformation, but there comes a point where I believe I may exercise any man's right to insist that you provide some justification for what is really a quite outlandish claim. "I heard somewhere around 1984" is pathetically inadequate as evidence, and the fact of my inability to find any possible source shows the myth's inability to gain traction even in the world of conspiracy theory, much less that of sane people. And while I'm at it I would like to point out that conspiracy theories are much easier to hunt down on the internet than the boring truth, as it appears that every crackpot out there has recognized the web's potential for evangelization.

Webster's definition is widely used, but so are others, and the usage of "denomination" to mean one single church organization is common enough that other dictionaries document it. In any case "jurisdiction" is hardly a safe word given that PECUSA is most certainly an Anglican jurisdiction.

 

[ialmisry]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

I am a bit surprised to see that the only Google hit for the phrase you quote is this very page, as I expected the search to reveal a source for your mythology. So far, I have not; if my search bears much resemblance to your purported definition, this page is the first hit; if not, I get nothing of relevance. Well, except for this person copying out the entire definition as it appears in the OED. Frankly, I do not feel this is worth the effort of picking up my Compact copy and straining my eyes at the tiny print, as I think it far more likely that this person has put the effort in for me, and that you have not. It is bad enough to repeat the misstatements and false allegations of others, but when one is apparently making them up on one's own, that really destroys one's credibility.

This was around 1984 (interesting date), pre-Google. I know that it is hard for many to believe, but the world predates the internet. Communism wasn't the only doctored definition, just the only one I remember. IIRC it had to do with some copyright agreement or some such thing with the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union vanished from history on New Years 1990 IIRC, again, before Facebook et alia.  I doubt if the powers that be at the OED kept up whatever agreement it had with the disgraced regime after it disappeared.

OED actions were in contrast to the Encyclopedia Britannica around the same time: Turkey insisted that EB label the "Kingdom of Armenia" on medieval maps as "Kingdom of Turkey." EB refused, so the Turkish Republic refused to allow the printing of the EB coming in.  In the end EB compromised by remoing the map(s) from the Turkish edition, which the TR printed.

And my bishop was invited to and did attend the last Lambeth Conference, which at last check was still the sine qua non of belonging to an Anglican church.

I thought PECUSA was invited to the last Lambeth Conference.  That's a part of the problem with the Lambeth Conference.

Ialmisry, it may surprise you to learn that plenty of pre-internet documents are nonetheless searchable through its electronicized channels, including newspapers and books into previous centuries.

My posts show that it is not a suprise at all. Someone who has the print media, has to be interested enough to put it up though. In the case at bar, who would that be?

The history of the OED is quite well-documented, and unless the modified definition was somehow snuck into the first supplement in 1933 or the second in 1972 (highly doubtful) the next opportunity for an insertion was in 1989, when the second edition was published. The first edition says what it says (and the C volume was published by 1895, by the way), and it does not say what you say it says.

There was no Soviet Union in 1895, now was there?  And I do recall it had to do with some agreement with the Soviets.

I have a certain casual interest in finding the source of your misinformation,

An Episcopalian/Anglican insisting on precision in definition. With an attitude like that, you might not be invited to the Lambeth Conference.

but there comes a point where I believe I may exercise any man's right to insist that you provide some justification for what is really a quite outlandish claim. "I heard somewhere around 1984"

No, I did not hear it. I read it in print.

is pathetically inadequate as evidence, and the fact of my inability to find any possible source shows the myth's inability to gain traction even in the world of conspiracy theory, much less that of sane people.

LOL. Is there really all that many dictionary conspiracy theories going on?

So you wander around the world of conspriacy theory on the net?  I don't go there much, so I can't help you where to find a source there.

And while I'm at it I would like to point out that conspiracy theories are much easier to hunt down on the internet than the boring truth, as it appears that every crackpot out there has recognized the web's potential for evangelization.

Webster's definition is widely used, but so are others, and the usage of "denomination" to mean one single church organization is common enough that other dictionaries document it. In any case "jurisdiction" is hardly a safe word given that PECUSA is most certainly an Anglican jurisdiction.

I don't follow any ecclesiastical definitions of those "in communion" with the Porvoo signatories, as they have manifestly lost the abitlity of self-definition.

