I thought I understood Anglicanism but now...

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Doubting Thomas said:
orthonorm said:
Doubting Thomas said:
As an Anglican, I agree that the most frustrating aspect of "Anglicanism" is the wide diversity of (and often mutually contradictory) beliefs comprehended under the same roof.  

I became Anglican by way of one of the extramural jurisdictions, the Anglican Catholic Church, after having been a life long Southern Baptist and after having explored Eastern Orthodoxy seriously for a few years (and was a catechumen for a couple of months). In the ACC, which of course is pretty small in terms of numbers, there was not nearly the wide fluctuation in beliefs as exists in the Anglican Communion.  I tend to be more central in my churchmanship, though I lean somewhat to the traditional anglo-catholic side.

Now, I have been in an ACNA parish for the past three years (mainly due to location), and there certainly seems to be more doctrinal diversity than in the Continuum, which is kind of disappointing.  Unfortunately, we also have the thorny issue of some diocese allowing WO, and others (like mine) forbidding it, but overall it is much more theologically conservative than the TEC (for instance). I think there will be a lot of shifting and more realignment over the next few years, particularly if the new ABoC doesn't make a strong stand on certain issues.  
Do you care to expand on what you found attractive within the ACC (I've never heard of it) and what put you off (if that is right wording) of Orthodoxy?

Thanks.
I guess three main issues led me to move on from Eastern Orthodoxy to Continuing Anglicanism:
(1) my wife was not on board AT ALL with Orthodoxy
(2) there were some important doctrinal areas which I thought Orthodoxy seemed to underemphasize
(3) I just had a hard time believing that the Holy Ghost vanished from the West and that the Western Church ceased to be part of he Church just because Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other in 1054
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
TheTrisagion said:
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
  This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.

 

TheTrisagion

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
17,819
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
PA, USA
Daedelus1138 said:
TheTrisagion said:
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
  This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.
I don't know how there can be Truth that isn't exclusivist.  Something is either truth, partially true or completely untrue.  Partial truth is still untrue, just in differing degrees.  Some is fatal, some is not.  Orthodoxy isn't like fundamentalist evangelicalism that states if you don't believe what they believe you are going to hell. Instead, Orthodoxy states, this is what is Truth, but it leaves the ramification of what happens if you do or do not follow it up to God.  I don't understand how that can be uncharitable
 

leap of faith

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Messages
123
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
59
Location
Watertown, SD
Daedelus1138 said:
TheTrisagion said:
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
  This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.
Trisagion's last sentence is how it has also been explained to me by real people, but I have read what Daedelus1138 is stating by other Orthodox individuals...on this forum as well as others.  I'm the sole Orthodox person in my entire family, but I have many family members whose relationship with God is exemplary.  But, I confess that I wonder how much more-so that relationship would be if they were within the community of believers who I do believe has access to the fullness of truth and worship.  At the end of the day, I believe that Orthodox individuals would be wise to remember that if we make the claim that the Orthodox Church is THE Church, containing within her the fullness of truth and right worship, then we had better humble ourselves and recognize that, along with that claim, comes a higher responsibility.  We will have no excuse when we stand to give an account for our lives that we didn't have access to those truths and the opportunity to live our lives by them.  None.  Therefore, the claim should produce humility, fear and trembling in a right-minded person and not pride, idle talk and judgement of other individuals.  (Addressing false teachings are, of course, another story.)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Daedelus1138 said:
TheTrisagion said:
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
  This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.
Often Truth is "uncharitable" by your definition.  Christ said "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life," not "an option out of many."

Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Happy Lutheran said:
ialmisry said:
Happy Lutheran said:
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.
My apologies, I agree, although even in my Orthodox Study Bible I have in my hand as we speak, uses the word it.  
ah, the evils of copyright.
 

Daedelus1138

High Elder
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
991
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando
ialmisry said:
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.
  I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.
 

Shlomlokh

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
31
Location
Roanoke, VA
Daedelus1138 said:
ialmisry said:
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.
  I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.
Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,
Andrew
 

Cyrillic

Toumarches
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
13,710
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
25
Location
Netherlands
ialmisry said:
Happy Lutheran said:
My Bible says the Holy Spirit blows where it pleases - John 3:8
It should say where He pleases.
It shouldn't even say "Holy" to begin with. Tὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ.
 
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
308
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Minnesota eh
Cyrillic said:
It shouldn't even say "Holy" to begin with. Tὸ πνεῦμα ὅπου θέλει πνεῖ.
I never gave a direct quote, are you saying the verse is not about the Holy Spirit? That would go against every commentary, including the commentary in the Orthodox Study Bible that Jesus was clearly referring to the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure if your post is just for information purposes or if you are giving some sort of rebuttle?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Shlomlokh said:
Daedelus1138 said:
ialmisry said:
Your "experience" doesn't explain the many Westerners who had no pharisaical ancestors and were raised up from stones.  Including Met. Tikhon, primate of the OCA, raised from Episcopalian rocks.