And no, the Orthodox Church does not use such a definitinon of "denomination," but the commoner one of Webster.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

I am a bit surprised to see that the only Google hit for the phrase you quote is this very page, as I expected the search to reveal a source for your mythology. So far, I have not; if my search bears much resemblance to your purported definition, this page is the first hit; if not, I get nothing of relevance. Well, except for this person copying out the entire definition as it appears in the OED. Frankly, I do not feel this is worth the effort of picking up my Compact copy and straining my eyes at the tiny print, as I think it far more likely that this person has put the effort in for me, and that you have not. It is bad enough to repeat the misstatements and false allegations of others, but when one is apparently making them up on one's own, that really destroys one's credibility.

This was around 1984 (interesting date), pre-Google. I know that it is hard for many to believe, but the world predates the internet. Communism wasn't the only doctored definition, just the only one I remember. IIRC it had to do with some copyright agreement or some such thing with the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union vanished from history on New Years 1990 IIRC, again, before Facebook et alia.  I doubt if the powers that be at the OED kept up whatever agreement it had with the disgraced regime after it disappeared.

OED actions were in contrast to the Encyclopedia Britannica around the same time: Turkey insisted that EB label the "Kingdom of Armenia" on medieval maps as "Kingdom of Turkey." EB refused, so the Turkish Republic refused to allow the printing of the EB coming in.  In the end EB compromised by remoing the map(s) from the Turkish edition, which the TR printed.

And my bishop was invited to and did attend the last Lambeth Conference, which at last check was still the sine qua non of belonging to an Anglican church.

I thought PECUSA was invited to the last Lambeth Conference.  That's a part of the problem with the Lambeth Conference.

Ialmisry, it may surprise you to learn that plenty of pre-internet documents are nonetheless searchable through its electronicized channels, including newspapers and books into previous centuries.

My posts show that it is not a suprise at all. Someone who has the print media, has to be interested enough to put it up though. In the case at bar, who would that be?

The history of the OED is quite well-documented, and unless the modified definition was somehow snuck into the first supplement in 1933 or the second in 1972 (highly doubtful) the next opportunity for an insertion was in 1989, when the second edition was published. The first edition says what it says (and the C volume was published by 1895, by the way), and it does not say what you say it says.

There was no Soviet Union in 1895, now was there?  And I do recall it had to do with some agreement with the Soviets.

I have a certain casual interest in finding the source of your misinformation,

An Episcopalian/Anglican insisting on precision in definition. With an attitude like that, you might not be invited to the Lambeth Conference.

but there comes a point where I believe I may exercise any man's right to insist that you provide some justification for what is really a quite outlandish claim. "I heard somewhere around 1984"

No, I did not hear it. I read it in print.

is pathetically inadequate as evidence, and the fact of my inability to find any possible source shows the myth's inability to gain traction even in the world of conspiracy theory, much less that of sane people.

LOL. Is there really all that many dictionary conspiracy theories going on?

So you wander around the world of conspriacy theory on the net?  I don't go there much, so I can't help you where to find a source there.

And while I'm at it I would like to point out that conspiracy theories are much easier to hunt down on the internet than the boring truth, as it appears that every crackpot out there has recognized the web's potential for evangelization.

Webster's definition is widely used, but so are others, and the usage of "denomination" to mean one single church organization is common enough that other dictionaries document it. In any case "jurisdiction" is hardly a safe word given that PECUSA is most certainly an Anglican jurisdiction.

I don't follow any ecclesiastical definitions of those "in communion" with the Porvoo signatories, as they have manifestly lost the abitlity of self-definition.

And no, the Orthodox Church does not use such a definitinon of "denomination," but the commoner one of Webster.

And which Orthodox Church do you represent with the above statement? The Orthodox Church of Your Own Opinion?

 

[ialmisry]

That's not how Mr. Webster defines "denomination," and I'm going with him on that.

Well, the OED disagrees, and as an Anglican I'm bound to go with that.  ;D

The OED lost all credibility once it defined communism, per demands of the Soviets, as "the logical end of the progression of scientific materialism" or some such nonsense.  A parallel too close for comfort on what Canterbury has been up to as of late.

So you're not PECUSA?

I am a bit surprised to see that the only Google hit for the phrase you quote is this very page, as I expected the search to reveal a source for your mythology. So far, I have not; if my search bears much resemblance to your purported definition, this page is the first hit; if not, I get nothing of relevance. Well, except for this person copying out the entire definition as it appears in the OED. Frankly, I do not feel this is worth the effort of picking up my Compact copy and straining my eyes at the tiny print, as I think it far more likely that this person has put the effort in for me, and that you have not. It is bad enough to repeat the misstatements and false allegations of others, but when one is apparently making them up on one's own, that really destroys one's credibility.

This was around 1984 (interesting date), pre-Google. I know that it is hard for many to believe, but the world predates the internet. Communism wasn't the only doctored definition, just the only one I remember. IIRC it had to do with some copyright agreement or some such thing with the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union vanished from history on New Years 1990 IIRC, again, before Facebook et alia.  I doubt if the powers that be at the OED kept up whatever agreement it had with the disgraced regime after it disappeared.

OED actions were in contrast to the Encyclopedia Britannica around the same time: Turkey insisted that EB label the "Kingdom of Armenia" on medieval maps as "Kingdom of Turkey." EB refused, so the Turkish Republic refused to allow the printing of the EB coming in.  In the end EB compromised by remoing the map(s) from the Turkish edition, which the TR printed.

And my bishop was invited to and did attend the last Lambeth Conference, which at last check was still the sine qua non of belonging to an Anglican church.

I thought PECUSA was invited to the last Lambeth Conference.  That's a part of the problem with the Lambeth Conference.

Ialmisry, it may surprise you to learn that plenty of pre-internet documents are nonetheless searchable through its electronicized channels, including newspapers and books into previous centuries.

My posts show that it is not a suprise at all. Someone who has the print media, has to be interested enough to put it up though. In the case at bar, who would that be?

The history of the OED is quite well-documented, and unless the modified definition was somehow snuck into the first supplement in 1933 or the second in 1972 (highly doubtful) the next opportunity for an insertion was in 1989, when the second edition was published. The first edition says what it says (and the C volume was published by 1895, by the way), and it does not say what you say it says.

There was no Soviet Union in 1895, now was there?  And I do recall it had to do with some agreement with the Soviets.

I have a certain casual interest in finding the source of your misinformation,

An Episcopalian/Anglican insisting on precision in definition. With an attitude like that, you might not be invited to the Lambeth Conference.

but there comes a point where I believe I may exercise any man's right to insist that you provide some justification for what is really a quite outlandish claim. "I heard somewhere around 1984"

No, I did not hear it. I read it in print.

is pathetically inadequate as evidence, and the fact of my inability to find any possible source shows the myth's inability to gain traction even in the world of conspiracy theory, much less that of sane people.

LOL. Is there really all that many dictionary conspiracy theories going on?

So you wander around the world of conspriacy theory on the net?  I don't go there much, so I can't help you where to find a source there.

And while I'm at it I would like to point out that conspiracy theories are much easier to hunt down on the internet than the boring truth, as it appears that every crackpot out there has recognized the web's potential for evangelization.

Webster's definition is widely used, but so are others, and the usage of "denomination" to mean one single church organization is common enough that other dictionaries document it. In any case "jurisdiction" is hardly a safe word given that PECUSA is most certainly an Anglican jurisdiction.

I don't follow any ecclesiastical definitions of those "in communion" with the Porvoo signatories, as they have manifestly lost the abitlity of self-definition.

And no, the Orthodox Church does not use such a definitinon of "denomination," but the commoner one of Webster.

And which Orthodox Church do you represent with the above statement? The Orthodox Church of Your Own Opinion?

The Orthodox Church which has so used the term in any Orthodox document,  Orthodox literature etc in English that I have seen.  If I've missed something, do please let me know.