Come to think of it, the primate of the Episcopalian church in the US, her mother embraced Orthodoxy IIRC.
 I don't understand, what does Christ's words have to do with anything I said?  I absolutely do agree that Christ is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and not one way among many.  The idea that the West's sacraments are invalid simple because of mutual antipathy that developed over centuries is not credible to me.
Even when the sects that supposedly recognize those sacraments have competing doctrines not held by the early Church or the East for that matter?

In Christ,
Andrew
btw, the Nestorians in the East are in the same boat as "the West's sacraments" as far as the Church is concerned.

The Vatican doesn't recognize Episcopalian sacraments (except baptism and marriage, but then it recognizes those done by Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc.): is that also from "mutual antipathy"?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
orthonorm said:
Severian said:
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.
Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.
I am still here lurking. Since all but a couple of the posters I follow have been banned or excommunicated by now, my enthusiasm for posting has died down.

Besides, I've been saving my posts so I can quit the forum exactly when my post count reaches 1337.

As for Severian's post, there's no question that in order to live sanely we have to be able to at least pretend we have different attitudes towards people's abstract attributes than towards the people themselves. I'm actually much more sceptical of the first part of his statement: "I *DO* despise Protestantism."
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Rufus said:
orthonorm said:
Severian said:
I fail to see what is so surprising.

1. Protestantism is malicious in that it is misleading over a billion souls from the truth.
2. It is definitely heretical.
3. I *DO* despise Protestantism. NOTE: I despise protestantism (i.e. their ideology), not protestants themselves.
4. Protestantism is an evil, deviant, and heretical set of sects.
Yeah, I don't buy 3. Never really have. Probably never will.

Really, I don't really believe in many disembodied universals, although I know we talk in such ways at times, but when people start getting serious about hating them or whatever, I have a bit of pause.

This would go to a thread which I believe Rufus showed up as a nominalist of sorts. Wish he would post more. Guess in the day to day I am also a nominalist of sorts as I believe most people I've encountered are.

Guess in a stupid way, I would agree with Kaestner: Es gibt nichts Gutes ausser: man tut es.* I would agree with the more sinister turn of the expression.

*My dumb attempt to translate it: There is no good, save that which man would.
I am still here lurking. Since all but a couple of the posters I follow have been banned or excommunicated by now, my enthusiasm for posting has died down.

Besides, I've been saving my posts so I can quit the forum exactly when my post count reaches 1337.

As for Severian's post, there's no question that in order to live sanely we have to be able to at least pretend we have different attitudes towards people's abstract attributes than towards the people themselves. I'm actually much more sceptical of the first part of his statement: "I *DO* despise Protestantism."
"Kill the Turk, not the man."
                --Erasmus
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Daedelus1138 said:
The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.
So doctrine which does not conform to your predispositions is uncharitable?
 

Rufus

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
30
Location
Massachusetts
Daedelus1138 said:
TheTrisagion said:
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
  This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.
In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Rufus said:
Daedelus1138 said:
TheTrisagion said:
I can certainly sympathize with you on point 1, my wife is also fiercely opposed to my conversion to Orthodoxy.  I'm not quite sure I understand your second point, do you care to elaborate on that?  I don't really see Orthodoxy underemphasizing anything, it seems very much focused on maximizing every aspect of its faith and doctrine.  On your third point, I don't think that any right minded Orthodox would say that the Holy Spirit vanished from the West.  It has always been explained to me that we KNOW that the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church, we cannot say we know where it is absent, so the safest route to take is to be where we KNOW the Spirit is and not exchange that for where it may possibly also be.
  This is one thing that also forced me to reconsider Orthodoxy as a viable spiritual tradition for me.  The exclusivist ecclessiology simply is uncharitable- especially because it goes against my learning, my experience, and the experience of countless numbers of other westerners.   If enough of a religious group believes this sort of thing, this convinces me that the religion hasn't really internalized the Gospel, but is instead clinging to pharisaical religion where people stand on the rhetoric of who their ancestors were, forgetful that God can raise up children from stones.
In person, I've only ever met a few Orthodox who held an exclusivist ecclesiology (i.e. that the Western Church is not the Church or does not have the Holy Spirit). If you get people riled up, of course, you can get them to claim things like that.

What confirms that Orthodox don't really believe this is the way they treat other Christian groups...in their actions Orthodox typically show due regard for other Christian confessions.

Now, I have also met a few lunatics who think Catholics are as good as heathens, etc., but it's extremely rare. Maybe in Kosovo that attitude is more prevalent.

When Orthodox preach about being the The Church in an unqualified sense, it is inevitably either part of some race war or a propaganda pitch to get converts.
I read somewhere that Bishop Mar Bishoy, the second senior bishop of the Coptic Patriarchate, has said that all Catholics will go to hell?
 
Top