Catholicity and the church By John Meyendorff
http://books.google.com/books?id=vc-ZC7B3v80C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=orthodoxy+denomination+meyendorff&source=bl&ots=OOusjfTbzi&sig=ZsVb_2PfCDYOUxcviGVQcBXd8cg&hl=en&ei=A_1nTZGuG8rGgAfw3IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Living tradition: orthodox witness in the contemporary world By John Meyendorff
http://books.google.com/books?id=72QXSflRMqcC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=orthodoxy+denomination+meyendorff&source=bl&ots=kIj4lXU427&sig=Q5Gd8Nf-mkFm57pSQ8ZvwLqQixU&hl=en&ei=A_1nTZGuG8rGgAfw3IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/24/meyendorff-on-ecumenism/

 

[Keble]

Ialmisry, as for as the promulgation of this tale, you are part of the conspiracy theory part of the net. After all, if the OED editors bowed to the wishes of the soviets, do you really think for one minute that the Vast Conservative Bellowing Machine of the internet could restrain itself from repeating this over and over? Unless, of course, it were being kept really quiet--but then, I cannot imagine that the VCBM wouldn't have found it out and have carried on about it anyway.

The point, at any rate, is that your allegation isn't credible. All the circumstantial evidence says that the OED definition was never different from what I came upon and that nothing happened around 1984 or any other date to suggest otherwise. I wasted half an hour checking up on you, but I needn't have bothered. I was sure the allegation was in error when I read it, I found nothing when I checked, and you've don't nothing substantive to back it up. But it seems unlikely to me that you'll ever back down.

Likewise your statement that the "Orthodox church" defines the word denomination thus-and-so isn't compelling. Can you cite a source? I doubt it, and and I doubt you'll try. There isn't any objective taxonomy in which the OCA and PECUSA aren't going to end up being of the same ilk excepting that one is Orthodox and the other is Anglican, in all the varied ecclesiological senses those words take. And making cheap shot about my church isn't improving your position in that respect.

 

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry, as for as the promulgation of this tale, you are part of the conspiracy theory part of the net. After all, if the OED editors bowed to the wishes of the soviets, do you really think for one minute that the Vast Conservative Bellowing Machine of the internet could restrain itself from repeating this over and over? Unless, of course, it were being kept really quiet--but then, I cannot imagine that the VCBM wouldn't have found it out and have carried on about it anyway.

My, my. It seems that you have uncovered that Vast Right Wing Conspriacy that Sen. Clinton said was making up all that infidelity of her husband.

The point, at any rate, is that your allegation isn't credible. All the circumstantial evidence says that the OED definition was never different from what I came upon and that nothing happened around 1984 or any other date to suggest otherwise. I wasted half an hour checking up on you, but I needn't have bothered. I was sure the allegation was in error when I read it, I found nothing when I checked, and you've don't nothing substantive to back it up. But it seems unlikely to me that you'll ever back down.

Why should I? I know what I saw.

Likewise your statement that the "Orthodox church" defines the word denomination thus-and-so isn't compelling. Can you cite a source? I doubt it, and and I doubt you'll try.

You do know how to use links, no?

There isn't any objective taxonomy in which the OCA and PECUSA aren't going to end up being of the same ilk excepting that one is Orthodox and the other is Anglican, in all the varied ecclesiological senses those words take.

Varied ecclesiology is an Anglican trait, not an Orthodox (or, for that matter, an orthodox) trait.

And making cheap shot about my church isn't improving your position in that respect.

Your denomination has been choosing doctrinal and dogmatic fuzziness ever since Kramner.

 

[Keble]

Maybe you saw something, and maybe you misremember it, but in any case, it isn't out there now. A supposed alteration to one of the defining (so to speak  ) reference works of our time, and there's no trace of it now: you're just a guy on a forum making yet another outlandish claim, with nothing to back it up but your own word, and given your complete lack of any inclination to put some substance behind it, nobody should believe your claim. Really, they ought to believe that it's untrue.

I'm uninterested in your claims of Orthodox exceptionalism and your snide comeback about my church. Overlapping jurisdictions, when it comes to that, have been an aberration in Anglicanism for a matter of a couple of years, not decade after decade as has been the case in Orthodoxy. In that wise, you stand in a glass house, stone in hand.

 

[ialmisry]

Maybe you saw something, and maybe you misremember it, but in any case, it isn't out there now.

LOL. Neither is the Soviet Union. Maybe it never existed.

A supposed alteration to one of the defining (so to speak  ) reference works of our time, and there's no trace of it now: you're just a guy on a forum making yet another outlandish claim, with nothing to back it up but your own word, and given your complete lack of any inclination to put some substance behind it, nobody should believe your claim. Really, they ought to believe that it's untrue.

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

I'm uninterested in your claims of Orthodox exceptionalism and your snide comeback about my church. Overlapping jurisdictions, when it comes to that, have been an aberration in Anglicanism for a matter of a couple of years, not decade after decade as has been the case in Orthodoxy. In that wise, you stand in a glass house, stone in hand.

Oh, ya'll have had problems longer than that: Kramner papering over crypto-Catholic church and the Calvinists with the same BoCP starting it all off. Once that settled down, the Non-Juror schism stretched for over a century, which both led to the first attempts in England at a WRO and the foundation of PECUSA when the English bishops would not ordain American ones. When the latter reached the far West, your first bishop there, Bp. Kipp, relates that two different jurisdictions were present in CA, and they considered the idea of getting their orders from the Russian bishop in Sitka rather than the "Church in the East" i.e. PECUSA.  When they realized that wouldn't worked, they offered it to your Bp. Southgate, whom PECUSA ordained as "bishop of Constantinople for the dominions and dependencies of the Sultan."  Odd, since we had plenty of bishops there, while we had only one in America which was scaring PECUSA: Dr. Thrall of SF expressed his fears of the Russian bishop at the 1862 convention, and the result was the Greek Russian Commmittee (which evidentually led to the WRO) and Russia setting up its Church in NYC in 1870 as a metochion to a non-existtent American Church.  When Russia finally dropped the ruse and set up its future Cathedral of North America in NYC, PECUSA ordained its bishop of Alaska in NYC in 1895.

 

[Keble]

There's not a lot of point in arguing about Anglicanism with someone who doesn't spell "Cramner" correctly, but what the heck... People make a big deal of the the non-Jurors but the only lasting importance they had was to get PECUSA started earlier and perhaps to bring about some minor differences between the American and English BCPs. By the time Lambeth got started they were entirely gone. One of the points of Lambeth indeed was to avoid the kind of competing/overlapping jurisdiction mess that the Orthodox had. If you can get your issues fixed as quickly.... My personal reaction to the various current breakdowns is "great, now we're as screwed up as the Orthodox."

Finally, your first comeback is really quite lame considering how easy it is to type "Soviet Union" or any number of other of phrases into Google and get a deluge of links testifying to its history. Why, it even has an article in Wikipedia.

And no, I cannot believe anything I like. Besides God, I have a sense of personal integrity and the strictures of a reasonably rigorous education to answer to.

 

[ialmisry]

There's not a lot of point in arguing about Anglicanism with someone who doesn't spell "Cramner" correctly, but what the heck...

Mat. 23:24.

People make a big deal of the the non-Jurors but the only lasting importance they had was to get PECUSA started earlier

And the Episcopal Church of Scotland (the reestablishment of the Presbyterian Kirk).  And the Non-jurors heirs', the Oxford movement and "Anglo-Catholicism." And the Vatican's Anglican Personal Ordinariate, we'll see if it strikes a mortal blow to Lambeth.

Then there's always the WRO....

and perhaps to bring about some minor differences between the American and English BCPs.

Like an epiclesis: the PECUSA delegate to Met. St. Philaret of Moscow, then the senior hierarch of Russia, made a big deal about that.

By the time Lambeth got started they were entirely gone.

So what "defines" one as a member of the "Anglican/Episcopalian communinon" has changed since their demise.

One of the points of Lambeth indeed was to avoid the kind of competing/overlapping jurisdiction mess that the Orthodox had.

Lambeth started in 1867. At that time, the only "competing/overlapping jurisdiction mess" that the Orthodox had was PECUSA and the Church of England claiming to be the Western Orthodox Church and resenting the Russian Missionary Diocese in North America and the mission of Dr. Overbeck and Fr. Hatherly in England.

If you can get your issues fixed as quickly....

You assUme Lambeth "fixed" anything, or merely kicked the can down the road. Whatever "peace" you had, your competing/overlapping jurisdiction issues have reappeared.

My personal reaction to the various current breakdowns is "great, now we're as screwed up as the Orthodox."

And the reaction of the WRO is "great, now we're as firmly on solid ground as the Orthodox."

Finally, your first comeback is really quite lame considering how easy it is to type "Soviet Union" or any number of other of phrases into Google and get a deluge of links testifying to its history. Why, it even has an article in Wikipedia.

Which proves its a vast conspiracy.

And no, I cannot believe anything I like. Besides God, I have a sense of personal integrity and the strictures of a reasonably rigorous education to answer to.

Then I'm afraid you are betting on the wrong horse.

 

[Keble]

It is for the sake of passers-by that I feel the need to point out that the Scottish "Presbyterian kirk", the Church of Scotland, has nothing to do with the Scottish Episcopal Church except the words "Scotland" and "Church", and that the Oxford Movement has nothing at all to do with the non-jurors, and that there was no need to talk of an Anglican communion before 1792 because there was but a single jurisdiction up to that point.

The current anomaly in the communion is to be deplored, and the impending full division to be deplored. But when it comes to that, a division on the basis of theology is better justified than the situation obtaining in American Orthodoxy.

And as far as backing the wrong horse is concerned: Even if I were Orthodox it would not excuse me saying what you have said here. You have an obligation to the same integrity, which you have shirked throughout this exchange.

 

[ozgeorge]

I'm sorry Keble. You didn't deserve any of that.

 

[Punch]

I'm sorry Keble. You didn't deserve any of that.

Yes, it is amazing how people can find the time to write so many words, yet not have a vocabulary large enough to include the two words "I apologize".  ialmisry, I find that I agree with you in the vast majority of cases.  But not this time. 

 

[Achronos]

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

Pure gold.

 

[ialmisry]

It is for the sake of passers-by that I feel the need to point out that the Scottish "Presbyterian kirk", the Church of Scotland, has nothing to do with the Scottish Episcopal Church except the words "Scotland" and "Church",

The Scottish Reformation, unlike the English, was Calvinist to the core. But when James VI of Scotland became James I of England he proceeded to introduce an episcopacy (his philosophy was "No bishop, no king."), making the Church of Scotland even more disjointed than the Church of England. So the Presbyterian church in Scotland ended up with an episcopalian overlay by 1625.  When the Non-juror schism occured (those bishops who held to their oath to James II, who was not Protestant had in communion with the Vatican, and would not take the oath to the Protestants William and Mary), the vast majority of the bishops in Scotland held with the non-jurors. In response, the Scottish Crown and Parliament issued the Comprehension Act of 1690, which disestablished the Scottish episcopate.  Incumbent bishops would be allowed to retain their benefices only on taking the oath to Willam and Mary, and even then the bishops were banned from governing the church, which now was placed fully in the hands of the Presbyterians, who allowed the former bishops to take their place among the clergy only after making a declaration of adherence to presbyterian principles.

The Scottish bishops who never submitted to Presbyterianism remained in the non-juror schism and waited for a king they considered legitimate, in the meantime forming an Episcopalian church that had no head and no legal status, and formiing a liturgy that would be the one that the Americans would later adopt. The newly united British Crown and Parliament had to pass the Scottish Episcopalians Act of 1711 to allow the Episcopalians to worship (until 1707, Scotland was a seperate country, hence the disabilities on the Anglicans in Scotland), but was modified further to in 1745 and 1748 to exclude clergymen ordained in Scotland. When the Stuart heir recognized George III in 1788, a move was made to reunite the Non-juror church with the tolerated church of Scotland: in 1792 the penal disabilities were abolished, but the ecclesiastical ones only in 1864, just in time for your Lambeth Conference.

Since you won't take my word on it:

The Scottish Episcopal Church is the representative of the Anglican Communion in Scotland. It is the result of a history in the Scottish Church of struggles throughout the 16th and 17th centuries between congregational and episcopal forms of liturgy and government. When the dust finally settled, in 1689, Scotland was left with an established church, the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian and has no bishops, and an unestablished, independent, Scottish Episcopal Church, which retained the traditional episcopal (meaning, with bishops) forms, and the traditional liturgy. This Church, while closely related to the Church of England in liturgical, structural, and many other ways, nevertheless was often at odds with the English government, as may be seen in the history of one of its parishes, Old St. Paul's in Edinburgh.

The Scottish Episcopal Church was thus the first of the many Churches in the Anglican Communion to be independent of the Church of England.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Scotland.htm

and that the Oxford Movement has nothing at all to do with the non-jurors,

In 1717 the Non-jurors split over introducing the mixed chalice, the epiclesis, the sacrificail intent of the liturgy, invocations of saints and prayers for the departed and took to pampheleering to argue for and against these Apostolic practices:The result was the 1764 Scottish Communion Office. In Scotland, the Book of Common Prayer had just been introduced, as only those who held to it benifited from protection of the Crown and the Scottish Episcopalian Act. The non-jurors took to defending in tracts and pamphlets these Catholic usages and Tradition and their restoration, as in the Scottish Communion Office.  The Oxford Movement followed this example, in a similar cause.

The opponent of the Oxford Movement, Arb. Tait of Canterbury, was a Scot who was baptized in the Presbyterian Kirk, and confirmed in the Church of England his first year at Oxford.

and that there was no need to talk of an Anglican communion before 1792 because there was but a single jurisdiction up to that point.

depends on how you define jurisdiction: you had the schismatic non-jurors since 1689, joined by the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States at least by 1784. What happened in 1792?

The current anomaly in the communion is to be deplored, and the impending full division to be deplored. But when it comes to that, a division on the basis of theology is better justified than the situation obtaining in American Orthodoxy.

You mean where we are uniting on our theology?
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/about/canonical-jurisdictions

And as far as backing the wrong horse is concerned: Even if I were Orthodox it would not excuse me saying what you have said here. You have an obligation to the same integrity, which you have shirked throughout this exchange.

Yes, well, pretending all is well (which the Mayflower Madam once called "the reaction of the typical WASP) hasn't served the Lambeth invitees very well, has it?

 

[ialmisry]

I'm sorry Keble. You didn't deserve any of that.

Yes, it is amazing how people can find the time to write so many words, yet not have a vocabulary large enough to include the two words "I apologize".  ialmisry, I find that I agree with you in the vast majority of cases.  But not this time.  

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

There is more to that, which I know having dealt with Episcopalians in person, but I won't have time right now to on into that.

 

[Punch]

I'm sorry Keble. You didn't deserve any of that.

Yes, it is amazing how people can find the time to write so many words, yet not have a vocabulary large enough to include the two words "I apologize".  ialmisry, I find that I agree with you in the vast majority of cases.  But not this time.  

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

As "denomination" is defined in English, each Orthodox jurisdiction is a denomination.

No.  Since the jurisdictions all hold the same beliefs, they are not denominations.

There is more to that, which I know having dealt with Episcopalians in person, but I won't have time right now to on into that.

I have no love for Episcopalians, so that is not of interest to me.  What is of interest to me, out of concern for you and not for any other reason, is that it appears that you did not see what you thought that saw, and Keble seems to have more evidence of that than you do.  We all do that, particularly those of us who have spent many long years reading volumes and volumes of stuff.  There have been times that I could have sworn that I read something in a particular place, only to find out that I either misread it or actually saw it printed elsewhere.  I hope that your certainty in this one area does not come from Pride.  Also, you have not addressed the Father's assertion that there is a major difference to having relatively recent issues with secular borders as with Serbia, and the well acknowledged mess that we have here.  Keep in mind that I am on record as liking the current mess, but I can still recognize the difference. As to the rest of your "conversation" with Keble, I could really care less because the Anglicans and Episcopalians do not interest me, and I am sure that the facts you give on most of that have been researched with your usual thoroughness.  Other than these two points, I have no problems with you.  In fact, I am not accusing you of Pride, but only asking you to examine yourself on the matter.  Accusing you would be one of the most severe cases of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[ozgeorge]

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

Pure gold.

Love alone is pure gold which will stand the firey test of our agony on our death beds. Rudeness is chaff and will be burnt leaving nothing behind.

 

[ialmisry]

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

Pure gold.

Love alone is pure gold which will stand the firey test of our agony on our death beds. Rudeness is chaff and will be burnt leaving nothing behind.

Yes, Gentle Jesus was so rude to the Pharisees.

 

[Ebor]

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

Pure gold.

Love alone is pure gold which will stand the firey test of our agony on our death beds. Rudeness is chaff and will be burnt leaving nothing behind.

And sometimes "pure gold" is really pyrites. 

Thank you for your wisdom, George.

 

[ialmisry]

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

Pure gold.

Love alone is pure gold which will stand the firey test of our agony on our death beds. Rudeness is chaff and will be burnt leaving nothing behind.

And sometimes "pure gold" is really pyrites. 

Thank you for your wisdom, George.

Both fools and gold are found by testing, no?

 

[Achronos]

You are free to belive anything you like. You're Episcopalian after all.

Pure gold.

Love alone is pure gold which will stand the firey test of our agony on our death beds. Rudeness is chaff and will be burnt leaving nothing behind.

And sometimes "pure gold" is really pyrites. 

Thank you for your wisdom, George.

Both fools and gold are found by testing, no?

Yep.

Sirach 2:5 For in fire gold is tested, and worthy men in the crucible of humiliation.

 

[PeterTheAleut]

The Orthodox Church which has so used the term in any Orthodox document,  Orthodox literature etc in English that I have seen.  If I've missed something, do please let me know.

Catholicity and the church By John Meyendorff
http://books.google.com/books?id=vc-ZC7B3v80C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=orthodoxy+denomination+meyendorff&source=bl&ots=OOusjfTbzi&sig=ZsVb_2PfCDYOUxcviGVQcBXd8cg&hl=en&ei=A_1nTZGuG8rGgAfw3IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Living tradition: orthodox witness in the contemporary world By John Meyendorff
http://books.google.com/books?id=72QXSflRMqcC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=orthodoxy+denomination+meyendorff&source=bl&ots=kIj4lXU427&sig=Q5Gd8Nf-mkFm57pSQ8ZvwLqQixU&hl=en&ei=A_1nTZGuG8rGgAfw3IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/24/meyendorff-on-ecumenism/

You do realize that all three of these links point to material written by one Fr. John Meyendorff? You also realize that, despite the admiration you and I share for the theologian, he, together with his contemporary Fr. Alexander Schmemann, is a rather controversial figure among many Orthodox? Even if Fr. Meyendorff wasn't so controversial, he is only one theologian among many. I would therefore hardly commend him as truly representative of the Orthodox Church based solely on his own authority.

 

[ialmisry]

The Orthodox Church which has so used the term in any Orthodox document,  Orthodox literature etc in English that I have seen.  If I've missed something, do please let me know.

Catholicity and the church By John Meyendorff
http://books.google.com/books?id=vc-ZC7B3v80C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=orthodoxy+denomination+meyendorff&source=bl&ots=OOusjfTbzi&sig=ZsVb_2PfCDYOUxcviGVQcBXd8cg&hl=en&ei=A_1nTZGuG8rGgAfw3IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Living tradition: orthodox witness in the contemporary world By John Meyendorff
http://books.google.com/books?id=72QXSflRMqcC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=orthodoxy+denomination+meyendorff&source=bl&ots=kIj4lXU427&sig=Q5Gd8Nf-mkFm57pSQ8ZvwLqQixU&hl=en&ei=A_1nTZGuG8rGgAfw3IjMCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.incommunion.org/2004/10/24/meyendorff-on-ecumenism/

You do realize that all three of these links point to material written by one Fr. John Meyendorff?

Yes, hence the phrase "By John Meyendorff."  According to Mr. Webster, "by" indicated the author of a work. I know that you have decided that Webster doesn't define English (or perhaps not to your liking), but I'm going to go along with the US courts and other institutions who stand by it (according to Mr. Webster, that means "in conformity with").

You also realize that, despite the admiration you and I share for the theologian, he, together with his contemporary Fr. Alexander Schmemann, is a rather controversial figure among many Orthodox?

Yes. So was St. Athanasius, who was exiled five times, and became a proverb Athanasius contra mundi. And St. Miletius, over whom a schism split the Church from Antioch all the way to Rome.  And St. Flavian.  And SS. Ignatius and Photios.  And St. Gregory Palamas.  And SS. Nilus and Joseph.

Was there a reason why you brought that up?

Even if Fr. Meyendorff wasn't so controversial, he is only one theologian among many. I would therefore hardly commend him as truly representative of the Orthodox Church based solely on his own authority.

Well, if someone can find another Orthodox theologian who dealt with the term "denomination," I'm all ears.

 

[Achronos]

Peter I'm just curious but why do you have this knack on trying to pick a fight with something you don't like to read?

 

[Iconodule]

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this entire discussion is.

 

[Alveus Lacuna]

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of this entire discussion is.

The thread was obviously started to stir the pot, then to get offended when the pot is stirred.